Quote:
Originally Posted by DistantStar
During the time I questioned the LC, I was reading books by C. S. Lewis. In his autobiography, Surprised by Joy, he told of how he was very much influenced by two... Catholics... The one was G. K. Chesterton who I really admire for his brilliant wit, and the other was J. R. R. Tolkien, his friend (he authored The Lord of the Rings.
C. S. Lewis did not become a Catholic, yet he did consider these two as Christians.
In his book, Mere Christianity, Lewis talked about how new converts to Christianity are standing in the Hall of Christianity. In the hall there is no discussion and fire and interaction. All of those are found in the rooms, with the rooms representing denominations, whether Catholic or Protestant or whatever.
The goal of this book of his was to give a defense of the Christian faith which all Christians; Catholic, Protestant and others, hold. He tried to find the middle ground. To give an account of the "Hall". In other words, that which all Christians believe, the "Mere" Christianity.
In my posts so far I've tried to show how, as others pointed out, normal Christians will often worship and support each other, regardless of their nominal denomination. In fact, I've seen increasing respect between Catholics and Protestants in general. .
|
I grew up Protestant, son and grandson of Protestants. I was saved in a Baptist altar call. So I'm somewhat biased, prejudiced by my experiences.
But I see Protestantism with two basic issues that it never seems to shake (there are surely exceptions: I paint the grand generalization here). First is that it is 'me' centered. "So subjective is my Christ to me/Real in me and rich and sweet" wrote Witness Lee. Subjective faith was the focus. But that was the expense of Jesus. Our faith, so crucial to our walk, became in the work, the move, the latest revelation, the leadership's burden. Our faith became in whatever Christ we built. The one in the Bible was secondary; trumpeted when we could align Him, and (often, it seemed) ignored when not needed, or unhelpful. Our focus was 'our' faith, not the faith of Christ. We were seduced.
The second problem with Protestantism is that it's based on rejection. Luther rejected the RCC, the Baptists rejected the Lutherans, the Brethren rejected the Wesleyans, etc. Nee rejected everyone else, and then his spiritual heirs (Dong, Chu, Philips) rejected each other. The Vineyard rejected the Calvary Chapel, Hillsong rejected the Vineyard; everytime someone gets a 'move' or 'burden' or 'leading' or 'vision' it leads to another split.
Take for example the New Apostolic Reformation. Supposedly the problem with Protestantism is that it lacked apostles! So a bunch of candidates step to the fore (Lee among them; the Apostle of the Age, even). Each 'apostle' thinks that he or she is the new center. Subjectivism, again. But if apostleship were the issue, then Luther should have stayed in the RCC! To me it's just a whirlwind, spinning round. Same with the 'church' issue. If recovering the True Church were all it was about, then we should all be in the Ethiopian or Coptic church. But that's not it. Jesus is it. Always is, always will be.
By so little we're led away, and snares encompass us. But I remain a Protestant. Like Paul cried out, "I am a Pharisee, son of Pharisees!" Like Paul, I'm a Pharisee who's seen the light. But I'm still a Pharisee. "In whatever you were called, in this remain", was his counsel. Today I feel that I understand this word.