I remember having a thought a long time ago, when a friend converted from SBC to EO:
"EO, in the context of the US, is a Protestant faith."
Which of course anyone who is EO will deny. Maybe it would be less controversial to say it's sociologically -- and not ecclesiastically -- Protestant. My SBC friend still brings an SBC energy to EO. He approached going EO the same way one might decide between going SBC or PCA.
I think what Aaron is saying is tapping into that same thought. There's not a clear conclusion to reach from this. Maybe EO infused with SBC energy will be an improvement over EO as it exists in its ancestral homelands. Or maybe something essential will be lost: I'm not sure. Either way, EO won't be the same after becoming dominated by Anglo converts.
Christianity is an embodied religion, but doctrine is important; it's more than just correct doctrine.
Is it true that Christianity is an embodied religion? Is this a doctrine?
And does it matter if the Scripture's doctrine teaches that a particular branch of Christianity has significant errors?
Does it matter more, for instance, that Eastern Orthodoxy has some significant departures from Scirpurre or is it more relevant that a convert to EO needs to learn how to "embody" EO?
I ask this because there is a "so what" that a person is a convert to EO if the Church has embodied old practices that are wrong. Likewise, a convert to Roman Catholicism is excited and thinks everyone in the RCC is excited as he is. Is the "excarnational" aspect of his zeal the real problem?
How many years did Epaphrus or Titus need in the early Church before they learned to "emody" Christianity?
Again, I agree that Christianity cannot be boiled down to a set of doctrines and a test, but the "embodiment" I have in mind for true Christianity is the Resurrected and Ascended Christ Who lives and reigns and provides fruit for the Gospel. It is also embodied in the lives of the people, but a good Chruch should never require people to become completely enculturated before they are in and of the Body of Christ.
Good doctrines is necessary for a holy life — it is not sufficient. He said demons know who God is, better than most, but they're not saved. Think of it as Christ has a personal relationship with us to fully reconcile us to God. That includes drug addicts to anyone. The relationship has to include us entirely or it literally has no power to save or reference anything.
I remember having a thought a long time ago, when a friend converted from SBC to EO:
"EO, in the context of the US, is a Protestant faith."
Which of course anyone who is EO will deny. Maybe it would be less controversial to say it's sociologically -- and not ecclesiastically -- Protestant. My SBC friend still brings an SBC energy to EO. He approached going EO the same way one might decide between going SBC or PCA.
I think what Aaron is saying is tapping into that same thought. There's not a clear conclusion to reach from this. Maybe EO infused with SBC energy will be an improvement over EO as it exists in its ancestral homelands. Or maybe something essential will be lost: I'm not sure. Either way, EO won't be the same after becoming dominated by Anglo converts.
I found your thoughts to be mostly confused here.
Christianity is an embodied religion, but doctrine is important; it's more than just correct doctrine.
Is it true that Christianity is an embodied religion? Is this a doctrine?
And does it matter if the Scripture's doctrine teaches that a particular branch of Christianity has significant errors?
Does it matter more, for instance, that Eastern Orthodoxy has some significant departures from Scirpurre or is it more relevant that a convert to EO needs to learn how to "embody" EO?
I ask this because there is a "so what" that a person is a convert to EO if the Church has embodied old practices that are wrong. Likewise, a convert to Roman Catholicism is excited and thinks everyone in the RCC is excited as he is. Is the "excarnational" aspect of his zeal the real problem?
How many years did Epaphrus or Titus need in the early Church before they learned to "emody" Christianity?
Again, I agree that Christianity cannot be boiled down to a set of doctrines and a test, but the "embodiment" I have in mind for true Christianity is the Resurrected and Ascended Christ Who lives and reigns and provides fruit for the Gospel. It is also embodied in the lives of the people, but a good Chruch should never require people to become completely enculturated before they are in and of the Body of Christ.
I didn't find it confused, just balanced.
Good doctrines is necessary for a holy life — it is not sufficient. He said demons know who God is, better than most, but they're not saved. Think of it as Christ has a personal relationship with us to fully reconcile us to God. That includes drug addicts to anyone. The relationship has to include us entirely or it literally has no power to save or reference anything.
I concur...this piece was particularly confused.