I’m finally getting back to the subject of fundamentals that I started a while back. Reading back over my two posts and the associated comments, I’ve realized that I have some explaining to do. First is to give some back ground on why I feel the need to explore this topic. There’s a several month history behind this that I ought to articulate. Although I’ve touched on it a couple of times, I’ll save the complete story for another day.
The second thing, and the subject of this post is to define ‘fundamental’. I realized that I threw the word out without really defining it in this context. I learned from radio talk show host Mark Scott in Detroit that one of the things one must do in any debate is to define your terms. (Once on 1270 AM, Mark is now heard only on the internet. If you’re going to go listen, be forewarned – Mark is well right of center, unabashedly libertarian actually. I found his reasoning ability and methods excellent.) So when I said, ” We ought to fight for unity on the essentials and let the rest fall where it may. ” how do I define ‘essential’ or ‘fundamental’ or ‘foundational’?
First some dictionary definition excerpts from dictionary.com:
Essential:

Adj.

1. Constituting or being part of the essence of something; inherent.
2. Basic or indispensable; necessary

n.

1. Something fundamental.
2. Something necessary or indispensable.

Fundamental:

Adj.

1. Of or relating to the foundation or base; elementary.
2. Forming or serving as an essential component of a system or structure; central

n.

1. Something that is an essential or necessary part of a system or object.

Foundational:

Adjective form of Foundation:
n.

1. The basis on which a thing stands, is founded, or is supported.

So the ‘foundations’ of Christianity would be, by definition, those things that make up it’s essence, that define it. They are inherent in it, indispensable and necessary. The implication is that if you take one of these things away, you may have something that looks like Christianity, but is not. It is missing part of the essence the thing. So if we’re to find the fundamentals, we need to be sure what we get is truly the essence. With out it, Christianity would be something different. They are “The basis on which [it] stands, is founded, or is supported.”
Having the definition doesn’t help us agree on what they are, although it should help us evaluate what we find. But even the search for ‘fundamentals’ can be problematic. My friend Virusdoc took minor offense (or at least displeasure) at the term ‘fundamental’, relating too closely to the fundamentalist movement in Christianity, which he is not too fond of. But I think that regardless of whether you acknowledge it or not, your Christianity is founded on something, some sort of fundamentals. So whether you choose to call yourself a ‘fundamentalist’ matters little, there is still something, some core that supports your faith.
In the comments here, he also challenged my use of the Bible as the only source for that foundation. He encouraged me to look at other sources as well. I’ll admit to a personal bias here, but that concept is hard to consider. While I’ve gotten much inspiration and knowledge from other sources – books, preachers, seminars, friends, blogs, forums – I have always compared those things to the Bible. Why is that? Part is upbringing. I was taught to do that. But there is also a principle at work here. Jesus spoke of how we build our spiritual house, He told us not to be careful of how we build the house itself, but to pay careful attention to the foundation. In Matthew 7:24-27 He says that to build your life on his words is to build on a secure foundation. To not build on his words is to build on sand. We find his words in the Bible (An interesting question that I’m not prepared to answer right now is, Should our fundamentals only come from Jesus’ words and not the rest of scripture? Perhaps so, but that’s a debate for another post.) The Bible is not subject to man’s whim. It is like bedrock: solid, secure, stable and unmovable. The opinions of men, even well thought out and agreed upon by many, are like sand, clay and dirt: they can shift and squirm. Today’s revelation or inspiration may be out of fashion tomorrow, but Jesus’ words will always be true.
Hopefully you can see the danger of adding in too much to the foundation. If everything is foundational, then you have nothing left to build the building. The Empire State Building, the Sears Tower, even your own home are mostly not foundation. In fact the foundation is the least attractive part of most buildings. Who wants to live or work in the basement? Who enjoys getting down into a crawl space? But without it, the ‘attractive’ parts of the building would be in danger of collapse.
Have you ever looked at the NYC skyline and wondered why there seems to be two ‘downtowns’ where the building heights soar, one at the tip of Manhattan and one about midway up the island? It has nothing to do with property values or social demographics and everything to do with bedrock. In these two areas the bedrock is much closer to the surface making it easier to get to and therefore easier and cheaper to build tall buildings. See, architects and civil engineers know that in order to build something great, you must look for the right foundation.

I found this great post over at a new blog I’ve been visiting called Radical Congruency. The two authors are from a similar (Church of Christ) background which I find encouraging.
The post was all about how Christians tend to treat those who are gay differently that folks that struggle with other sins. Why is it that this one sin is more difficult to separate for the person that others? Somehow I think that Jesus wouldn’t do that. He’d chastise and rebuke them for their sin, but not discard them for their weaknesses. I know of more than one brother who have an ongoing temptation for lust and pornography. How is homosexual temptation any different? They are a part of a close knit support group to help them overcome, why shouldn’t we do them same for those who identify themselves as ‘gay’?
We all have our weaknesses and we all have looked at others and not understood why some other sin tempts them so much. Let’s stand firm on sin but love the sinner.

Note: This was originally written last Wednesday night (4/21/04) after church. I’ve put off posting it so I could reflect on it a bit and get some input from a friend on it before posting it.
Wow, tonight has turned into something unexpected. This was men’s midweek, but we were locked out of our meeting place, so we met at a nearby park. It was cold and damp, so it was difficult to concentrate at times. The theme scripture was Nehemiah 9 and the subject was confession of sin. He spoke about how the Israelites treated their sin and responded to it. They took full responsibility. It wasn’t their circumstances or environment or how others treated them. No, they did it and God’s punishment was just. This is perhaps the most important step in change, admitting our sin. How can we change, if we don’t see the need to? But how easily we are deceived! I’ve spoken about the desire to believe a certain thing, intellectual inertia I called it. We want to believe that we see our sin completely and we’re dealing with it. But do we actually see it or is that belief a convenient fiction to make us feel good?
Also tonight, one of the Deacons of the church stepped down from his position both as Deacon and as family group leader. I spoke to him afterwards about it. There were several things encompassing his concern for his physical and spiritual family that went into his decision. It was not a one issue decision. It was a shock to my system that I was not prepared for. He and I have had several deep conversations about God, discipleship and our church. We have grown close and I have grown to respect him greatly as a result. It was his concerns for his ‘spiritual’ family (our church) that impacted me the most.
So it’s no surprise that I left the park feeling all out of sorts, fumbling for a foot hold. I spent the 30 minute ride home in prayer to God, pouring out my heart, waving my hand in the air as I drove (what a sight I bet I was). It was his leaving leadership that disturbed me the most. You see, it’s been a challenging year for our church. I’ve mentioned it here before but never really explained it. We’ve seen a lot of who we really are revealed over this past year, both in my local congregation and through our family of ICOC churches. Several strong, spiritual men I respect greatly here spoke up about how we had grown distant in our relationships, that our love had grown cold. I could feel it myself; my friendships weren’t what they once were. Frankly, my eyes were opened to a great deal in how we had been operating. We had taken liberties with God’s word, going too far in our authority, calling people to obey more than we ought. What’s worse, we hadn’t loved like Jesus. Our love was superficial and easy, not the dirty, difficult, in the trenches love that Jesus showed us. Over a period of months I watched these men, all in some sort leadership position, plead for change in these areas. One by one, they stepped down from their positions and eventually left our fellowship for another. I was disturbed as I watched my mentors, my heroes of the faith, leave, and now one more has stepped from leadership. Time will tell what that means.
Change has come to our church through all this. There’s a new emphasis on grace and less accountability. The old, harmful practices are mostly gone. I had become pleased with where we were going, the preaching was (and is) deep, moving and powerful. However, the truth I was ignoring, the elephant in the room, was that our relationships weren’t changing. I had gotten closer to some, but many of those had left. What disturbed me the most as I drove home tonight was how little I had recognized it. The heart of the church was the same as it had been, and I was asleep at the switch. The outside of the cup was clean, but the inside was just as dirty (Matthew 23:25-28).
I’ve learned much over these months. I’ve reorganized my priorities and realized what’s really important. But, to be brutally honest it’s been mostly an intellectual exercise. I came to realize that I fell into the ‘intellectual inertia’ trap. I wanted to believe that it was all good, so it all became good. I wanted to believe that we were making changes, so it felt like we were making changes.
Last fall as I realized what was lacking in our church, I had made a commitment, along with my wife, to spending some time each week with another family or just other folks. It would be our goal to have someone in our home each Friday. Some weeks wouldn’t work out, but it would be our goal to do it each week. I wanted to rebuild those relationships, to get into people’s lives. I had hoped to gain some mentors and be a mentor, to really know people and help them. It went well for a few weeks, then the holidays and then nothing.
I am a wretch and a hypocrite. What’s worse is that my writing this smacks of self congratulations for seeing it and more of the same. Frankly, I am afraid that I don’t have the strength of commitment to change. Not the strength to change, mind you, I know that I don’t have that. If I did there would be no need for Jesus to die on a cross. No, what I’m afraid of is weakness of commitment. Do I have the will to buckle down and do what I committed to do? Do I have the guts and courage to honor God in that way? Am I willing to lay myself on the line and really love people?
Frankly, my church is floundering because of such a lack of conviction. Worse than that, its people, God’s people, are dying for lack of love and solid, deep relationships. I’ve seen it in myself. If I were truly honest, one of the reasons I started this blog is to hopefully get some of those relationships that I miss. Frankly, that’s not going to work. Not because you aren’t good people or don’t care, but because you can’t really know me over the internet. What I need are real people in my real life to really know me, people who see me at my best and worst and aren’t impressed by the former or frightened by the latter. That’s what the folks in my church are longing for too. Do I have the conviction, the courage and the willingness to give it to them like Jesus did? Will I get down into the filth of their lives (don’t kid yourself, we’ve all got filth) with them and help them navigate it? That’s what Jesus did.

Bird at the Thinklings had a great post about the importance of relationships the other day. It really hit home for me for reasons I’ll make clear in a post that’s brewing.
More on that later, but I wanted to comment a bit on the importance of relationships. I think that relationships aren’t just nice to have or even invaluable, they are one of the fundamentals that I’ve begun to write about. Not who we have but who we are to others.
Jesus’ ministry was all about relationships, giving to others. The things we tend think church is about – Sunday services, a building – weren’t even a part of Jesus’ ministry. He came here to give to us, to mentor us, to disciple us and we ought to follow his example of selflessness and outward focus.
So to me, to put it bluntly, I think any life as a Christian that isn’t relationship driven is a lie. That’s part of the definition of Christianity. You can’t say “I follow Jesus.” but not be relationship driven because that is what Jesus was.
Jared in the comments at Thinklings laments on what Christians that live an isolated Christian life are missing. Yes, they are missing the benefits of such relationships to their own life as well as the joy of being able to make a difference in someone else’s life. I think that they’ve actually missed the whole point and found something else, not Christianity.

Why do I feel as though I just stepped into a bunch of quicksand?
Another post that got me thinking about the idea of fundamentals was this one by didymus I ‘met’ didymus at Infellowship. He also came from the ICoC, but no longer worships with an ICoC church. I don’t know much about him, nor have we ever met, but because of our shared background, I feel a certain implicit bond with him.
Anyway, he refers to this article at Christianity Today. In it, the author points out the aspects of Jesus we don’t enjoy talking about. The Jesus who said only a few will enter through the narrow gate (Matthew 7:13-14), who overturned tables at the temple (Mark 11:12-19), said we must repent or perish (Luke 13:1-5) and called us to take up our own crosses (Luke 9:23-27). The article says, writing about the current talk of Jesus stirred up by the movie ‘The Passion.’:

If, in this national conversation, we do nothing more than blithely discuss Jesus and his adaptable cultural presence—well, we will have missed the real Jesus. We need to talk with biblical honesty about the One who would not only love and forgive us but also demolish all our cultural images of him.

The real Jesus was not afraid to offend, He spoke the truth. He was loving, but not sentimental. We keep silent, not wanting to ruffle feathers, too afraid to be considered judgmental. Certainly, we should not blindly trample folks with careless words and thoughts, but what good are we if we stand for nothing? Jesus was not the wet noodle that so much of Christianity is today.

Why is it that we “Christians” have to argue over the trivial? By trivial, I mean things that don’t amount to a hill of beans one way or the other. Shrode at the Thinklings brought this to the forefront of my mind when he posted about the Jehovah’s Witnesses assertion that Jesus did not die on a cross but on a stake. Now I don’t consider the JW’s a ‘Christian’ group (although other Christians might), but it illustrates the point. Why take a stand on that? It may be an interesting study, but it is ultimately of no consequence. Like arguing about what color His underpants were.
My church, part of the International Churches of Christ, has its roots in the Restoration Movement churches, which are famous for their splits over the trivial. Within the Churches of Christ (which my own ICoC split from around 1979) there are groups divided over one cup or many for communion, whether instrumental music is allowed in service or not, whether a church building should have a kitchen, and more. Not to minimize the passion of the convictions my brothers and sisters have on these issues, but none of them are of any importance. I mean, if Jesus came back today to judge us, do we really think He will care about our stance on the cross vs. stake or if we had a piano at church? In other words, if we come down on the ‘wrong’ side of any of these issues, it will not have an influence on whether we are saved or not. I’m convinced that there really isn’t a wrong side, unless doing one or the other violates your own conscience (Romans 2:14-15; 1 Corinthians 8). We can discuss and debate them but to divide over them to the point of separation is just plain foolish, and even sin (Galatians 5:19-20).
Frankly, there are more important lines in the sand to draw, and from those it seems most Christians step back citing ‘to each his own’. This seems backwards to me. We ought to fight for unity on the essentials and let the rest fall where it may. Didn’t Jesus pray for us to be unified (John 17)? Didn’t Paul urge the disciples in Corinth to be united (1 Corinthians 1)? The standards of discipleship, how we contact the blood of Christ and are forgiven, how we become saved – these are all fundamental aspects of Christianity. These are among the fundamental things that being on the wrong side of could cost us dearly in the last days.
The trick is coming together on what’s truly important. How can we agree on a list of essentials if we insist on arguing about the trivial? Well, if I had the answer to that one, I’d be one really insightful guy, which I am not. Perhaps I’m naïve, but I don’t believe that God is one to mince words, obfuscate and confuse. He doesn’t go out of the way to make it obvious, but He’s not out to make it hard to see either. So while there is no clear list in scripture of that we should hold our ground on or even a step by step salvation plan, I believe that fundamental truth is there if we are willing to see it. So are we willing? It seems to me that in order to be able to stand firmly on truth, and to be confident that we have found it, we must be willing to abandon it – everything we believe. As soon as an opinion becomes so sacred that it is unquestionable, we’ve abandoned the desire for truth in favor of comfort or stability. Frankly I think that there is a core we can look to the Bible and agree on, if we are willing to open our minds, set aside our own opinions, at least for the moment, and listen to someone else’s. If we’re not willing to be wrong, how can we be sure we’re right?
In the coming days I’ll try to put into words what I see as the fundamental things that we must stand on. I’ll cite scriptures for my thoughts. Before I do that, however, I think I’ll have to step back even further and think about how can I judge whether a certain principal is worthy of taking a stand or not. What makes it ‘fundamental’ instead of just ‘important’?
In the mean time, I’d like to encourage you to think about what is fundamental to you and why. Please, don’t list them here, write about them in your own blog (kindly trackback here or to my later posts, please). These may be controversial and we certainly won’t all agree on them. This certainly won’t be the first time this has been talked about, not even the first time it’s been blogged. What, then, do I hope to accomplish? Well, ideally we’ll come closer together or at least have more respect for the other’s opinions. The few folks I’ve gotten to know here in the blogosphere (I really think that’s a dorky word, BTW) are of a different stripe of Christianity than I. If we met be change on the street and opened the Bible, I wonder how much we’d agree on. What I don’t want to see is a continuation of the divisions that have plagued Christians or centuries. Frankly, if this starts going there I’ll just delete the posts and pretend it never happened. We can talk about more mundane things like what would Jesus drive.

Bill at the Thinklins wrote recently about nicknames in the Bible and whether Jesus was the kind of guy who gave a nickname to all his friends. What struck me was his relating how Jesus might greet us:

Jesus is the great redeemer and the great re-namer. When He saves us and begins the process of sanctification He redeems our fallen character and begins to bring out the jewels and the gold of our new self with His refining and purifying fire. I wonder if perhaps when we meet Him in glory He will whisper our new name to us:
“You were once Liar. Your new name is Truthful.”
“You are no longer Needy. Your new name is Fulfilled.”
“I call you Beloved.”
“You’re new name is Beautiful.”
“You’re old name was Wounded. I pronounce you Healed.”

It sent chills up my spine as I read it. When people are transformed into something new it’s so amazing. This is the business that Jesus is in every day. I was once a lustful, angry, selfish and foul mouthed man, none of which descibe me today (hopefully!). But even more so, if this is Jesus’ business, what in my character now do I lack the faith to change? Why shouldn’t I be able to overcome and why don’t I think of it in such sharp focus as presented here by Bill anymore? Good reminder of just who it is I serve.

No, I don’t mean the blue vested retirees at the door of Wal-mart. What I mean is, in the morning, are you the one to say”Hello.” or “Good Morning.” or do you typically respond to someone else?
A few years ago I had the great pleasure of working for a year side by side with my best friend. We lived near each other, so we carpooled as well, getting in a little prayer time together on the way. It was a year I would not trade for anything. Byron is a man with an uncanny insight into people’s character, ever observant of their demeanor and behavior, looking into their soul. Not long after starting there (I had been there for several years), Byron pointed out that the owner rarely greeted anyone in the morning. He was almost always there first, but rarely seemed to even notice that we had come in until we said “Hello.”. Byron also pointed out that I was the same way. I came in and went to my desk to get started on the day, oblivious to the other humans in the room. Byron would go out to the shop and say “Hi” to everyone before sitting down. He confronted me on that. Frankly, it was something I had never thought of. It wasn’t that I intended to ignore folks or didn’t care, I was just in my own little world I guess.
Well, Byron has moved to another state and I’ve moved on to another job. Recently, though, two new guys at the office have refreshed my memory. They’re both greeters, it’s rare that I say “Hi” to them before they say “Hi” to me. In fact, there have been times that I hear “Good morning!.” from over the wall and I hadn’t even noticed them.
I have to wonder, as a disciple, would Jesus be a greeter? I have a hard time coming up with a reason he wouldn’t be. So, again, as a disciple, shouldn’t I strive to be a greeter too? Not so much to beat folks to the punch, or to be that annoying happy-go-lucky guy that’s so perky on Monday morning, but doesn’t it say a little something about me that I can arrive in a building full of people I know and not even notice them? What is so important on my mind that I can’t pay attention to those around me long enough to say “Hi”? Does it say anything about how much (or little) concern I have for them? Now, I’m not saying that all non-greeters will go to Hell, but it seems to me that a Christian ought to be in tune with the people around him, their demeanor, what they are all about, who they are, at the very least to say “Hi”. We ought to strive to care about their hope and fears, their dreams and struggles. Why would they tell us that if we didn’t even see them there? In order to love, we have to be aware, and being a Christian is all about how we love.
So, are you a greeter?

Let me start here by saying that “Bible vs. Tradition” isn’t a good title. Perhaps I’ll come up with something better before I’m done typing, but if not, I’m sorry. 🙂
Virusdoc has once again dragged me into a Catholic or Prodestant debate today. Try as I may to fight it, this blog is turning into a place to entertain that discussion because of his exploring of the Catholic faith as his own. On the whole it’s not a bad thing, but I just hope that folks don’t think that I came to the web to talk about Catholicism vs. Protestantism. Actually, his post was quite good and asks some honest and pointed questions.
He points out that most evangelicals put their faith in the Bible unequivocally. Nothing holds any authority over it. I would probably put myself in that category. He also points out that most of us have not done any in-depth study, or probably any study at all, in the origins of scripture. We believe in it because men we know and trust have told us it’s reliable, it’s consistent and it’s worked for us. Until very recently, I would have put myself in that category too. I say until very recently because it was one of many ‘conversations‘ with VirusDoc that pushed me to dig deeper for answers to his probing questions. More on that later.
I find much to disagree with and question in his post today, but I’d rather not get into that today. At the end of the post he asks,

“So, my request to you (particularly if you are a devoted Protestant) is the following: help me understand how the choices of the evangelical protestant to follow the teachings of Scripture are at all different from the choices of the earnest catholic to follow the teachings of the Catholic Church on Mary?”

He bases that on the fact that, as stated above, both the average Catholic and Protestant base their beliefs on their faith in their leaders and the fact that it seems to work. They haven’t done any research into the validity of the Bible or the teachings on Mary, they just go with it.
Frankly, he’s right. For most followers of either faith, their reasons for doing so are similar. At that level, there is no real reason to choose one over the other. But the question for me becomes is that the only level to think about it? Just because most don’t dig for deeper reasons, does that mean that none exsist? If I find myself confronted with no good reason to believe a certain way (as ‘doc has done here) I must dig deeper (being aware of the dangers of Intellectual Inertia) and find out if there is a reason to hang onto it or if it should be thrown out. So with VirusDoc asking tough questions, I dug for answers. I discovered an article about the origins of scripture. I’m sure that there are more,in fact John Oakes points out a couple, but this site cane recommended by a man I have a great deal of respect for. Since we are dealing with the NT primarily, I only read that section of it. In it I found reasons to hang on to my belief that scripture is the place to go for the ultimate authority on what Christianity is.
Before I tell you what those reasons are, let me say that I do believe that God can reveal Himself to us in other ways. Each person experiences God in a different way, but I do believe that those experiences will match with the teachings of scripture and that they must be subject to them. So here are m reasons, pretty much from that article, of why the Bible is the ultimate authority:

1. The early church used the New Testament There is ample evidence that what we know of as the New Testament was codified as the official documents of the faith by the churches by around 200 AD or so. It shows that all the churches were using the same books.
2. The New Testament Canon was approved by the apostles themselves. I had assumed that some committee of scholars from various backgrounds had gotten together to put the canon together. No, it was done long before there were various backgrounds in Christianity. The evidence suggests that the basis for choosing the books of the Bible was that the apostles, those who had seen Jesus, themselves held them as the inspired standard.
3. They are highly accurate. Despite the fact that there seems to have been no effort to preserve the original writings or even to research their validity until the 1400’s, today we have thousands of texts with parts and sometimes all of the NT and it has proven to have been accurately handed down. There are very very few discrepancies of any consequence in the manuscripts. Remarkable for a book of it’s age.

To me the history and teachings of any religious group, Catholic or otherwise cannot live up to the actual evidence for the Bible: in place with in a few generations, approved by the founding fathers (apostles) and reliably handed down for centuries without significant error. The words of men, no matter how learned or in what position, are still only the words of men. They may be profound, wise and worthy of obedience, but they are not scripture. It’s a matter of evidence. There is ample evidence that the NT is what it claims to be, the blue print upon which Christianity was built. As far as the teachings or traditions of the Catholic or other churches, there is little evidence to support the idea that God wants them to be treated with the same respect as scripture.

Virusdoc had two posts on the Catholic position on Mary. One Friday from the ‘Doc and another Monday with some reader comments. Because of his exploration of Catholicism, I’ve spent a fair amount of energy here commenting on Catholic doctrine. Suffice to say I’ve found much to disagree with, and the subject of Mary is no exception. Let the record show, however that I have no agenda here against Catholics, it’s just working out this way. Ok, enough disclaimers, on to the topic.
From his Friday post, here’s a list of things that Catholics teach about Mary:

1. She was born without sin.
2. She lived her entire life without sin.
3. She never tasted death, was ‘assumed’ into heaven at the end of her life.
4. She was a virgin her entire life.

All but the last of these have been declared ‘infallible’ and all Catholics are required to believe them. He and I are on the same page her when he says “Not surprisingly, this amount of attention paid to ANY human being other than Jesus is a little hard to swallow for a protestant.” In fact, I can’t say I find anything to agree with in those teachings. (Actually, that’s not true. I agree with the first point, but I believe that’s true about all of us.) It seems to me that they are elevating Mary to the same level as Jesus, actually God, Himself! Christ is the only other human being ever born that can lay claim to all of the last three items on that list. To give those to Mary, to me, is to make her equal to God.
Monday’s reader response attempted to explain to our protestant mindset how this all makes sense. Honestly, it helped a little. I’m willing to admit that a fair amount of my incredulity at this idea is cultural. That is, I was brought up protestant and never really was exposed to any catholic teaching of any substance. It’s just as alien to me as Buddhism.
The general gist of it, assuming that I understood it, was that the Holy Spirit has been at work over the centuries, continually revealing God to the church and those revelations are just as valid as scripture itself. I can buy that the Holy Spirit is at work revealing God, but I have a hard time accepting it as equally valid as scripture. I mean, all kinds of people, including some sincere, well-meaning people, claim that God has spoken to them and given them a revelation. Now, many of them are just hoping we’ll open our wallets, but the rest are honest, God loving people. How are we, or anyone, to separate the wheat from the chaff if not by comparing their teachings and proclamations to scripture? Scripture is a constant standard against cultural and technological change, not to mention the whims of men. Even the most spiritual, intelligent and well meaning men have some bone headed ideas at times.
Frankly, I have a hard time seeing the Catholic position on Mary as anything but idolatry. I have a good friend at work that’s a devout catholic and more than that, he’s a man with a deep and sincere love for God. My intention, as stated earlier, is not to bash Catholics or to stir up trouble or debate, but I just can’t figure out how these ideas make sense. Can anyone help me do that?