Skip to comments.Mainline Protestantism ‘Gone from’ Christianity; Santorum Just Lost the South
Posted on 03/09/2012 12:54:15 PM PST by unspun
This update is made simply to point out the problem with Rick Santorum's speech, excerpted below, as many are apparently having difficulty seeing it. I apologize for not making it clearer, earlier.
The problem lays in two sentences:
And of course we look at the shape of mainline Protestantism in this country and it is a shambles. It is gone from the world of Christianity as I see it.
It was almost an excellent and critically important speech, but then...
(Excerpt) Read more at gulagbound.com ...
I'd propose these questions: would Newt Gingrich, political leader that he is, have said such a thing?
Or, John Adams?
Al Smith, for that matter?
I've read The Cost of Discipleship, and in it Dietrich Bonhoeffer had sharp criticism for his Hitler era Lutheran Church. I don't however recall him saying that Luteranism is "gone from the world of Christianity."
I wonder what these mainline Protestants would think:
Dr. D. James Kennedy
Well, that's unfortunate. Excerpting your blog here. Why, I wonder?
I'll have to post just an excerpt. It is not convenient to do a lot of reformatting, since I have already formatted this article the way I chose, thanks.
Gee, maybe you should have just written & formatted things right here instead of on some slap-mammy blog.
Just a thought.
This mainline Protestant happens to agree with him. My grandmother walked away from her lifelong Methodist church when the pastor tossed the bible on the floor during a sermon while declaring it irrelevant in today’s world.
Ping for comnents
I refer to those as “mainstream” and true Bible-believing churches as “evangelical” or “orthodox” or “fundamental”.
I'm in the south. I am fairly sure I'll be voting for Santorum on Tuesday.
D. James Kennedy - PCA, not mainline (PCUSA is mainline)
C.S.Lewis - different era and no fan of Anglican liberalism.
Schaeffer - what mainline denomination did he actively champion? Also, a different era.
As a member of an SBC church, I’d say Santorum is right. Of course, the RCs were wrecked theologically as a consequence of Vatican II. The SBC is trending in the same wrong direction as the mainline denominations.
The PCUSA is considered the "mainline" Presbyterians. In fact, most times when the word Presbyterian is used in the press, they are speaking about the PCUSA. And yes, the PCUSA has Gone from Christianity.
In fact, in most conservative churches I have been in, the word "mainline" is a synonym to "liberal", and the liberal church has definitely Gone from Christianity.
The sooner the better. This is a very good thing. And does it really surprise anyone? He’s been talking like he was running for head preacher rather than president.
And I agreed with a lot of what he was saying. Well, up to that.
Santorum is spot on...and I’m sorry your blog needs pimping.
Santorum doesn’t really want the nomination, because he is killing his chances every time he brings up religion. Maybe he had bills to pay and needs the campaign cash to do it.
Actually, Thomas Jefferson had issues with both Protestants and Catholics.
“Happy in the prospect of a restoration of primitive Christianity, I must leave to younger athletes to encounter and lop off the false branches which have been engrafted into it by the mythologists of the middle and modern ages.”
Monticello, July 19, 1822
If he’s referring to the Evangelical Lutheran Church, The Presbyterian Church, and The Episcopal Church with it’s revisionist interpretation of Scripture, I’d have to agree with him.
“Mainline”, not “mainstream”. Mainline is not mainstream. And, as you point out, does anyone seriously think that the Episcopalians, for example, denomination are Christian? Sodomites and heresy everywhere.
Furthermore, please pimp your blog elsewhere.
It’s one thing for you and me to say it. There is a time and place to say these things. A Presidential stump speech is NOT the place to say it. For about a 1000 reasons.
Protestants are Protestants.
Catholics are Catholics.
In either case, their churches tend to be split, as I stated in the article. I’m sure there are “liberals” and “conservatives” in each, who prefer to think of their beliefs as “mainline.”
However, I hope none are bigoted or haughty enough to dictate which handfuls of tares, and the wheat along with it, may be uprooted, and called “gone from the world of Christianity.”
Pleasant pondering with the Lord. I suggest the entire article. Then again, I wrote it. ;-> Also, the comments beneath it.
Are you completely oblivious to the crisis between the High Episcopal Church, Anglican Communion, and the low Episcopals of non-British nations?
The FR religious forum, of which I conscientiously do not read by choice, has had articles about the collapse of mainline Protestantism for the last 5+ years.
Even myself, not even a Christian, know dang well that mainline Protestantism no longer exists as a Christian denomination.
You need to read up on the complete failure of Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, how the remaining bastinos of the Anglican communion in Africa and other developing nations have officially cleaved themselves from the rotting rump of mainline Anglican conferences, and how those African, Asian, Central and South American Communions no longer see themselves as part of Anglican mainline as defined by Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams and other Bishoprics in the UK and core Commonwealth.
Last time I was in the Methodist church of my youth it was full of bulletin boards plastered with flyers screaming for “eco justice” and celebrating diversity.
Protestant Churches need to take a look at what is happening. Feel good churches and churches embracing homos are growing in numbers.
We used to be able to say that just Jews and Catholics bought into leftism.
No longer true.
Here we go again.
Santorum has an amazing ability to continue to say things, (whether you agree with them or not) to very easily be taken out of context, and then become another non-issue firestorm, and the focus gets taken off the serious issues.
And he does it to himself.
He’s learned absolutely nothing throughout this whole process.
Let’s all wake up and see him for what he is.
If he’s the nominee, we got problems.
I have an idea, why don’t you go through Romney’s speeches and get a couple of gotcha lines for your blogs.
I wonder if this is why Andrew Breitbart gave up on FreeRepublic.com?
I tend to think of others for whom that is true.
Santorum DOES want the nomination, but not on any terms...he wants to be able to face his creator some day...and show Him that he was true to the faith, even when running for the highest office in the land.
I have to agree with him too. I won’t enter the door of the “mainline” church I was part of when I realized that it had started to embrace radical leftist ideology rather than the Word of God.
“Mainline” is a technical term that refers to certain denominations, e.g. UMC, the Episcopal Church, PCUSA, etc. The Mainline denominations are a theological sewer. Remember, Paul constantly warned againsdt false teachers creeping in among us. We have to be discerning.
Put very well. Imagine this kind of performance in the general election......
Your Profile says Wisconsin, WHAT THE ^*&^% DO YOU KNOW ABOUT THE SOUTH??!!
Maybe this will help:
—Perhaps Santorum used mainstream to refer to those denominations like the Episcopalians, who ordain homosexuals, or the PCUS, which is so apostate I cannot even begin to list their problems and other members of the National Council of Churches.—
If that was what he meant, he should have been more precise in his choice of words.
But it doesn’t matter. He’s lost the non-catholic vote.
I was concerned from the git-go that he might say something with a nuclear impact. This was it. He can try to spin it all he wants. He may even make a claim to what you suggest above. It won’t matter. He’s the guy in the western that’s been shot and is coughing up blood as his woman holds his head in her arms. He’s done.
The good news is that the “not romney” vote is no longer split.
I accept your correction.
Its one thing for you and me to say it. There is a time and place to say these things. A Presidential stump speech is NOT the place to say it. For about a 1000 reasons.
Of course you’re correct, but Santorum gave the speech in question during 2008- long before he knew he was going to be a candidate.
This has nothing at all to do with John Adams and C.S. Lewis. If they were alive today they would be appalled at what is happening and would agree 100% with Rick Santorum.
Read a book. Do a little research. Try to learn at least a little of what you are talking about.
And stop the dishonest attacks on a good and decent man.
My point is that NO, HE HASN’T LOST THE NON-CATHOLIC VOTE.
I’m not catholic. I’m voting for him. He’s the last candidate on the ballot for whom I’ll vote.
Thank you, but I don't need the help.
BTW, I was raised in an American Baptist Convention church ("northern" as this wiki article states). I accepted Christ as my Savior, there. Like my father, I attended school in an ABC institution of higher learning.
I can assure you that along with the many devout Christians in all of the "mainline" denominations, whether in the pews, pastorates, or academia, they are not "gone from the world of Christianity," whatever errors exist. I won't go on here about them.
I won't go on about the errors in the Roman Catholic church, either. That would be unseemly.
Most people confuse ‘mainstream’ Christianity with “mainline Christianity”. Mainline refers to certain Protestant groups who were directly on rail lines in certain orders.
Thank you for overlooking the bungled grammar that resulted from fast typing and a lack of proofing. ;-)
Thank you for overlooking the bungled grammar that resulted from fast typing and a lack of proofing. ;-)
No one should have to hear a Presidential candidate, give his interpretation of religion. Is he a theologian or a lawyer turned Senator? This is the only topic he is comfortable with, or he would be addressing the vast complex issues facing this nation. This is his pattern, lose a little ground, make controversial religious statements, bring the focus back to his comfort zone. Might work a little in the primaries but in the general, forget it, people will reject him immediately.
This is old stuff pushed by romney supporters on the web.
“However, I hope none are bigoted or haughty enough to dictate which handfuls of tares, and the wheat along with it, may be uprooted, and called gone from the world of Christianity.”
You don’t have to be either bigoted or haughty to exercise discernment or spot obviously false teachings. ECLA and the Episcopal Church have, eg, adopted officially false teachings at a high level. The teachings are directly contrary to scripture that spans thousands of years and their doctrines have been adopted with knowledge of that scripture.
Paul did not suggest we listen to false teachers. He didn’t run around calling them “Christians” so as to be PC. As to “matters that may be disputed,” we should not create doctrinal battles (Romans 14). But as to the clear lines in scripture, Paul fought like a lion.
“There is a time and place to say these things. A Presidential stump speech is NOT the place to say it. For about a 1000 reasons.”
That right there is the core issue here.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.