After 400 year hiatus Catholicism is once again most popular in England

[JSojourner]

Wow.. is church attendance really that low - I mean I knew it was miniscule; but less than a million Anglicans? Despite everything I find this hard to believe.

Ever been to a CofE service? Do that and you'll understand everything regarding this issue.

Oh and there are far more than a million Anglicans here. Just that the overwhelming majority have no interest in going to church every week more than, at most, once or twice a year (three times, maybe, in rural areas).

I attend the Episcopal Church here in the U.S.   Every week.  More, when there are special services.  I can't get enough of liturgy, ritual and tradition.  My biggest complaint is that many of our Episcopal Churches are trying too hard to act and look like Protestant Evangelical Churches.  Including my own.

The Christian Century published an article a year or two ago about students at Denver Baptist Seminary flocking to an Eastern Orthodox Church.  It supposedly indicated a trend among college-age young people and young adults seeking connection to the ancient.  They love the Bible, but have become disillusioned with the Protestant, particularly the Dispensational Protestant, tendancy to chart and map everything out.  The old, "we have all the answers" about the past, present and future kind of thinking...

I am not sure if this is really a trend.  But I hope it is.

[JSojourner]

jmfcst, would you mind listing and describing what sexual immoralities are at large in England, and would you also please explain how they are 'accepted'?

Well, England, like most of the West, has pretty much embraced all kinds of sexual immorality, but most notably fornication.  The idea of waiting until marriage is viewed as shocking and "old-fashioned". 

I see!  But is this somehow codified into law?  Or supported by the actions of the State?  Or do you refer to 'acceptance' as the lack of prosecution of these activities by the Police and Courts?

No, this doesn't have anything to do with the law.  I am merely speaking of society's embracing the fornication, along with society's mocking of sexual morality.

I come down somewhere in the middle on this.  Jmfcst is correct to point out that those who ridicule virgins, the chaste, those who wait for marriage and those who remain monogamous in marriage are cruel and intolerant.  You can't tell me there isn't a mean-spirited, arrogant undercurrent in Western culture for people who abstain from sex.  They look at 17 year old virgins (to say nothing of 40 year old virgins) as though they are losers.  The 25 year old who has yet to have sex is regarded as though he must be an obese, Dungeons & Dragons playing, Star Trek-watching dork who speaks Klingon, lives in his Mom's basement and eats Doritos.

Many people, particularly Evangelical Christians, Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox folk and members of non Christian religions choose to abstain from sex entirely before marriage.  Some liberal Protestants, Catholics and Secularists do, too.  Though not as many, I suspect.  The reasons are wide and varied:  Not met the right person yet, want to save myself for my life partner, the Bible says so, I'm just not ready, the emotional damage of uncommitted sex is too great, I fear disease, etc. etc.

Disrespecting people who make this choice is, plain and simple, intolerance.

Likewise, I consider it arrogant to condemn those who do choose to be sexually active before marriage. It's none of my business. The retreat of those who hold forth on this issue is almost unfailingly, "But...it's GOD'S business!"

And I agree.  It IS God's business.

So...

Let God tend to it.

[JSojourner]

Likewise, I consider it arrogant to condemn those who do choose to be sexually active before marriage. It's none of my business. The retreat of those who hold forth on this issue is almost unfailingly, "But...it's GOD'S business!"

And I agree.  It IS God's business.

So...

Let God tend to it.

So, basically you're using the "Am I my brother's keeper?" argument.

Nope.  I am saying God is God and I am not.  If his or her word isn't enough, at the moment, to change the heart or behavior or another person, then me calling them adulterers, fornicators and sinners is unlikely to.

Now, within various denominations and traditions, it is certainly appropriate for clergy and other leaders to withhold sacraments or other benefiits if they believe -- and if the impenitent parishioner confirms -- that they are living in what the church calls sin.

But in the day to day of living, I get the sense that some professing followers of Jesus (or other religions) get their spiritual kicks defining themselves on the basis of who, or what, they hate.  And indeed, that becomes their definition of what it is to love Jesus. Amazingly, this usually involves sex or something related to sex.  Drunkeness, divorce, cheating the poor, verbally defiling another's reputation or name -- these things tend not to garner as much attention or condemnation from many religious folk.  I am not sure why.  I know only...

That Jesus condemned adultery is indisputable.  That he left the fate of adulterers in the hands of his Heavenly Father -- rather than in the hands of humans -- is equally indisputable.

[JSojourner]

That Jesus condemned adultery is indisputable.

agreed

---

That he left the fate of adulterers in the hands of his Heavenly Father -- rather than in the hands of humans -- is equally indisputable.

Actually, Jesus died for the forgiveness of the adulterer's sins;

and equally indisputable, Jesus also instructed adulters to repent

Right on all counts.  And what and who leads us to repentance? 

[JSojourner]

Right on all counts.  And what and who leads us to repentance? 

We are lead to repentance by hearing the word of God, which can not be heard unless it is being preached, which can not be preached unless someone is preaches it:

"How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news! (Isa 52:7)

And let it be preached.  I'm all for it.  That's what pulpits are for.  That's why pastors and priests write books.

What goads me is that sexual sin (however said preacher defines it) gets so much of his or her time and attention.  When the Bible has so much more to say about what is sin.  I did hear a very good sermon about Darfur last week, however.  That's one.

Bottom line -- what two people do with their genitalia deserves some attention from clergy, theologians and ethicists.  Absolutely.  Some attention.

But listen to most fundamentalists and evangelicals -- that's ALL that matters.  (Particularly if you put abortion into the mix, being the tragic result of coitus in some cases.)

Meanwhile, how many children die every day of hunger...abuse and neglect...from landmine injuries...as collateral damage in multiple wars...from preventable diseases...as a result of gang activity...

I'm still waiting for the Evangelical-Fundamentalist prophets to take up these causes. 

[JSojourner]

And let it be preached.  I'm all for it.  That's what pulpits are for.  That's why pastors and priests write books.

But, Jesus spent little time at the pulpit, rather he took the word directly to the public.

Saying very little about sexual sin.  He certainly had much more to say about -- and was far more condeming of -- divored.  As to pulpits, they didn't exist as we know them.  He certainly did teach in the synagogues.  But you're right, he worked the crowds.  And of course his loudest sermons involved no words at all.

---

What goads me is that sexual sin (however said preacher defines it) gets so much of his or her time and attention. 

Well, it is not like Hollywood is attempting to condone theft, murder or lying.

Lotta fine lines in Hollywood, where generally likeable characters are liars, killers and thieves.  I could be warped, but I sometimes find myself rooting for Tony Soprano and his crew.  Not really, of course -- but often Hollywood makes bad guys into sympathetic characters.  And conversely, feeds the image of "bad cops" or "corrupt preachers, teachers, doctors" etc.  I do agree, however, that Hollywood certainly does go out of its way to show sex outside marriage as having no consequences.  And that, you and I would both agree, is utter crapola.

  Maybe if less time was spent by the media pushing sexual immorality to consumers, then less time would be spent by the church at directing the public's attention to sexual immorality.

But, sexual immorality is certainly not a common topic of the sermons I hear, why would it be?  In fact here is my pastor's summary of a sermon he recently gave:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I like your pastor.  A lot. 

[JSojourner]

Quote from: JSojourner on Today at 02:32:04 pm
Saying very little about sexual sin.  He certainly had much more to say about -- and was far more condeming of -- divored.


I don't know how you conclude Jesus was soft on sexual sin when he even condemned the lust of the mind:

Mat 5:27 "You have heard that it was said, 'Do not commit adultery.' 28But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. 29If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. 30And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell."

Read my post.  I never said he was soft.  I said he had little to say about sexual sin, in comparison with his weighty teachings on divorce and hypocrisy. Further, I have heard some exposit on Matt. 5 that the Savior intentionally set an impossibly high standard.  You have heard it said that having sex outside marriage is sin.  I say it is sin to even look at someone and WANT to have sex with that person if you are not married to him ro her. Then, he seems to say -- and in the Greek, it looks for all the work like he is NOT speaking metaphorically but fulling intending people to take him literally -- "blind yourself or maim yourself so you will not commit such sins".  I would tend to agree with those who say Jesus, who was the only sinless person ever, was actually saying -- "You see how impossible God's standard of perfection is? You think you are free and clear because you do not screw your friend's wife, even though you want to?"  My read on the passage is that Jesus was reaffirming what David exclaimed in Psalm 103.  God knows were are nothing but dust.  And is merciful in spite of our weakness.  Indeed, Jesus' coming on our behalf was affirmation of that.  In other words, he was perfect FOR us.  Because we couldn't be.  LOL -- In fact, if we cut out our very eyes, we would still lust.  If we lopped off both our hands, we would still steal...or kill.  Because the root of sin is in the heart and the mind.  In fact, the passage also talks about murder being more than actually taking a life.  It's hating. So again -- there's a clear teaching that lust and adultery do not meet God's standard of perfection.  But so do hateful thoughts, covetous thoughts, cruel intentions and so forth.  And the overarching message -- something you pastor brilliantly articulated in his sermon -- is that Christ is the antedote.  "He who knew no sin became sin FOR us..." 

Of course you would argue, rightly I believe, that because God's grace abounds, we do not have carte blanche to sin.  In ANY form.  I would only respond that I am so busy trying to keep my own sins (both actual and intentional) in check, that I have little time to worry about my neighbor's sins.  So I have to trust the God the Holy Spirit to handle that.  Might the Spirit work that wonder through the well-placed word of a friend, a cleric or even a post on a message board?  Of course.  I didn't mean to suggest that it's never appropriate to speak a loving, humble word of exhortation.  I only hoped to convey that those who fret most about the sexual sins of others (or of society in general) are often -- not always, but often -- so beset by their own sexual addictions and confusion that they would do well to put their own house in order.

And I am NOT suggesting for a second that you are such a person.  I hope it doesn't come across that way.  Only that whenever I hear a priest or pastor or author seemingly obsessed with what they consider to be sexual sin -- be it heterosexual or homosexual -- time and scrutiny eventually show they have their own addictions.

Yes, it was a very good sermon about the Kingdom.  The Kingdom is what Jesus spent most of his time and the majority of his parables teaching about.

I am just starting Fr. Robert Capon's book, Kingdom, Grace, Judgment: Paradox, Outrage and Vindication in the parables of Jesus.  I'm pretty sure it's going to be a feast. On a lighter note, I liked Tony Campolo's The Kingdom of God is a Party, but I am not sure if you would.

Jesus also talked a lot about "sin", but Jesus didn't have to spend a lot of time defining sin since the definition of sin was already given.  The context of sin was already understood.  That is why Jesus only mentioned theft and sexual immorality a few times, and that is why many other sins like idolatry and witchcraft he never bothered to bring up.

Well, he sure mentioned the sin of murder, which he said includes hate.  And by both example and teaching, he condemned the sins of hypocrisy, Phariseeism, bigotry and legalism.  And I think he did mention idolatry.  Not that specific word, but the concept surely.  I'd say those who made the law into an idol (whom he excoriated) were idoloters.

But in arguing this out, please don't think I believe you are a Pharisee or bigot of any kind.  Sometimes, I can come across that way and I don't get that sense.