But the end of Rome didn’t mean the end of the Italians. And the end of our evil government will not mean the end of the American people. Franky, it will be a huge tax cut and devolution of power to the state and local levels that will likely lead, coincidental with the growing spiritual renewal of fathers leading their families, to a new era of peace and prosperity. What do we really have in common with people from Massachusetts or Vermont that compels us to live under the same government? Blue states were already talking about secession to Canada after Bush was re-elected.

Much smaller differences in culture have lead to peaceful separation- much like the amicable divorce of the Czechs and Slovaks about ten years ago.

I LOVE that sentence, Tom. I think that is the problem I have with a lot of arguments - especially political. Naturally, I tend to enjoy a good debate, but at times I do find myself weary - for two reasons: you never convince anyone, and, even if you did, there would just be another argument after that one.

Also, politically, spiritually, economically, no other civilization on earth has ever lasted perpetually. America won’t be any different. I’m not saying I won’t work as hard as I can do affect things within my realm of responsibility. But the truth is, I just won’t be surprised at each new level of depth our country falls to. God can work miracles, and He may preserve our county, so I don’t mean to sound fatalistic. But, even outside of a political context, why are we so surprised when unsaved people don’t act like Christians?

I appreciate the distinction made between a church that is minimally correct in doctrine and produces much fruit vs. the church that is entirely correct (in whatever my opinion is) and produces no fruit.

What is boils down to is that I don’t know a whole lot. But I do know that Jesus said the way He would judge is by those to did acts of service to Him by giving in His name to the poor, sick, imprisoned, etc. So maybe all the ‘big time’ arguments don’t matter as much as I thought. Maybe it’s just about the individuals God puts in my path.

I do tend to be a doctrinal minimalist and results-oriented. By that I mean that if a Church meets a certain minimum doctrinal position, I tend to look at their outcomes to judge quality (i.e. judging by fruits).

The doctrine of salvation by grace alone- this is true doctrine. But must one believe it in order to be saved? I do not know. It is entirely possible for someone to believe that works play some role and for God to still cover them by Grace alone. An analogy would be that turning on a light switch does not require one to be an electrical engineer- the light comes on no matter what reasons you believe it will, as long as the minimum threshold (flipping the switch) is met.

But I’m not sure about this.

What I do like is those churches holding the line on issues like contraception and homosexuality. Every liberal denomination in the US (PCUSA, Episcopals, Methodists) preach “salvation by grace alone” as a doctrine, but it does not save them from bad fruit (embracing homosexuality and abortion, female “pastors”, etc). Can you imagine any American church doing this?

http://www.washtimes.com/world/20031008-113616-3077r.htm

That’s a robust and healthy response to an outrage- our leaders would speak in hushed tones about God’s love for the sinner (which is true, but besides the point). But, again, I admit that this may be reactionary on my part. The hardest part of living in our times is to create your own positive vector in life instead of reacting to the latest outrage of our civilization’s cultural decline.

Therefore, I believe that the early churches with popes, bishops & hierarchy were not true churches. There were other groups throughout the centuries that were usually hidden, underground churches, because, as the Catholic and Orthodox churches became state religions, any other type of Christianity was persecuted as severely as Islam or ‘pagans’ or Jews.

I have a great fear of the national level organizations. I personally believe that gives one person, or group of people, headship when only Christ deserves that in the church. I am not saying that individual Popes or bishops, etc. have been bad, they were probably even Christians. I just believe that is not how Jesus designed the church. If He had wanted popes and national organizations, I believe He would have designed it like that while He was here on earth.

I see the church as a living, breathing organism. It’s made up of it’s people, not it’s structure. I tend to agree with the ‘less structure the better’ approach, but that is also partly because of my personality and experiences.

A lot of the the things I believe do not fit with Southern Baptist doctrine, especially on the issues of church membership and communion. But Jeremy & I had to wrestle with all of those, and the conclusion we came to is this: We were tired of being in a church that had everything doctrinally ‘right’, but did not care about people. We were willing to commit ourselves to a group of people who don’t necessarily believe like we do because we were convinced they cared about people.

Regarding Russia, please remember that the Russian Orthodox Church does NOT preach the gospel. It may be a cultural religions, but they do not believe that Jesus is the only way to salvation. They pray to saints, and offer money and candles to priests, and do not preach Christ alone for salvation.

There IS Christianity in Russia, but it is not to be found in the national organization. It is buried, hidden beneath restrictions and regulations. Just like China and other countries where true Christianity is illegal.

One more thing - I’m not talking about individuals being Christians or not - I’m talking about the national organizations. Thanks for letting me express my opinion, and the very interesting discussion.

http://www.amazon.com/Becoming-Orthodox-Journey-Ancient-Christian/dp/0962271330

I admit I have a certain reactionary bias that predisposes me to this pitch:

“Do you think that you are the only one who is dis-satisfied with Western Christianity? Is the constant blaring of praise music from a band and Power Point presentations on the church wall losing its appeal? Have you moved from church to church looking for something that is not quite there, not filling that spiritual hole that eats at your soul. Is all of your Bible study not answering the questions that keeps eating at you? Then reading the story of Peter Gillquist and his friends’ search for a true relationship with God may be the first step on setting your mind at ease.”

My reactionary side also delights in the fact that the dedicated enemies of our civilization (the urban elites in places like NYC and LA who provide most of the funding for the Democratic Party) absolutely despise the Orthodox Church, and particularly the Russian Czarist civilization before Communism. Even on our side of the political spectrum, neoconservatives (i.e. an urban elite who pretends to be a conservative in order to achieve foreign policy objectives), who support using nuclear weapons against Arab civilian populations to fight the “Islamo-fascists”, hate Russia so much that they condemn Vladimir Putin for taking the gloves off when dealing with Muslim terrorists in Chechnya.

However, my rational mind quickly kicks in and reminds me that Eastern Europe has never reached the level of spiritual fruit and civilization achieved by Western European Protestant countries. And when you consider the incredibly low fertility levels in Eastern Europe (Russia is actually declining in population, losing a million people a year because no one is having babies), we see many of the same problems that concern me about the “Western” portion of the West. The Orthodox Church is clearly no panacea- but we must also remember that Eastern Europe is still recovering from Communism as well.

An interesting thing to watch will be seeing which group of European peoples (Easterners or Westerners, including the US) are able to recover from their present problems first. If in the Eastern portion of Europe, then perhaps it would be appropriate for me to re-evaluate the fruit of the Orthodox Church.

I still believe their national-level organization helps them to avoid a lot of the universalist silliness that affects evangelicals- like Rick Warren attempting to make Rwanda the world’s first “Purpose Driven” nation.

“The Orthodox Churches, arguably the closest surviving model of the original New Testament church…”

Arguably is right. =) I’m not sure I see that in the New Testament Scriptures. I see people meeting in houses and eating with one another, and enjoying deep, rich, personal fellowship. I don’t see rituals written about, with the exceptions of the Lord’s Supper and baptism. I’m not saying they weren’t there - I just don’t see them written about or given the same import as faith and relationship.

Maybe that’s the problem I have with the more liturgical forms of worship - the ritual and custom always seems to take priority over the people. (It may not start out that way, but it seems like very often that’s the way it ends.) I am learning that there is a depth and richness to tradition, as long as it is combined with faith and relationship. By itself, it leads to death.

Anyway, I appreciate this post - it’s given me a lot to think about.

Lindsay