Old Christendom, how about we put things into perspective for a moment. I just finished a 30 year career as a Police Officer/EMT, and during my tenure I saw a father shoot his teenage son at the dinner table over a pork chop, I saw numerous people murdered for their $20 Timex watch, and I saw mothers selling their daughters for sex on the street. If the worse thing that happens in your small, pigeon holed, pharisaic world is someone placing a crucifix over their door, then you're having a pretty good day my friend. Jeff
I know you're trying to play smart, Jeff, but it doesn't really cut it. The sins you described are indeed heartbreaking to us but the sins directly against God are of a greater importance.
I'll have to agree with Old Christendom, myself. Despite my respect for what you did and saw, Jeff, social sins are nothing compared to sins against the LORD Himself. All sin is sin, but He seems to have a special abhorrence for this particular one under discussion. Flippant comparisons will just not do.
That's fine little brother let him have his abhorrence to it but he has had his say about it, others don't agree with him and that is just the way it is.
I'm truly sorry that you perceived me as "being smart", my comment was from the heart. When I see the general state of modern society and what their willing to do to another human being, I have a hard time condemning anyone for taking the time to remember the crucifixion of their savior. It's sad that you have such a dry, bitter soul at the young age of 31. Jeff
Apart from OC's objection of imagery of God, the other problem is the walking on the razor's edge regarding Romanist worship and other deviations from the apostolic faith. If you're not persuaded by the idolatry argument you still cannot escape the fact that you are engaging in an ecosystem of beliefs that are inconsistent with God; that alone may not automatically harm you, but you're nevertheless subjecting yourself to considerable problems every time. On the topic of the 10 commandments, I started a thread here: http://forums.anglican.net/threads/the-ten-commandments.619/
Perhaps you could dispense with the juvenile insults and finger pointing for a moment, and take the high road of information and education. I understand that you see the use of a crucifix as an idol, yet they are in use in every Anglican communion across the globe, whether it be the See of Canterbury, the ECUSA, or even the fragmented splinter groups. Can you produce a condemnation from any of these groups concerning a crucifix, and if you can't, do you believe your communion to be in apostasy as well as the numerous groups you have labeled on this forum? Jeff
Jeff my heart goes out to what you saw, but the mistaken premise it it, that the world has been better, for which reason we today need to sacrifice a little theology for a little more comfort, than would be necessary in previous ages. And respectfully, nothing could be further from the truth. 500 years ago there was routine torture on a daily basis; criminals' arms and legs were twisted out of their sockets, people's nails were pulled off, and children and parents strangled each other for food, or for power, or lust. You should thank God that you only saw only one father kill his son over a pork chop, rather than allow this to color the whole age for you as uncommonly brutal. We're living in the mildest age in recorded history. And yet it is precisely during those older ages of social brutality and misery that our Divines and Forefathers still didn't choose to sacrifice a little theology for a little comfort. Even with people's limbs being twisted out of sockets and nails pulled off, they still taught that the sins against God were worse and blamed those who transgressed them more severely. That brutal age applied its cruelty even to those very ministers, our Forefathers; their limbs were twisted too, and their nails were pulled off, but they stood, and fought for the Divine Truth! So if we put all this in perspective, I would argue that because we live today in an age of comfort that our ministers are pressured abandon the last vestiges of hard belief. It is not from a lack of comfort, but from too much comfort, that there is pressure on us to melt everything in our mind into a cauldron of soft non-judgmental goo. Your task as a minister of God will have to be to stand and fight for the honor of God unto the end, unto the last moment, unto the last discomfort to your people, like the heroic priests and bishops of old, who lived and died For The Truth! Do not buy into the sweet syrup of sacrificing a little belief for a little comfort.
In my Church we have the Cristus Rex and I wear a Crucifix. I think a Crucifix is a good thing to remind us of what Christ did and the cost
For those who hold the opinion that possessing a crucifix is idol worship, how do you feel about genuflection of the altar, or the Priest kissing the Gospel book before reading it, or them bowing to the consecrated elements? It appears to me that you are painting yourself into a theological corner my friends. Jeff
When I read some of the posts by some these people I often wonder how 1 Cor 13 is viewed by the ones making the judgements we read on this board. I hear a number of noisy gongs... Keep up your balanced posts... I have been involved the Anglican Church on and off for sixty years and some of the stuff some these people come up with is not definitely anything I have heard over the years. I don't recall a processional cross that is not a crucifix here in Australia.
I would say the sudden silence speaks volumes Gordon. We all know that the crucifix is in use in every Anglican communion across the globe, not to mention our Roman, Orthodox, and Lutheran brothers/sisters. I believe the local witch hunt here has much to do with an angry over-reaction to the Roman church, but I refuse to throw the baby out with the bath water. Jeff
I really welcome this point. The fact that most of the Christian world for most of the Church's history has used crucifixes, while not proving the that their use is alright, does provide context. This argument then becomes the same as baptists who are willing to claime that most christians from the first century on aren't truly baptized and, therefore, are outside of the grace of Christ's covenant. I'm also glad you brought up the Lutherans, as I am partial to their theology. the Lutheran blog Cyberbrethren, shared an article on this very subject that I greatly enjoyed. Perhaps it can shed some light here as well. http://cyberbrethren.com/2009/02/28/lutherans-and-the-crucifix/ Be blessed!
LL, I fail to see the logic of this statement. The Roman church was responsible for egregious violations against Scripture; they rewrote the 10 commandments; they ratified the apocrypha which were never widely accepted as Divine Scrpiture before that; they freely teach about works leading to salvation in complete opposition to the teachings of the whole Pauline Corpus of the Bible. You either stand with the Gospel and with Christ, or with an ecumenical body of Christians regardless of how faithful or orthodox they are. I am fine with your post on Lutherans and the Crucifix; the topic itself still merits more discussion. But your point about the 'majority' of Christians I find is absolutely unjust to our Church. Respectfully if you had it your way we would've never had a Reformation, you would still pray to the saints more than to Christ, pay the last of money to bureaucrats from Rome to acquire sure indulgences from Purgatory, would likely never read a Bible in your life, and would be whipped by the police if they ever found and English Bible in your possession. Very disappointing
That seems a little presumptuous. I don't pray to the saints, don't believe in Purgatory, and I read the KJV bible everyday. Moreover, I get barked at on this forum for not marching to the drum that regeneration can only be imparted through the office of baptism and for not having a problem with women in the orders. As for paying indulgences, have I ever intimated that I would shell out money to get early release from a spiritual realm that I don't believe exists? I'll let you in on a little secret. My alleged Romanism aside, I'm cheap! Even if I believed in indulgences, I'd probably sit out my time on Mount Purgatory if it meant saving a few skins. Resptectfully, Stalwart, I'd never engage in making blanket statements of what I'm sure you'd do in the time of the Reformation or the Witch Craze, for that matter, since I, unlike God, don't know your heart. I wish the same curtesy could be extended to me and others on this forum as well. We may not fit in the same school of thought, but we are members of the same church. Just let me sit on the pew; the box you keep trying to stick me in just doesn't fit.
I'm not trying to stick you in a box. All I'm saying is merely that the 'majority' argument doesn't fly. If you apply it to the English Reformation where even more of a majority, a gigantic gargantuan majority (99% to 1%) were against the Reformation, then you may never would have gotten it done. But the truth is truth; and that majority over time was thankfully replaced by a small minority. Apply the same process here -- if you have your own reasons for the crucifix that is fine, let's discuss them. But it is utterly irrelevant what 'others' do, especially if most of those others believe in an unmitigated idolatry precisely from which we disagreed 500 years ago. All this is not to say that the crucifix is necessarily idolatry (which is still being debated), but the validity and legitimacy of beliefs outside the Communion.