Theological liberalism has split one church after another — to the point that the theologically liberal in
different churches often have more in common with each other than with the more orthodox in their own churches.
Not exact matches
I mean, people might know who was gay, but
often people in
churches think they know everyone else's sin, so that doesn't seem much
different.
Attempts to compare evangelical liturgical practices to those of more high
church traditions are
often doomed from the start because of the fundamentally
different assumptions that undergird both.
They are called black
churches because of their perspective, which is
often far
different than those of Conservative White
churches.
That number is substantially
different among respondents who attend
church less
often.
Often times the congregations of
different churches can't even get along with each other.
The difference is
often detectable in the very way that a
church member may express her congregational affiliation; «I go to that church on Brady Street» is very different from «I belong to a great community of people, and we call ourselves St. Paul Lutheran Church.&
church member may express her congregational affiliation; «I go to that
church on Brady Street» is very different from «I belong to a great community of people, and we call ourselves St. Paul Lutheran Church.&
church on Brady Street» is very
different from «I belong to a great community of people, and we call ourselves St. Paul Lutheran
Church.&
Church.»
With all these differences it is hardly surprising that ministers in the nonliturgical
churches, when conducting communion services,
often confuse and combine the
different accounts and even insert sentences or phrases not found in any of them.
This effort
often goes under the same banner of inclusiveness that justifies the
church's outreach to members of
different races, classes and ethnic backgrounds.
Those in America, obviously, have a
different social view of the
church's practices, values, rituals which
often times are reluctantly ignored.
If we step back and forget everything we think we know about
church, and read the texts without such filters, they say something very
different than
often assumed.
In the
Church, people of
different backgrounds or belief systems than the majority are
often overlooked or not approached properly.
Too
often the
church is filled with folks who have been raised in a controlling
church, and don't know any
different.
Although his understanding was that
different individuals would fulfill these roles in varying degrees, the emphasis on the four modalities
often became a source of depression for campus ministers who concluded that their own situation did not embody the fullness of the
church's ministry.
The name «Free
Church» is
often applied to this style of worship, but what flourishes today under that title is greatly
different from what evolved during English Puritanism's struggle to be free to order worship according to God's word.
I think the biggest disconnect I have with you Jeremy, is that
often your experience seems to be entirely
different than mine; so that what seems to you to be «typical» to «most
churches» doesn't seem to be the case to me, and probably anything that I would guess is «typical» could be just as foreign to you.
Phoenix went on to point out how the
Church has
often painted Mary Magdelene as a prostitute — in fact, Pope Gregory claimed she was a prostitute in 591 — and said he hopes the film provides a
different lens for people to view women in the
Church.
One of the obvious difficulties with these suggestions is that the fundamental issue as to how the individual
churches themselves have internalized
different understandings of baptism as being a part of their existence and self - identity, an existence and identity which has very
often been at least partially shaped as a reaction to the teachings propounded by other
churches, has not been adequately addressed.
Alise — To some extent I think that while big and small
churches often have
different positives, like the kind you point out, part of the reason why people like small
churches is that they are less likely to fall into rigid or limiting structures.
Often times we use the idea of a corporate / business vision in the
church, when our idea of vision should be something
different.
American and British theologians oft en find themselves in significant agreement — drawing on similar sources and reaching shared conclusions — but geographical distance as well as the very
different church - state relations in the two nations have meant that Christians in one region are
often unaware of theological developments in the other.
One of our problems is that we have not asked the laity to make available for the mission of the
church what it already knows about the world in which it lives, which is so
often a world
different from the one the parson preaches about.
The way you worship at your
Church, is
often not the way
different Christians around the world worship at theirs.
They sometimes become fodder for my blog because I find that they are much like those silly messages on
church signs; what the author thinks they are saying and the message that comes across are
often very
different.