Pardon the expression... However, that won't change him in his church's eyes.
The basic theology does
not change in our church and that is what is attractive to people.
Not exact matches
Most
churches don't want him unless he
changes the minute he walks
in the door, and then there is the exposure to the Fred Phelps bunch... they're just great at the funeral of an AIDS victim... or other less famous hate mongers.
I've known since I was 18 that I couldn't have kids and, during the years I spent
in Pentecostal style
churches, often did feel condemned, although it is something which is part of who I am and which I can
not change.
I know of several straight couples who were
not allowed to marry
in a certain
church for whatever reason that
church decides, that will
not change.
The adversaries of Humanae Vitae also could
not have foreseen one important historical development that
in retrospect would appear to undermine their demands that the Catholic
Church change with the times: the widespread Protestant collapse, particularly the continuing implosion of the Episcopal
Church and the other branches of Anglicanism.
Those things
in the
Church that can
not be
changed, because they are of the divinely ordered constitution of the
Church, must be reformed when necessary so that they contribute as they ought to the mission.
I wish I were
not one but nothing can
change it as I was raised
in a Baptist
Church by a brutal bigot of a woman.
I think there are some problems
in the
church and we best be addressing them â $ «for
change â $ «then pretending they do
not exist.
Others are even more adamant, however,
in saying that the
Church can
not change a practice that is based on the doctrine of Jesus, the apostles, and centuries of authoritative teaching.
Now maybe I am griping about something I want to see
in churches â $ «as a bigger communal focus â $ «but why
not bring it up â $ «maybe more will
change one of these days?
5oo, ooo priests for 1.2 billion Catholics - There is the answer to why the abusing priests were tolerated.The conclave elected exactly who they wanted to be Pope - Someone who would
not rock the boat.I believe Pope Benedict was advised to retire
in light of the Federal indictment pending so this would
not involve a standing Pope and the possiblity of him being found guilty.I further think this new election of Pope will allow the
Church to
change it's stance on the very controvertial issues the
Church is facing ie.female priests being one, the decisions appearing more acceptable coming from a new head as opposed to reversed stance of standing Pope.This decision to retire,
in the
Churchs» view I believe is damage control and
not neccessarily Pope Benedict's desire.If looked at for what it is - A very slick maneuver indeed.
26, page 635... Now,
in all fairness, their has been a Public Relations campaign recently to remove the «cursed» references to Blacks
in the ever
changing Book of Mormon / and Covenants and Doctrines — «specially since they have a chance to rule the world through Mitt Romney (gggrandson of one of the LDS
church founders, Parley Pratt arrested for murder and treason for attacking and killing members of an army battalion)... Don't look
in up
in Wikipedia — the Mormons have deleted that part of Pratt's history.
Stop The Traffik campaign is a reminder to us
not only of our calling as followers of Christ to participate
in bringing transformational structural
change to our world, but also what could be a defining moment of inspiration for the
church.
The numbers may reflect
not only the
changing roles of women
in the
church over that time period, but
in society as well.
I used to wonder why I was so «weak» and would get so emotional when the people would leave and even mad at myself for
not being able to just become tough and stay more emotionally distant with the people but a few close friends
in the
church told me
not to
change because my reaction simply shows what a caring shepherd I am.
«What millennials really want from the
church is
not a
change in style but a
change in substance.»
Instead, they want the
church to change its position on some very controversial and contentious issues (a key example is the gay / lesbian push for acceptance of a sinful behavior), and that's not going to happen... most especially not in the Roman Catholic Church or Eastern Orthodox C
church to
change its position on some very controversial and contentious issues (a key example is the gay / lesbian push for acceptance of a sinful behavior), and that's
not going to happen... most especially
not in the Roman Catholic
Church or Eastern Orthodox C
Church or Eastern Orthodox
ChurchChurch.
It is
not accidental that Barth's recovery of Anselm precipitated the
change in his program from «Christian Dogmatics» to «
Church Dogmatics.»
It
changed me forever and I have
not been comfortable
in a traditional
church since.
In not belonging to an official «church» this past year and a half it has changed my perspective in ways that I never thought possibl
In not belonging to an official «
church» this past year and a half it has
changed my perspective
in ways that I never thought possibl
in ways that I never thought possible.
But there can be specific
Church forms of homophobia too: pressurising us to
change our sexual orientation (although people who want to seek
change in their orientation should be free to do so, and some find that their sexuality does
change); saying that gay people will go to hell;
not permitting us to work with youth or children (assuming gay people are more likely to be predatory or paedophiles); and holding us back from ministry roles.
You can point out the sin without being judgmental, you can love the sinner but you can
not agree with societal
changes in ordr to be popular with culture... just to get people
in church.
The
church USED to shun evolution, however, these are all things now accepted
in most
churches --(among many other transitions that I haven't named here) because to refuse to adapt to a
changing society is asinine and detrimental to the growth of the
church.
I have had some
changes in my theology regarding
church, and I now believe that we don't plant
churches or go to
church, but we ARE the
church by loving the people around us whom God brings into our lives.
In addition, if / when the church is presented as a / the way to help people with their problems, what happens when people don't get helped, and / or feel like things should have changed in their lives but didn'
In addition, if / when the
church is presented as a / the way to help people with their problems, what happens when people don't get helped, and / or feel like things should have
changed in their lives but didn'
in their lives but didn't?
Not least of the factors
in play was a sharp decline
in anti-Catholicism due to a
changed perception of the Catholic
Church.
He is proof that despite recent
changes in church teaching, the traditional stereotypes have
not yet disappeared.
It seems that proponents for
change aren't interested
in the deeper reasons for the
Church's unique vision of celibate love, dismissing it as merely a pragmatic discipline.
I think we often don't make enough room
in our
churches and lives and families for the death of something, for the navigating of the loss that accompanies deep
change.
They would only believe
in the
Church's sincerity if she
changed in ways she believes she can
not change.
And like this excellent post says and cartoon suggests, I join you
in hoping to see the
Church change to be a place someday where adultery (abuse) survivors — i.e. faithful spouses — are
not presumed guilty of some sin that «caused» their spouse to cheat (and abuse them).
I hadn't intended it to be a comprehensive piece on the faith of millennials, just a commentary on how — generally, based on multiple surveys and my own experience — millennials
in the U.S. long for
change in the
Church that goes beyond worship style and marketing.
I've often watched
in services as my fellow worshippers have chosen
not to sing certain words, while the Presbyterian
Church in America dropped the song from its hymnal after Townend and Getty denied its request to
change the lyric to «The love of God was magnified».
I agree with the model
in principle only, it is totally based on traditional
church model and
not on scriptural basis,
not all
churches fall into that category and even if they do we as Christians need to
change the way we have our religious eyes.
My definition of «
church» has definitely
changed over the years, and I find myself leaning more and more toward the idea that the true bride of Christ is a group of living breathing people —
not a building,
not an organization,
not a set of doctrines, etc. — just people who continue on the path toward faith
in God.
(Matt 28:19, 20) Why are they content to speak
in their
church but
not go to individual's homes, as Jesus did, to assist them to make
changes in their personality that conforms to Jesus life pattern,» stripping off the old personality» and putting on the «new personality»?
But it's telling that the first comment from, you, Steve, when David suggests
not even cracking down on, but simply
not being apethetic to abuse of people
in churches, is that there is no utopia, so just accept it and don't bother trying to
change anything.
The people who are
in power and make a living
in the
Church as it is now do
not want
change.
It is
not by sequestering ourselves
in our
churches to say little prayers that we fight, but by
changing human lives.
You defenders of religion keep some interesting company: Osama Bin LLaden, Iraninan Mullahs, Saudi Wahabists (who will cut your head off
in public if you preach anything but Islam), Joe Smith who preached that black people did
not have souls (the
church changed it mind after the civil rights act and are now bigotted against gay people), the Taliban, the pope and his child rapists, ignorant & stupid evangelicals who think that revelations is a roadmap to the future.
The
Church is
not a finished, solidly built and furnished house,
in which all that
changes is the successive generations who live
in it.
A
Church That Can and Can
not Change: The Development of Catholic Moral Teaching by john t. noonan, jr. university of notre dame press, 280 pp., $ 30 Doctrinal development follows a different course
in social ethics than
in the realm of revelation.
For life within the Catholic
Church, the stumbling - block as regards
change in the
Church's doctrine is
not so much the question of defined dogmas as other doctrines of the
Church in dogmatic and moral theology which are taught authoritatively but which
in principle can
not count as defined doctrines of faith or as irreformable dogma.
The movement, called «Jesus for NZ» released a statement,
in which Pastor Ross Smith said: «We feel that the
Church does
not have a voice
in this
change and we are here to
change that.»
It does
not mean that anything has
changed in terms of the theological and ecclesial distance between the Catholic
Church and Pentecostal or evangelical ecclesial bodies.
In this view the
Church is
not a stable, immutable institution that has existed since the time of Jesus, founded by him and protected by him from the
changes of the world.
And it should at once be noted also that as long as such a
Church law is
in existence, the character of its obligation, the possibility of being excused or dispensed from it, the possibility of discussing its expediency or the need to
change it, the possibility of knowing oneself
not bound by it
in a particular concrete case etc., are of quite a different kind from any case
in which an immutable divine commandment is involved.
We are concerned with the
change which the
Church itself actively undertakes
in its law and doctrine, and
in which the
Church changes itself, and is
not merely subjected to
change, though of course both sets of
changes mutually affect one another.
Moreover, it has almost
changed its nature today because
in human life it has widened so enormously, whereas the
Church, being simply the teacher of the universal natural law and of apostolic tradition, can
not do more than proclaim general principles.