Author, Adjunct Professor, Clergy, Grant Writer, Group Fitness Instructor, Cat Lady J. Dana Trent
Pastor, Musician, Writer, Passionate about Wales, Phil Wyman
Twisted Sisterds Podcast, Theologian, Cultural Commentator, Becky Seville
The Reformation is over. Protestants won. So why are we still here? Comments and a question posed by Dr. Stanley Hauerwas, Gilbert T. Rowe emeritus professor at Duke Divinity School, in a recent article in the Washington Post. In this episode, the Rev. and the Prof. are joined by Author and Professor J. Dana Trent, The Welsh Troubadour Phil Wyman, and Twisted Sisterds Podcaster Becky Seville to discuss the Protestant Reformation 500 years hence.
A Jew and A Gentile walk into a Bar . . . Mitzvah 
Coming from the Eastern lung of Christianity, looking at the Reformation’s goal and progress over the last 500 years I would have to call it an abject failure. The purpose, as I understand it, was to address certain issues with the Roman Catholic Church at the time. While the Reformation did address and, to the most part, eliminate the issues in the church that was created out of the process, since then it has proven to be a failure from the viewpoint of Paul.
1Cor 12:13: What I mean is that each one of you says, “I belong to Paul,” or “I belong to Apol′los,” or “I belong to Cephas,” or “I belong to Christ.” Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?
Since the Reformation the resultant church had done little but divide, to the point that there are now over 33,000 denominations (World Christian Encyclopedia). A friend of mine was a minister in the AoG, during his tenure with the AoG he experience 3 separations, the first occurred when the organ broke and part of the congregation objected to its repair, so they left; the second occurred when a man in a wheelchair was Baptized by sprinkling as they had no method of getting him into the font, they claimed he wasn’t Baptized since he wasn’t immersed and would have nothing to do with a church that permitted the act; the final break, ending in his being fired, was when a parishioner married a Catholic woman, he was invited by the priest to co-officiate at the wedding, which he graciously accepted.
Is this what the reformers had in mind at the time?
LikeLike