SOME CLARIFICATIONS ABOUT DIFFERENT FORMS OF CHRISTIANITY

Let’s start with the more extreme forms of conservative Protestantism, FUNDAMENTALISM and Pentecostalism. The first got its name from the publication of a series of paperback books called “The Fundamentals” (around 1900), which on the surface seemed to reinforce the most conservative Christian beliefs. In fact, several of these authors were not as conservative as the others, but not many folks noticed. Chief among these basic beliefs were (and are) 1. the inerrancy of the original texts of the Bible (which no one has actually seen) as presented in the King James translation, 2. the full Divinity of Jesus Christ, 3. the Trinitarian nature of God, and 4. the Final triumph of God’s rule, with sinners going to hell and Believers going to Heaven, everlastingly.

Pentecostalists often also profess these same fundamentalist beliefs, but for the most part they do not focus much on drawing fine doctrinal distinctions. Their emphasis is on the Life of the Holy Spirit, especially in active, free worship, often including speaking in tongues and the healing of both bodily and spiritual infirmities. There are a few types of “denominational” groups, often called “Holiness” churches, and a great many Independent churches. Right next to these groups, one could also place Mormons (Latter Day Saints) and Seventh Day Adventists, each with its own “special” divergences from traditional Christian beliefs.

At the opposite end of the continuum stand LIBERAL churches, a modern movement that arose around the same time as Fundamentalism but rejected the more traditional stance, with an increasing number of believers who did not take the Bible “literally” and sought an interpretation that better fit modern scientific and theological thought. Methodists, Presbyterians, Episcopalians, and Baptists, by and large, moved in this direction, seeking not to take the Bible literally and to embrace modern cultural norms. Most American Christians would fall into this category. Beginning around 1950, a movement toward a “Neo-Orthodox” Christianity emerged that seeks to stand between these two approaches, as well as an “Evangelical” form of Protestantism that seeks to be faithful to the main emphases of the Christian Faith without being overly “doctrinaire”. Many such churches exist within the structure of nearly every denomination today.    

Throughout, the Roman Catholic Church stands, having undergone many changes in doctrine and emphasis in recent years, reflecting its own developments during the 20^th Century, especially through the Vatican Councils and the ecumenical and World Council of Churches movements. Many, perhaps most, Catholic Churches are doctrinally rather traditional, yet politically “radical.” In my own experience, I have been mostly Protestant, sometimes Catholic, and largely liberal in doctrine and social action. Theological Seminaries also vary widely, with both mainline and independent ones being quite diverse. My emphasis is on solid Biblical scholarship and strong socio/political action.  

In recent years, Mari and I have grown tired of almost all “traditional” churches and have yet to find another that carries genuine Christian roots with “modern” emphases. If you go “looking,” you will find a whole host of more or less “traditional” denominations and/or congregations. You might be surprised to learn that many “off-the-main-line” Christian groups are available. Here’s just a beginning list of church groups that take a less traditional approach to historical Christianity than the “main-liners”:   

SPLINTER GROUPS OFF OF TRADITIONAL PROTESTANT CHRISTIANITY

Southern Baptists

Free Methodists

Nazarene Christianity

Amish Christianity

Mennonite Christianity

Quaker Christianity

Freewill Baptists

Plymouth Brethren

Pentecostal Christianity

Seventh-day Adventist

Latter-day Saints

Fundamental Churches of America

African Methodist

 

Three Card Draw

For the past several years, I have been playing my own little mind game about whether I can outlive my favorite movie and sports stars. Gene Hackman and Robert Duvall were in the “Final Five,” along with me, Willie Nelson, and Bob Cousy. In recent years, both Hackman and Duvall have passed on to the “other side.” Now it seems Willie, who is a couple of months younger than I, is also nearing the end. After he departs, that just leaves me and ‘the Cooze” “dashing”: O) for the finish line.

For many years, Hackman and Duvall were my favorite actors. The number and diversity of roles they each played throughout their long careers are truly amazing: everything from detectives and basketball coaches to cowboys and gangsters, they could do it all with skill and character. De Niro and Dustin Hoffman are right up there, but they aren’t old enough yet to be in my own special “Hall of Fame” of greats. Of course, De Niro usually played “tough guys,” soldiers, gangsters, or boxers, while Dustin’s range, from “Tootsie” and “Ben” the graduate to the street bum Ricco Ratzo, remains over the top.

These were my main favorites over the past 50 years, but Willie and Cousy remain alive and at the top of my list. Cousy was the dominant point guard for the fantastic Boston Celtics throughout the 1950s. A little guy from Holy Cross College, he razzed and dazzled fans and opponents for over a decade alongside Bill Russell and other Celtic stars. He is now 98 and still kickin’, though no longer on the hardwood. For a genuine treat, check out some films of his skills and antics from his prime. He lives in the greater Boston area and occasionally attends a Celtics game.

Willie, as we all know, will soon turn 94, just a couple of months before me. I never got to see or hear Willie in person, but I did get to see Cousy display his magic in the Boston Garden back in the day. I truly hope that I die before he does, because he was “the greatest with the mostest,” whether on the checkered court of the Boston Garden or anywhere else. He deserves to win this silly hypothetical contest of “three-card draw” I have dreamed up:O)