Uh, yeah, what Balog & mak wrote.
Care to elaborate, or is this just saying I am not religious enough to understand?
You don't have to have a drop of religious conviction to understand. Understanding human nature can come in handy, though.
The underlying problem of the mainline churches cannot be solved by new programs of church development alone. That problem is the weakening of the spiritual conviction required to generate the enthusiasm and energy needed to sustain a vigorous communal life. Somehow, in the course of the past century, these churches lost the will or the ability to teach the Christian faith and what it requires to a succession of younger cohorts in such a way as to command their allegiance. Admittedly, doing so has become increasingly difficult for churches as close to the very center of American culture and institutional life as the mainline denominations are. The challenges posed to Christianity by various secular ideologies and moral systems have been truly formidable in recent times. Mainline Protestants in general and Presbyterians in particular are well educated. Many of their forebears read such authors as Darwin, H. L. Mencken, and Aldous Huxley. In response to the currents of modernity, denominational leaders promoted ecumenism and dialogue, but they did not devise or promote compelling new versions of a distinctively Christian faith. They did not fashion or preach a vigorous apologetics.
To put it another way, the USMC's adherents have much greater enthusiasm
because, not despite, the USMC requiring more commitment and conviction than, say, do the Elks or the Rotary Club. And the USMC is willing to back it up with action and unabashed apologetics.
Mainline prot denoms with liberal
theology have just about changed their views such that there is no need for them. A sign on the front door reading "Vote for social justice as defined this week." sums up their theology.
Martin Luther: "Here I am, I can do no other."(1)
Mainline Prot Minister: "Here I am, but I can move elsewhere if my position in any way causes you to be uncomfortable or my position is such that I may take incoming fire from the ruling class."
How is someone in the pews supposed to have any enthusiasm or hold any conviction if the guy behind the pulpit is a mealy-mouthed sack "meh" with no conviction?
========
And the Pope, while the leader of the RC Church, is not the sole arbiter of RC doctrine. It takes years & years to work through such issues through a maze of canon lawyers, bishops, councils, and cardinals. If it is in the RC Catechism, a RC can be pretty confident it is doctrine.
(1) Somewhat apocryphal, but still useful. A more accurate rendering and context: "Unless I am convinced by the testimony of the Holy Scriptures or by evident reason-for I can believe neither pope nor councils alone, as it is clear that they have erred repeatedly and contradicted themselves-I consider myself convicted by the testimony of Holy Scripture, which is my basis; my conscience is captive to the Word of God. Thus I cannot and will not recant, because acting against one's conscience is neither safe nor sound. God help me. Amen." Just as strong, more precise, but rendering the same sentiment.
