
A picture with...I assume that's the concrete mixer/pourer...at the worksite.
"...despite how much I like the book, I would guess that the tendency for many would be to lean towards the "cheap grace" view of God and the Church after reading it. Grace certainly is not cheap, and I don't in any way believe that Manning implies so. Any leaning toward this idea would most likely be from our own agendas rather than his...I think Manning does a wonderful job capturing the heart of God, as Abba, and portraying in words the overwhelming love and grace that He pours out on us, his children."This quote sums up my take on what I have read so far. To begin with, Manning (unfortunately) sounds like he is doing what so many Christian confessions do: confusing the acceptance of God with the salvation of God. This, I know, was not his intent--though indeed, the two seem to be interchangeable in western Christian thought, as it is ultimately God's acceptance of us (as opposed to His opposition and enmity with us) that will save us--but certain statements leave out the very real issue of repentance on the part of the ragamuffin.
"Jesus was accused of being a drunkard and a glutton [with] donkey-peddlers, prostitutes, herdsmen, sloumlords, and gamblers...[and these] ragamuffins discovered that sharing a meal with him was a liberationg experience of sheer joy. He freed them from self-hatred, exhorted them not to confuse their perception of themselves with the mystery they really were, gave them what they needed more than anything else--encouragement for their lives--and dilevered reassuring words such as 'Do not live in fear, little flock; don't be afraid; fear is useless, what is needed is trust; stop worrying; cheer up--your sins are all forgiven.'"Yes, these words were given out, and they are reassuring, no doubt about it. But what were the first words we heard from Christ in His public ministry? "Repent, for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand!" Do they really need "encouragement for their lives" more than actual holiness? Indeed, Zacchaeus, the woman caught in adultery, the prostitute who anointed His feet--all of these figures are significant not only for their being human and sinful and yet allowed in the presence of God, but also for their being repentant and therefore being able to stomach the presence of the holy God-Man. Figures like these are propped up, sans mention of repentance, against self-righteous figures like the rich young ruler who, because of their confidence in keeping the commandments, left Christ with gloom, as opposed to the "ragamuffins," who were moral degenerates who knew they had nothing on God and who were joyously responsive to His grace. This is nice, but the two traits--being morally bankrupt and ALSO repentant--do not necessarily walk hand in hand, and this is what Manning misses, I think. What of the ragamuffins who want nothing to do with repentance? What of their meals with the Master? (of which we never read, but still).
It is not believeable to say that the apostles were either ignorant of the whole scope of the message which they had to declare, or that they failed to make known to all men the entire rule of faith. Let us see, then, whether--even though the apostles proclaimed it simply and fully--the churches, through their own fault, proclaimed it differently than had the apostles. You will find that the heretics put forward all these suggestions of distrust.... Suppose, then, that all churches have erred. Suppose that the apostle was mistaken in giving his testimony. Suppose that the Holy Spirit had insufficient concern for any one church as to lead it into truth--although He was sent for this reason by Christ.... Suppose also, that He, the Steward of God, the Vicar of Christ, neglected His office, permitting the churches for a time to understand differently--to believe differently--than what He Himself was preaching through the apostles. If so, is it likely that so many churches, and they so great, should have gone astray into one and the same faith? No accident distributed among many men leads to one and the same result. Error of doctrine in the churches must necessarily have produced various results. However, when that which is deposited among many is found to be one and the same--it is not the result of men, but of tradition. Can anyone, then, be reckless enough to say that the ones who handed on the tradition were in error?While there were very real controversies in the early Church over various things--the exact layout of the Trinity, the church calendar, the exact way in which Christ was divine--many of the "big issues" Protestants raise are answered uniformly by this tradition of the universal Church. I know it was personally this consensus that made me make the jump from Baptist to examine the ancient apostolic communions' claims. While I do grant that it ultimately was *my* (perhaps erroneous? Not that I can tell, but...) decision to join the Orthodox Church, I find some comfort in knowing that, in all the Churches that follow this tradition--only 3: The Orthodox, the Catholics, and the Non-Chalcedonian churches--this former Evalgelical's "big issues" of