tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34380506.post5928439759008948951..comments2007-11-09T12:23:32.911-06:00crevonoreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34380506.post-62733824323704036762007-11-09T10:43:00.000-06:002007-11-09T10:43:00.000-06:00Well, I'm a Catholic reader, in that I'm a United Methodist and we are part of the One Holy Catholic Church as surely as anyone, so I'll throw in my 2 cents:<BR/><BR/>You said: "Anyway, at least as I see it from what I've read and heard, these are the main divides:<BR/><BR/>1) What is the Church -- an institution or a gathering of believers?<BR/>2) Is God's primary way of interacting through the Church or directly to individuals?"<BR/><BR/>I think these questions do get at the ecclesiological debate the way it has been framed since the Reformation. I wonder, however, if the standard ways of asking these questions since the reformation, don't present us with a false dichotomy?<BR/><BR/>What if the church is neither magisterium-led institution nor gathering of individual believers but rather a visible (not invisible) covenant community, in which the individual's identity is derived from the community's covenant with God and not the other way around. This I think is more consistent with God's dealings with Ancient Israel, and is less dependent upon the Western Individualism that was emerging at the time of the Reformation. And of course changing over to these categories will have all sorts of ecclesiological implications.Daniel McLain Hixonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09314281652215835311noreply@blogger.com