>
>To be sure, these societies are producing saints at an early period, and
>certainly, the people in these places were encouraged to feel as though they
>had undergone a true conversion experience. But how many Anglo-Saxons,
>other than those associated with the Church, could have discussed the
>meaning of the Trinity, the nature of Christ, or other finer points of
>theology?
How many people in the late twentieth century who call themselves
Christians would be able to do this? I used to be astounded at the
ignorance of fellow members of my church--until I realized that "being a
Christian" and "understanding Christianity" are two very different things.
Let's beware, lest in our own erudition we impose impossible standards of
"right" Christianity. Judging from friends who have converted, it seems
that internal conversion often comes first, followed by the dogma, "faith
seeking understanding," as Anselm said.
Phyllis
Phyllis G. Jestice
[log in to unmask]
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|