In a message dated 5/9/00 11:38:01 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
twarlick@... writes:

<< We therefor want to see *more* people in all churches, not less.
 
 For more information about the purpose of this list, see the CUC homepage at
 the following url:
 http://www.inlink.com/~cc3c/cuc/
 
 Your reference to negative descriptions of the early history of a Christian
 church serves to build bridges with no one >>

Tim and all,
My reference to less people and more Christians is a protest against the 
tabulation of members without regard to actual commitment. For example, the 
rule that the church made around the millennium, that one was obliged to 
attend Mass on Sunday was a bad one in my opinion. Any Christian worth 
her/his salt knows that the Eucharistic assembly is where the true follower 
of Christ belongs and not to attend would be unthinkable. The word 
obligation, in my view, is a no no for a true Christian. Commitment is the 
proper word. There are too many people who attend church as a matter of 
social status. People used to put on their resumes, "Presbyterian" or 
"Episcopalian." Too many church officials have catered to the powerful and 
materialistic in our society and not realizing that our primary obligation is 
to witness to the gospel of Christ.
With reference to your second point, we cannot understand the present without 
understanding the past. There is enough blame to go around and I agree to 
blame one segment of Christianity would be non ecumenical. But people do want 
to know how things did deteriorate in Christianity and a truthful rendering 
of history answers this question which is in the minds of many. This is why 
we say that the church must constantly be reforming itself. Thus many say 
that we have to bring Christianity back into Christendom.
Thirdly, as the RCC and other churches have done recently with an apology for 
past undesirable practices, we bring a necessary element to reunion and 
reconciliation of all believers in God. Does this clarify things?

Peace

Bill