Should we now be Evangelize and spread the Good News to those who are disillusioned?

[Prufrock]

Unfortunately, Dennis, I don't think it can be reduced to just a semantic exercise. Terms represent concepts, and once there is conceptual confusion on this topic, every passage in scripture which has an Evangelistic thrust begins to be applied equally to all believers - and so lays a law and burden upon them which not only is not theirs to bear, but would be impossible for them to bear while faithfully carrying out their other necessary duties.

 

[he beholds]

Paul, I think your analysis is fine and well, but this is becoming a semantic exercise, don't you think? It's helpful that you're making the distinction because it's always good to keep exegesis primary. Biblical terminology and Christianese terms often get mashed together. But tacking on the word "official" to the words evangelism and witnessing is quite foreign to my ears, to be honest.

Every believer has the responsibility, the duty, to be salt and light, to hold forth a good conversation, to live lives worthy of Christ's calling before men, to be ready to give an answer to every man, etc.

This job description you've given, most people call "evangelism." The job description you've given of an "official evangelist" most people call "the pastorate." The distinctions may be there, but it's causing confusion with words that we use all the time. The disagreements are purely semantic, in my opinion.

Unfortunately, Dennis, I don't think it can be reduced to just a semantic exercise. Terms represent concepts, and once there is conceptual confusion on this topic, every passage in scripture which has an Evangelistic thrust begins to be applied equally to all believers - and so lays a law and burden upon them which not only is not theirs to bear, but would be impossible for them to bear while faithfully carrying out their other necessary duties.

I think Dennis is on to something. What are those who say we can't evangelize people actually saying? I am not trying to pastor anyone. I thought evangelize means "bear the message of the good news." I do not see that as an object only of ordained men. I am not trying to equivocate the meaning of evangelism; I am thinking that as a Christian, I am called to share the good news.

Maybe we who believe that all Christians are called to this have no idea what the "no" contingent on this thread is really saying.


I have heard a Reformed sermon that stated that the Great Commission begins in the home, upon raising and discipling children. That is where we get the most natural members of the church. I did not hear this pastor saying, "But to do this, you must be ordained." So why would we be allowed to
evangelize our children, but not others? I would think that all of the parents on this thread would certainly see that, in the very least, we are to share the good news with our children. So I don't see anyone saying that is wrong. But what are they saying? You have to realize what we who are saying "yes" to all evangelizing are saying, right?

 

[steadfast7]

Unfortunately, Dennis, I don't think it can be reduced to just a semantic exercise. Terms represent concepts, and once there is conceptual confusion on this topic, every passage in scripture which has an Evangelistic thrust begins to be applied equally to all believers - and so lays a law and burden upon them which not only is not theirs to bear, but would be impossible for them to bear while faithfully carrying out their other necessary duties.

But we agree there IS a "law and burden" to do as you say:

Every believer has the responsibility, the duty, to be salt and light, to hold forth a good conversation, to live lives worthy of Christ's calling before men, to be ready to give an answer to every man, etc.

Again, this is what most Christians term 'evangelism'. This is part of the Christian dialect and is widely used and should be accepted as colloquial speech. We should give people the benefit of the doubt that when they read Scripture, they can tell the difference between pulpit and personal ministry. The terms clergy vs. lay, or full time ministry vs. lay are already at our disposal to make the distinction. The only confusion that I see happening from the beginning of this thread lies in the "official vs. non-official" evangelism distinction that leads to the misunderstanding that not just believer can/should evangelize. The misunderstanding, I think, stems from the fact that this way of defining 'evangelism' is a minority position and is not accepted by the wider community hence the negative reaction. i'm not making any judgments on whether the exegesis is right or wrong, just trying to look at this debate linguistically.

 

[Rich Koster]

I recently had a chance to talk with a hospice nurse, who is a former nun. She is disillusioned with the pedophiles who were under protection and the lackluster way the leadership dealt with this issue. I read from the scriptures, to my dad, in her presence. I read aloud the prayers in the back of the 1599 Geneva Bible, also. I don't believe anyone would find that problematic. If God is calling her, I trust He will bring her into the Body of Christ.

 

[earl40]

There is no New Testament office of witness.

Acts 2:21-22.

I don't understand why it seems so many keep implying that those who claim Evangelism belongs to the ministry think those not in the ministry have no responsibilities whatsoever, or are "not allowed" to speak of Christ to those outside the church. This is clearly not what anyone has said. Every believer has the responsibility, the duty, to be salt and light, to hold forth a good conversation, to live lives worthy of Christ's calling before men, to be ready to give an answer to every man, etc. No one has said or implied that conversation by church members with non-church members about Christ and his grace is forbidden, discouraged, frowned upon or any such thing - on the contrary, it is greatly encouraged. What is being stated is simply that all of those things are not to be confused with Evangelism, which is the official proclamation of Christ by one ordained and sent for this purpose, being equipped for the same, and able to perform it according to its fullest by way of the ordained/ordinary means. When people say "Evangelism does not belong to all," this is what they mean. It means all Christians will not be called to account for those whom they have not warned (as Ezek. 33) - for to do such requires that task of official witnessing to be the whole course of one's life; and that is not possible for one faithfully carrying out their secular vocation in life. No one is giving Christians an excuse for anything; no one is saying Christians are not to be concerned with the lost; no one is saying Christians can't or shouldn't speak about Christ with their neighbor; etc. etc. etc.

Can you understand the confusion we are having here? You appear to be saying it is OK to evangelize if one is not ordained to do so "No one has said or implied that conversation by church members with non-church members about Christ and his grace is forbidden, discouraged, frowned upon or any such thing - on the contrary, it is greatly encouraged".

 

[Theoretical]

There is no New Testament office of witness.

Acts 2:21-22.

I don't understand why it seems so many keep implying that those who claim Evangelism belongs to the ministry think those not in the ministry have no responsibilities whatsoever, or are "not allowed" to speak of Christ to those outside the church. This is clearly not what anyone has said. Every believer has the responsibility, the duty, to be salt and light, to hold forth a good conversation, to live lives worthy of Christ's calling before men, to be ready to give an answer to every man, etc. No one has said or implied that conversation by church members with non-church members about Christ and his grace is forbidden, discouraged, frowned upon or any such thing - on the contrary, it is greatly encouraged. What is being stated is simply that all of those things are not to be confused with Evangelism, which is the official proclamation of Christ by one ordained and sent for this purpose, being equipped for the same, and able to perform it according to its fullest by way of the ordained/ordinary means. When people say "Evangelism does not belong to all," this is what they mean. It means all Christians will not be called to account for those whom they have not warned (as Ezek. 33) - for to do such requires that task of official witnessing to be the whole course of one's life; and that is not possible for one faithfully carrying out their secular vocation in life. No one is giving Christians an excuse for anything; no one is saying Christians are not to be concerned with the lost; no one is saying Christians can't or shouldn't speak about Christ with their neighbor; etc. etc. etc.

Can you understand the confusion we are having here? You appear to be saying it is OK to evangelize if one is not ordained to do so "No one has said or implied that conversation by church members with non-church members about Christ and his grace is forbidden, discouraged, frowned upon or any such thing - on the contrary, it is greatly encouraged".

The problem is that the lay member is not invested with the authority to officially proclaim Christ and administer the sacraments. It is absolutely important for the lost to hear of their need to repent and believe in Christ from their lay friends, neighbors, and families; but the work of the pastor towards the lost is distinctly different. Our efforts may be the means used to convict someone and bring him or her to faith, but that is not the same as faithfully proclaiming the Word and someone becoming joined to the visible church.

It may seem like mere semantics, but how many other words in Christianity are important and yet "fiddly" to an outside observer? I would also ask why it's so important that lay efforts be identified as "evangelism."

I've spoken with a number of Reformed ministers and elders who have a high view of office and who would say that Evangelism is only a duty of an officer, and I have never once been discouraged from trying to engage the lost around me, including atheists and backslidden types. To the contrary, I've described how assertive I am in seeking to defend the faith and urge others to come to repentance and I've received nothing but encouragement for it. I do sometimes call what I or others do in this regard as "evangelism," but it's old habit rather than doctrinal principle. What the office-only view of Evangelism has done is allow me to be bold and faithful in my interactions with others, and to encourage people to come under the ministry of the Word to be evangelized. It's helped me grasp my own limits and function within a churchly, spiritually nurturing part of the Body of Christ.

 

[earl40]

There is no New Testament office of witness.

Acts 2:21-22.

I don't understand why it seems so many keep implying that those who claim Evangelism belongs to the ministry think those not in the ministry have no responsibilities whatsoever, or are "not allowed" to speak of Christ to those outside the church. This is clearly not what anyone has said. Every believer has the responsibility, the duty, to be salt and light, to hold forth a good conversation, to live lives worthy of Christ's calling before men, to be ready to give an answer to every man, etc. No one has said or implied that conversation by church members with non-church members about Christ and his grace is forbidden, discouraged, frowned upon or any such thing - on the contrary, it is greatly encouraged. What is being stated is simply that all of those things are not to be confused with Evangelism, which is the official proclamation of Christ by one ordained and sent for this purpose, being equipped for the same, and able to perform it according to its fullest by way of the ordained/ordinary means. When people say "Evangelism does not belong to all," this is what they mean. It means all Christians will not be called to account for those whom they have not warned (as Ezek. 33) - for to do such requires that task of official witnessing to be the whole course of one's life; and that is not possible for one faithfully carrying out their secular vocation in life. No one is giving Christians an excuse for anything; no one is saying Christians are not to be concerned with the lost; no one is saying Christians can't or shouldn't speak about Christ with their neighbor; etc. etc. etc.

Can you understand the confusion we are having here? You appear to be saying it is OK to evangelize if one is not ordained to do so "No one has said or implied that conversation by church members with non-church members about Christ and his grace is forbidden, discouraged, frowned upon or any such thing - on the contrary, it is greatly encouraged".

The problem is that the lay member is not invested with the authority to officially proclaim Christ and administer the sacraments. It is absolutely important for the lost to hear of their need to repent and believe in Christ from their lay friends, neighbors, and families; but the work of the pastor towards the lost is distinctly different. Our efforts may be the means used to convict someone and bring him or her to faith, but that is not the same as faithfully proclaiming the Word and someone becoming joined to the visible church.

It may seem like mere semantics, but how many other words in Christianity are important and yet "fiddly" to an outside observer? I would also ask why it's so important that lay efforts be identified as "evangelism."

I've spoken with a number of Reformed ministers and elders who have a high view of office and who would say that Evangelism is only a duty of an officer, and I have never once been discouraged from trying to engage the lost around me, including atheists and backslidden types. To the contrary, I've described how assertive I am in seeking to defend the faith and urge others to come to repentance and I've received nothing but encouragement for it. I do sometimes call what I or others do in this regard as "evangelism," but it's old habit rather than doctrinal principle. What the office-only view of Evangelism has done is allow me to be bold and faithful in my interactions with others, and to encourage people to come under the ministry of the Word to be evangelized. It's helped me grasp my own limits and function within a churchly, spiritually nurturing part of the Body of Christ.

I wish I could say your post help my confusion over this topic. I do agree that all are not called to be evangelists though from what you wrote "The problem is that the lay member is not invested with the authority to officially proclaim Christ and administer the sacraments. It is absolutely important for the lost to hear of their need to repent and believe in Christ from their lay friends".

I am really not trying to be contra here but can you understand how many can say one can not be an evangelist unless they are called by the church to do so in one breath and the next breath say "absolutely important for the lost to hear of their need to repent and believe in Christ from their lay friends".

Maybe I have the wrong idea what an evangelist is?

 

[Theoretical]

The goal of evangelism is to "teach them to observe all things whatsoever I (Christ) have commanded you". It is not "making a decision for Christ". It is entering into a life, a Covenant community where every decision, from now until you die, is made for Christ. There is nothing in Scripture precluding any Christian from speaking to others about this life, and what the Lord has done for him in delivering him from his sins, just like Christ told the Gadarene Demoniac to do. But that is not the same as the great commission, where the authoritative word of the ambassador of Christ is accompanied by the seals of that Word--the sacraments. The ordained Gospel Preacher is an ambassador of Christ, and has the commission of Christ to proclaim that message of liberty--that is why Paul used the term "ambassador" in 2 Corinthians 5.18-20. When Church members speak about Christ, they speak from their own experience. This is not to be minimized, except when the lines become blurred between personal witness bearing and official functions. When ministers speak of Christ, they speak by way of Christ's commission, and carry the seals of that authority.

No one has said or implied that conversation by church members with non-church members about Christ and his grace is forbidden, discouraged, frowned upon or any such thing - on the contrary, it is greatly encouraged. What is being stated is simply that all of those things are not to be confused with Evangelism, which is the official proclamation of Christ by one ordained and sent for this purpose, being equipped for the same, and able to perform it according to its fullest by way of the ordained/ordinary means. When people say "Evangelism does not belong to all," this is what they mean. It means all Christians will not be called to account for those whom they have not warned (as Ezek. 33) - for to do such requires that task of official witnessing to be the whole course of one's life; and that is not possible for one faithfully carrying out their secular vocation in life. No one is giving Christians an excuse for anything; no one is saying Christians are not to be concerned with the lost; no one is saying Christians can't or shouldn't speak about Christ with their neighbor; etc. etc. etc.

Earl, to address your concern in the last sentence:

Maybe I have the wrong idea what an evangelist is?

Rev. Ruddell and Mr. Korte have sought to answer that question, and did so better than I could. I don't speak for either of them and they may disagree with some of my own views, but the point of the role of an evangelist is that it's a MUCH higher calling, with far greater responsibilities in the Kingdom, than that of simply telling others about Christ. I would seriously question the profession of a layman who scorned the opportunity to talk with a lost friend about Christ and never invited that person to hear the Word preached. But if it is the duty of a layman, then by all means most of us who have secular vocations and spend the bulk of the day in ordinary work duties and taking care of our families need to be placed under immediate church discipline for dereliction of the duty of a believer for not actively "evangelizing" as much as we possibly can.

 

[earl40]

The goal of evangelism is to "teach them to observe all things whatsoever I (Christ) have commanded you". It is not "making a decision for Christ". It is entering into a life, a Covenant community where every decision, from now until you die, is made for Christ. There is nothing in Scripture precluding any Christian from speaking to others about this life, and what the Lord has done for him in delivering him from his sins, just like Christ told the Gadarene Demoniac to do. But that is not the same as the great commission, where the authoritative word of the ambassador of Christ is accompanied by the seals of that Word--the sacraments. The ordained Gospel Preacher is an ambassador of Christ, and has the commission of Christ to proclaim that message of liberty--that is why Paul used the term "ambassador" in 2 Corinthians 5.18-20. When Church members speak about Christ, they speak from their own experience. This is not to be minimized, except when the lines become blurred between personal witness bearing and official functions. When ministers speak of Christ, they speak by way of Christ's commission, and carry the seals of that authority.

No one has said or implied that conversation by church members with non-church members about Christ and his grace is forbidden, discouraged, frowned upon or any such thing - on the contrary, it is greatly encouraged. What is being stated is simply that all of those things are not to be confused with Evangelism, which is the official proclamation of Christ by one ordained and sent for this purpose, being equipped for the same, and able to perform it according to its fullest by way of the ordained/ordinary means. When people say "Evangelism does not belong to all," this is what they mean. It means all Christians will not be called to account for those whom they have not warned (as Ezek. 33) - for to do such requires that task of official witnessing to be the whole course of one's life; and that is not possible for one faithfully carrying out their secular vocation in life. No one is giving Christians an excuse for anything; no one is saying Christians are not to be concerned with the lost; no one is saying Christians can't or shouldn't speak about Christ with their neighbor; etc. etc. etc.

Earl, to address your concern in the last sentence:

Maybe I have the wrong idea what an evangelist is?

Rev. Ruddell and Mr. Korte have sought to answer that question, and did so better than I could. I don't speak for either of them and they may disagree with some of my own views, but the point of the role of an evangelist is that it's a MUCH higher calling, with far greater responsibilities in the Kingdom, than that of simply telling others about Christ. I would seriously question the profession of a layman who scorned the opportunity to talk with a lost friend about Christ and never invited that person to hear the Word preached. But if it is the duty of a layman, then by all means most of us who have secular vocations and spend the bulk of the day in ordinary work duties and taking care of our families need to be placed under immediate church discipline for dereliction of the duty of a believer for not actively "evangelizing" as much as we possibly can.

I can see we totally agree on this issue and the function of an evangelist was the problem and how I misunderstood what many meant here concerning this office which would be an interesting topic all in of itself.

Thanks and blessings to you.

 

[MW]

Any consideration of Stephen, who basically held the office of church kitchen staff, but was powerfully used by God in the preaching of the gospel through deed, word, and death? Acts 6.

Church kitchen staff? Acts 6:5, the whole multitude chose Stephen; verse 6, the apostles prayed and laid their hands on him; verse 8, Stephen did great wonders and miracles among the people. Church kitchen staff?

 

[dudley]

What I find interesting is why the RC are leaving. For me, I left the RCC because of the schizophrenic teachings/theology, but many in my family are still RC and my from own experience, I know how they put their trust in the RC “church” first rather than in Christ. The RCC is a mess, yet a home for many growing up in this tradition. The folks leaving the RCC are used to having a church home and I believe will be looking for a new one. Where we might focus our witness is showing the primacy of the person and work of Christ as revealed in the Scriptures (which are also ignored by the RCC for the most part) as opposed to the grandeur and pomp and cult of the pope of the RCC.

Michael I am like you and ex roman catholic and now a Presbyterian Protestant and It is by showing the primacy of the person and work of Christ as revealed in the Scriptures (which are also ignored by the RCC for the most part) as opposed to the grandeur and pomp and cult of the pope of the RCC, the pope and the RCC in my own mind I now renounce as did the reformers and I know other ex roman catholioc' s turned protestant feel the the same repulsion about Roman cattholicism after being born again and experincing a true Protestant comnversion as I have experinced. I think others can be brought to Christ in the same way and rescued for the bodage of popery and the RCC.

 

[steadfast7]

Any consideration of Stephen, who basically held the office of church kitchen staff, but was powerfully used by God in the preaching of the gospel through deed, word, and death? Acts 6.

Church kitchen staff? Acts 6:5, the whole multitude chose Stephen; verse 6, the apostles prayed and laid their hands on him; verse 8, Stephen did great wonders and miracles among the people. Church kitchen staff?

1Now in these days when the disciples were increasing in number, a complaint by the Hellenistsa arose against the Hebrews because their widows were being neglected in the daily distribution. 2And the twelve summoned the full number of the disciples and said, “It is not right that we should give up preaching the word of God to serve tables. 3Therefore, brothers, pick out from among you seven men of good repute, full of the Spirit and of wisdom, whom we will appoint to this duty. 4But we will devote ourselves to prayer and to the ministry of the word.” 5And what they said pleased the whole gathering, and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit, and Philip, and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicolaus, a proselyte of Antioch. 6These they set before the apostles, and they prayed and laid their hands on them.

Note:
1. what they were "ordained" to do: ensure equal portions of food were distributed
2. in order that the apostles could teach and preach
3. they were not ordained as teaching officers in the church, nor given title of evangelist

although this was Stephen's official assignment from the church and Apostles, God used him for a powerful, but short, preaching/evangelistic ministry.

---------- Post added at 11:43 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:35 AM ----------

"church kitchen staff" is my own modern rendering paralleling what they were tasked to do. No offense meant.

 

[Prufrock]

"church kitchen staff" is my own modern rendering paralleling what they were tasked to do. No offense meant.

I understand you may not have meant any offense. But a friendly suggestion to avoid causing any offense: if you should ever be newly introduced to a deacon, I would recommend not saying, "You must be the kitchen staff."

 

[he beholds]

"church kitchen staff" is my own modern rendering paralleling what they were tasked to do. No offense meant.

I understand you may not have meant any offense. But a friendly suggestion to avoid causing any offense: if you should ever be newly introduced to a deacon, I would recommend not saying, "You must be the kitchen staff."

I know we say they were deacons, but we sort of just guess at that, right? So this doesn't mean that Dennis thinks of deacons like this.

 

[Pergamum]

I am finding it distressing that when faced by an OP about the wide opportunity to evangelize Catholics, the thread has degraded into yet another debate about who can legitimately evangelize.

 

[steadfast7]

Ok, so "kitchen staff" is a bit of a free paraphrase of what the apostles called "serving tables." We're splitting hairs. I still stand by my understanding of the narrative (unless shown otherwise) that dishing out food was basically what they were ordained to do. BTW, I'd like to ask what offense is to be taken at this anyway? Stephen would not have been offended at being given a practical role that helped to bring Jew and Gentile together at the same table. There is nothing undignified or demeaning about being kitchen staff or waiting tables. In fact it is a great honour to be kitchen staff for the Jerusalem church. Our Lord was a carpenter, his closest friends were fishermen. May everything we do be done to the glory of God.

conclusion this digression re: Stephen ... he held an office that was specifically distinguished from that of preaching/teaching - yet he preached. Sorry for the tangent, all.

 

[MW]

conclusion this digression re: Stephen ... he held an office that was specifically distinguished from that of preaching/teaching - yet he preached. Sorry for the tangent, all.

It is good that you accept he held an ordinary office. Now let's look at verse 8. As other parts of the New Testament declare, these miracles were given for the purpose of confirming the word. Hence Stephen had received an extraordinary call to preach the word.

 

[MW]

I am finding it distressing that when faced by an OP about the wide opportunity to evangelize Catholics, the thread has degraded into yet another debate about who can legitimately evangelize.

If believers are to be urged to act, they should be urged to act in faith, not doubt. The Bible sets forth a general pattern of laying down the things to be believed as a basis for exhorting to the things to be done. Conscience should be instructed and animated, not manipulated.

 

[Pergamum]

Matthew, the OP was mainly about the Ripe Harvest field towards the Catholics. Instead, it broke down into this secondary issue of who can go and why all should not evangelize. This is a classic thread hijack.

 

[MW]

Matthew, the OP was mainly about the Ripe Harvest field towards the Catholics. Instead, it broke down into this secondary issue of who can go and why all should not evangelize. This is a classic thread hijack.

If one desires to see "evangelism," "who" and "how" should be first on the discussion list of topics. Or are we simply desiring to hype people up into a sentimental state in which they can feel good because they feel towards something good?

 

[Pergamum]

The original intent of the Op seems summed up by this sentence;

It may be a time for the Reformed Protestant churches to reach out to any delusioned Catholic at this critical point in church history

Note that churches were addressed and that the main point of the OP was that this is a critical time for churches to be sending the Gospel to Catholics. Thus, Joshua hijacked the thread when he began focusing on who is NOT supposed to evangelize in general, and you have helped keep the thread away from its OP, which was originally about this strategic time in history to mobilize our churches to send people to evangelize Catholics.

 

[MW]

to mobilize our churches to send people to evangelize Catholics.

Who? "people." What people? How are they to be sent? How are they to be equipped? How are they to be held to account? If Joshua has hijacked the thread I am sure he has done it in the interests of steering it to its right destination.

 

[dudley]

I am finding it distressing that when faced by an OP about the wide opportunity to evangelize Catholics, the thread has degraded into yet another debate about who can legitimately evangelize.

Thank you Pergamun, I started this thread with the only purpose in mind that the cuurent horrible scandal involving clergy of the RCC is a tremendous opportunity for many Protestants to evangelize especially among catholics who for the first time in modern history are leaving the RCC in droves....in almost every country in the west....Europe, Catholic Ireland ,the United States are the most affected..I am an ex Roman catholic who by Gods grace was made one of the elect and am now a Reformed Protestant. I am now a Presbyterian ..but when I was disallusioned with the RCC in 2006 it was Protestant friends who reached out to me and invited me to attend Sunday service with them...from that point on the rest is a story of becoming aware of the true Gospel and eventually being born again and finally making my way to make an affirmation of faith as Presbyterian...I am now a avowed Protestant because my journey had me experience as did Calvin "a true Protestant conversion" I think only an ex Roman catholic who has converted to Protestant in this manner I describe can understand what I am saying...a tremendous opportunity to bring many souls out of the bondage of popery and the RCC is open to us....God works miracles and conversions through his people...we are His people..I think the blasphemous sex scandal of RC clergy is Gods way of exposing the false teachings and apostacy of the Roman church....I believe a 2nd Protestant Reformation could be also be at hand....the Roman church is on the verge of a sucidal collapse....I think....these disalussioned catholics can be saved and with our evangelizing them at this time and with Gods grace many could also join us in the ranks of the elect and become Reformed Protestants. The Catholic has never really known a Christ centered Gospel.....I know I did not untill I became a Protestant and a Presbyterian....and it is possible if we do not evangelize them they will fall into the ranks of the non believers...I keep emphasizing here on the PB that 30 million Roman Ctholics in the United States alone have left the RCC in the last 20 years and 15 million are like me and others here on the PB now Protestants, however another 15 million now profess no religious faith at all......it is in Gods plan I believe for us to evangelize the ones he is sending our way by the events and scandal of the RC clergy.....Are we going tpo argue over who evangelizes or maybe just start inviting these questioning catholics to your church for a Sunday service ..a bible calss whatever...but don't waste precious time arguing over who should evangelize...as a Presbyterian I believe we are all ministers of the Gospel by witnessing every day...let us do it!

 

[Pergamum]

The "people" are already designated in the OP as "our churches" as I have quoted above, and thus it is already assumed that anyone sent would be sent from churches. Thus, it can rightly be said that Joshua hijacked the thread and left the main point, which was the great urgency and opportunity now for our churches to engage Catholics with the Gospel and, instead, focused on the side issue of "how" this should be done. In reality, the "how" of sending was never even fully addressed, but the more narrow sub-topic of "who shouldn't be sent" became the focus. This would be better dealt with in another thread.

 

[dudley]

Matthew, the OP was mainly about the Ripe Harvest field towards the Catholics. Instead, it broke down into this secondary issue of who can go and why all should not evangelize. This is a classic thread hijack.

Amen Brother Pergamun and Ditto....

---------- Post added at 01:30 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:29 AM ----------

The "people" are already designated in the OP as "our churches" as I have quoted above, and thus it is already assumed that anyone sent would be sent from churches. Thus, it can rightly be said that Joshua hijacked the thread and left the main point, which was the great urgency and opportunity now for our churches to engage Catholics with the Gospel and, instead, focused on the side issue of "how" this should be done. In reality, the "how" of sending was never even fully addressed, but the more narrow sub-topic of "who shouldn't be sent" became the focus. This would be better dealt with in another thread.

Amen..I started the thread with the intent and direction you have noted ..thank you my brother....

 

[ChariotsofFire]

I still have some lingering questions over this whole discussion. I'm very confused by the position of those who say that minister's should be the one's to evangelize. In all the posts, I can't figure out whether laymen are to evangelize or not. I understand the high view of the office of teaching elder, but I'm confused on the duty of of the lay person. Can someone with that point of view clarify the duty of the lay person to evangelize? Is it the duty of the lay person to share the good news of Christ? What is their duty in regard to the unregenerate man?

 

[MW]

The "people" are already designated in the OP as "our churches" as I have quoted above, and thus it is already assumed that anyone sent would be sent from churches. Thus, it can rightly be said that Joshua hijacked the thread and left the main point, which was the great urgency and opportunity now for our churches to engage Catholics with the Gospel and, instead, focused on the side issue of "how" this should be done. In reality, the "how" of sending was never even fully addressed, but the more narrow sub-topic of "who shouldn't be sent" became the focus. This would be better dealt with in another thread.

Yes, well Joshua was right to hijack a thread and commandeer it to a safe port. If we are seeking to gain Romanists to Protestant Christianity it is certain that they will not be won over by a reductionist philosophising of Christianity but by a wholesome view of word, sacraments, and ministry. They will require "church" alternatives to practice their faith, and not merely different beliefs which enable them to opt out of church altogether.

Further, if I were the one to hijack the thread, I would also question the use of sexual abuse as an opportunity to evangelise the Roman communion. Scandal can happen in any church. If people are won over to Protestant churches through disillusionment with the Romanist churches there is a strong possibility that they can be won back to the Romanist churches when ill discipline is perceived in Protestant churches. The issues between Romanists and Protestants should be the perennial ones which resulted in the reformation. This should result in an ongoing Protest against the Church of Rome and her corruptions, in which true churches are constantly seeking to draw people away from that false church. It is not a matter of "now is the season," but "semper reformanda." It amazes me how reformed churches can use that slogan for innovation in their own churches and leave its original claim and intent unattended.

 

[dudley]

I still have some lingering questions over this whole discussion. I'm very confused by the position of those who say that minister's should be the one's to evangelize. In all the posts, I can't figure out whether laymen are to evangelize or not. I understand the high view of the office of teaching elder, but I'm confused on the duty of of the lay person. Can someone with that point of view clarify the duty of the lay person to evangelize? Is it the duty of the lay person to share the good news of Christ? What is their duty in regard to the unregenerate man?

If you read what I posted above about my own journey from Roman catholic to Protestant and Presbyterian you will see that I was a disallusioned catholic who was simply invited by Protestant friends to a Sunday service at their Protestant church....from there other events folowed....the conversion process for me took several years before I was born again and experinced as Calvin descibes 'a true Protestant conversion"..you people must realize we all evzangelize by simple witness to the Gospel..a simple invitation to the Sunday service led to other classes I TOOK UNDER THE GUIDANCE OF ORDAINED MINISTERS. THE PURPOSE OF THIS THREAD IS FOR ALL TO TAKE ADVANTAGE AND WITNESS THE GOSPEL AND HELP LEAD MANY DISALLUSIONED CATHOLICS TO THE RANKS OF THE ELECT AND TO PROTESTANTISM. LET THE REST BE IN NTHE HANDS OF GOD..WE ARE HIS INSTRUMENTS ......

 

[Rev. Todd Ruddell]

Dear Josh, (ChariotsofFire)
I have re-read the posts again before answering you so as to present an accurate understanding of all who have posted from the understanding that only ministers "evangelize". What we're saying is that in the Scriptures the word "evangelize" has a narrow context. This context is that which our Lord gave to His Apostles, (his extraordinary officers) and by extension and application, ordinary officers as well, especially those who labor in word and doctrine. He has given them something He has not given the rest of the folks in Church, the seals of the Kingdom, the Sacraments. These ministers have, from Christ, an authority to bind and loose--to remit and retain, to declare, ministerially and authoritatively, the Evangel of the Kingdom of God, and they are given those seals of authority for that end. As Dudley said above, it was his protestant friends that reached out to him, and invited him to Church. Note that it was his friends that did as Christ told the Gadarene Demoniac--"go and tell what great things the Lord has done for thee". They did. This engendered a willingness in Dudley to begin attending protestant services where, perhaps for the first time in his life, he heard the Gospel of Jesus Christ, as it was proclaimed by a minister of the Gospel, trained, ordained, called, and equipped for that office (that official duty) of speaking for Christ. This Gospel preacher, along with his session and Presbytery, also possessed something Dudley's protestant friends did not have: The authoritative seals (authentication) of that preaching, and when Dudley professed faith, was admitted by those in authority into the Kingdom, the Church of Jesus Christ.

Note that Dudley's friends were acting in a manner consistent with their position--they spoke of their experience, of what the Lord had done for them, they testified to the grace of God as they have perceived and experienced it.
Note that the Pastor was acting in accord with his position and calling. It is no wresting of the Scripture, rather it is consistent, to say that evangelism, or Gospel Preaching, is authoritative, as well as is the administration of the Sacraments. When the minister preaches, and when he administers the sacraments, he is binding and loosing according to his office, using the keys of doctrine and discipline, for the gathering and perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edification of the body of Christ.

This understanding does not preclude lay-action, i.e., giving testimony to the grace of God, etc. Neither does it diminish the official acts of those officers the Lord has put into office, for by them in this age, the Lord has chosen to call His people into the fellowship of Christ, and the people who hear them are to listen for the voice of the Shepherd in that preached Word, for those ministers speak *for* Christ, and along with that preaching administer the sacraments, by which they open and shut the gates of the Kingdom.

 

[dudley]

YOU SAID AND I AGREE BROTHER MATTHEW.."The issues between Romanists and Protestants should be the perennial ones which resulted in the reformation. This should result in an ongoing Protest against the Church of Rome and her corruptions, in which true churches are constantly seeking to draw people away from that false church." HOIWEVER I WAS DISALUSIONED AND NOT QUESTIONING THE VALIDITY OF THE ROMAN CHURCH....IT WAS BY THE INVITATION TO ATTEND A PROTESTANT SERVICE AND LISTEN AND SEE FOR MYSELF THAT GOD THEN BEGAN TO OPEN MY OWN MIND. I DID NOT GO TO THE FIRST PROTESTANT SERVICE SAYING 'HEY I WANT TO BECOME A PROTESTANT' RC'S ARE TAUGHT THAT IT IS THE PROTESTANTS WHO ARE APOSTATE AND HAVE THE FALSE CHURCH...SO I WAS IN A STATE OF MIND BEING DISALUSIONED THAT PERHAPS THE ENTIRE CHRITIAN CHURCH AND GOSPEL WAS UNTRUE OR MISCONSTRUED..THEN I BEGAN TO SEE THAT IT WAS THE PROTESTANTS WHO RESTORED THE CHURCH AND THE GOPEL TO ITS TRUE MEANING AND AS Christ INTENDED. REREAD MY OWN BIOGRAPHY ON MY PAGE HERE ON THE PB...I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT ANY THING MORE THAN BEING A GUIDE AND HELPING LEAD THE DISALUSIONED CATHOLIC TO THE RANKS OF THE ELECT AND PROTESTANTISM..I KNOW THERE ARE SIMILAR SCANDALS IN PROTESTSNT CHURCHES...HOWEVER THAT DOES NOT DISALUSION ME BECAUSE I KNOW I NOW I HAVE THE TRUE GOSPEL AND I AM IN THE Christ CENTERED RANKS OF PROTESTANTISM AND I WOULD NEVER RETURN TO CATHOLICISM AND HER ROMISH AND PAPIST DISTORTED GOSPEL..AND HER FALSE RITUALS AND TEACHINGS....HOWEVER I WOULD NOT HAVE DISCOVERED THE TRUTH IF I WERE NOT INVITED BY FRIENDS TO THAT FIRST SUNDAY SERVICE IN THEIR PROTESTANT CHURCH.

---------- Post added at 02:53 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:35 AM ----------

dear josh, (chariotsoffire)
i have re-read the posts again before answering you so as to present an accurate understanding of all who have posted from the understanding that only ministers "evangelize". What we're saying is that in the scriptures the word "evangelize" has a narrow context. This context is that which our lord gave to his apostles, (his extraordinary officers) and by extension and application, ordinary officers as well, especially those who labor in word and doctrine. He has given them something he has not given the rest of the folks in church, the seals of the kingdom, the sacraments. These ministers have, from Christ, an authority to bind and loose--to remit and retain, to declare, ministerially and authoritatively, the evangel of the kingdom of god, and they are given those seals of authority for that end. As dudley said above, it was his protestant friends that reached out to him, and invited him to church. Note that it was his friends that did as Christ told the gadarene demoniac--"go and tell what great things the lord has done for thee". They did. This engendered a willingness in dudley to begin attending protestant services where, perhaps for the first time in his life, he heard the gospel of Jesus Christ, as it was proclaimed by a minister of the gospel, trained, ordained, called, and equipped for that office (that official duty) of speaking for Christ. This gospel preacher, along with his session and presbytery, also possessed something dudley's protestant friends did not have: The authoritative seals (authentication) of that preaching, and when dudley professed faith, was admitted by those in authority into the kingdom, the church of Jesus Christ.

Note that dudley's friends were acting in a manner consistent with their position--they spoke of their experience, of what the lord had done for them, they testified to the grace of god as they have perceived and experienced it.
Note that the pastor was acting in accord with his position and calling. It is no wresting of the scripture, rather it is consistent, to say that evangelism, or gospel preaching, is authoritative, as well as is the administration of the sacraments. When the minister preaches, and when he administers the sacraments, he is binding and loosing according to his office, using the keys of doctrine and discipline, for the gathering and perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edification of the body of Christ.

This understanding does not preclude lay-action, i.e., giving testimony to the grace of god, etc. Neither does it diminish the official acts of those officers the lord has put into office, for by them in this age, the lord has chosen to call his people into the fellowship of Christ, and the people who hear them are to listen for the voice of the shepherd in that preached word, for those ministers speak *for* Christ, and along with that preaching administer the sacraments, by which they open and shut the gates of the kingdom.

Amen and ditto Brother Todd ..you summed up exactly what I have been saying and did it well and from the rank of the ordained minister in word and sacrament...I experinced the Lords Supper in a new magnificent way as a Protestant and fully accepted Protestant Memorialism regarding communion and rejected the rc teaching of transubstantiation after I was shown through the gospel and the reformed confessions the true nature of the scarament and also the beautiful protestant docdtrine of justification by faith alone in Christ alone and I realized for the first time that the bible was our only and final authority , I was able to openly renounce the pope as head of the church and for the first I realized it is Christ only who heads his church as well as the fact that God had done all of this by his magnificent grace he gave to me. At that point I said " I want to be a Protestant and a Presbyterian". I expericed "a true Protestant conversion"...took several years in the process...it is still a growing in faith process going on in me now....I think many of you can see my own groth in the Reformed Faith in the few years iIhave been here on the PB.
I am now a stauch and avowed Protestant and Presbyterian and I would never return to the false teachings and church of Rome and Catholicism I renounce openly that church and beiev it is she who is apostate.....but I did not know that the Sunday I attended my first Protestant service....it was a small beginning that Sunday.....we can all be a small beginning at this time in history for the disaluusioned catholic.....let God handle the rest..he did with me..its called his grace..I just had to be in the company first of his true apostles and true church and the followers of the Reformed Protestant Faith....which is why I am now a Reformed Protestant!

---------- Post added at 03:21 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:53 AM ----------

Read the following story reported in Time magazine this week..tell me that there will not be many more disallusioned catholics in all countries ...the scandal of RC clergy gets worse each day....I believe God is exposing what many of us think of as "The Whore of Babylon" for what she truly is....we who are Reformed Protestants have the true Gospel and the true faith of the apostles and Jesus Christ Himself. I would never have thought that I would have the true faith as a Protestant and be a Presbyterian 10 years ago....it was Gods grace and a small beginning...by Protestant friends that led me to the truth....let us try to cooperate with God and lead many others to the Reformed Faith and Protestantism......

Just "a Game": Outrage as Shamed Belgian Priest Downplays Child Abuse
By Leo Cendrowicz / Brussels Friday, Apr. 15, 2011

Former Bishop of Bruges Roger Vangheluwe is seen in this 2007 photo. The Vatican has sanctioned Vangheluwe, who resigned last year after admitting he had sexually abused his nephew

Peter Maenhoudt / AP
Print Email Reprints Facebook Twitter MORE
Add to my:
del.icio.us Technorati reddit Google Bookmarks Mixx StumbleUpon Blog this on:
TypePad LiveJournal Blogger MySpace

The Belgian Catholic Church must have felt it hit a nadir last year when it had to face harrowing revelations of rampant child sex abuse among its priesthood. However, the church's reputation is now at a new low, thanks to the ill-judged comments of the disgraced former Bishop of Bruges, who in April 2010 admitted to abusing his nephew. Belgians have been left in open-mouthed disbelief after the airing of a TV interview with Roger Vangheluwe in which he glossed over his history of abusing children.

Speaking on Belgian television on Thursday evening, April 14, Vangheluwe, 74, said he had in fact abused a second nephew as well. That would have been shocking enough: last year, when Vangheluwe initially owned up to the abuse — and stepped down as bishop — the move unleashed a flood of revelations by other victims of abuse in the church.
(See church sex-abuse scandals around the world.)

But it was no tearful confession that Belgians witnessed on Thursday. Looking relaxed and sometimes smiling, Vangheluwe described the sexual abuse as no more than "a little piece of intimacy." While he claimed to recognize that he had done wrong and said he often went to confession about it, Vangheluwe played down his actions. "I had the strong impression that my nephew didn't mind at all. On the contrary. It was not brutal sex. I never used bodily, physical violence," he said. The abuse of his first nephew, in the 1970s and '80s, he said, "started as, I would call it, a game." At the time, the boy was just 5, and the abuse would last 13 years. The abuse of the second nephew, he said, was "merely over a year." Despite this, Vangheluwe insisted, "I don't have the impression at all that I am a pedophile." Following the interview, the first nephew said through his lawyer that he did not want to comment; the identity of the second nephew is not yet known.

The interview drew almost immediate rebuke. Prime Minister Yves Leterme said Vangheluwe's remarks "go beyond the boundary of what is acceptable" and called on the Catholic Church to "assume its responsibilities." Vice Prime Minister Laurette Onkelinx said the interview was "disgusting," adding that Vangheluwe "showed a complete disdain for his victims." Justice Minister Stefaan De Clerck urged the Vatican to punish the former bishop. "It is a slap in the face of his victims and all victims," he said. And Carina Van Cauter, vice chair of the parliamentary committee investigating sexual abuse, said Vangheluwe "tried to turn his victims into culprits. He throws salt in their wounds."

The church also responded fiercely, with bishops lining up to condemn Vangheluwe. The Bishop of Ghent, Luc Van Looy, said he was "ashamed, shocked, upset and angry. By trivializing the abuse, Vangheluwe is deepening the indescribable suffering of victims." Josef De Kesel, Vangheluwe's successor as Bishop of Bruges, said, "It's unbelievable, and so damaging for all involved — firstly the victims, but also us, our credibility."
(See the top 10 religion stories of 2010.)

Victims groups reacted with weary disgust. "I was angry but not surprised," says Linda Opdebeeck, president of the support group Human Rights in the Church. "[Vangheluwe] is just like the monk who abused me 30 years ago and never accepted any responsibility. Vangheluwe will never recognize what he did, never understand the gravity of his actions, even though it was legal rape."

Gabriel Ringlet, a priest and influential Catholic figure in Belgium, says that while Vangheluwe's interview was repulsive, it also risks undermining the wider campaign against child abuse. "If we focus too much on him, we might forget the bigger problems," says Ringlet, who has urged the church to issue an unequivocal apology, punish the pedophiles and compensate victims. "The pedophilia is linked to the church's authority. When the priest suggests his abuse is part of his holy function, it is difficult for a child or parishioner to denounce him."

Despite his admission, Vangheluwe does not face criminal prosecution, because the abuses occurred decades ago, beyond Belgium's statute of limitations for sex abuse. The Vatican had sent the former bishop to an abbey in the Loire valley in France weeks ago for "spiritual and psychological treatment" in the wake of last year's abuse admission. It's not known whether the church knew of his second victim. Vangheluwe could be stripped of his priesthood, but that was also an option following his first abuse confession — and it still hasn't happened.
(See pictures of President Obama meeting Pope Benedict XVI.)


Nor has there been much progress in Belgium over the past year when it comes to abuse by clergy. As the scandal has escalated, the head of the Belgian Church, Archbishop André-Joseph Léonard, has been reluctant to take firm action beyond a vague expression of regret. Léonard, an archconservative who frequently conducts mass in Latin, is widely seen as being out of touch with his flock. Two weeks ago, he was targeted by custard-pie-throwing activists angry over his description of AIDS as a kind of "intrinsic justice" punishing gays.

Dirk Jacobs, a sociology professor at Brussels Free University, says the Vatican must act forcefully now if it wants to salvage some of its credibility and moral authority in Belgium and abroad. "But it might still be seen as too little, too late," Jacobs says. "The image we have is of the church as an institution of power, foremost worried about its reputation, disconnected from the real world and with a twisted view of sexuality." However, there is little indication that the Vatican is ready for an image overhaul. And one year after he resigned in disgrace, Roger Vangheluwe appears — like the Vatican — to be in denial about the problem.



Read more: Outrage: Former Bishop Vangheluwe Downplays Child Abuse - TIME

---------- Post added at 03:22 AM ---------- Previous post was at 03:21 AM ----------

Read the following story reported in Time magazine this week..tell me that there will not be many more disallusioned catholics in all countries ...the scandal of RC clergy gets worse each day....I believe God is exposing what many of us think of as "The Whore of Babylon" for what she truly is....we who are Reformed Protestants have the true Gospel and the true faith of the apostles and Jesus Christ Himself. I would never have thought that I would have the true faith as a Protestant and be a Presbyterian 10 years ago....it was Gods grace and a small beginning...by Protestant friends that led me to the truth....let us try to cooperate with God and lead many others to the Reformed Faith and Protestantism......

Just "a Game": Outrage as Shamed Belgian Priest Downplays Child Abuse
By Leo Cendrowicz / Brussels Friday, Apr. 15, 2011

Former Bishop of Bruges Roger Vangheluwe is seen in this 2007 photo. The Vatican has sanctioned Vangheluwe, who resigned last year after admitting he had sexually abused his nephew

Peter Maenhoudt / AP
Print Email Reprints Facebook Twitter MORE
Add to my:
del.icio.us Technorati reddit Google Bookmarks Mixx StumbleUpon Blog this on:
TypePad LiveJournal Blogger MySpace

The Belgian Catholic Church must have felt it hit a nadir last year when it had to face harrowing revelations of rampant child sex abuse among its priesthood. However, the church's reputation is now at a new low, thanks to the ill-judged comments of the disgraced former Bishop of Bruges, who in April 2010 admitted to abusing his nephew. Belgians have been left in open-mouthed disbelief after the airing of a TV interview with Roger Vangheluwe in which he glossed over his history of abusing children.

Speaking on Belgian television on Thursday evening, April 14, Vangheluwe, 74, said he had in fact abused a second nephew as well. That would have been shocking enough: last year, when Vangheluwe initially owned up to the abuse — and stepped down as bishop — the move unleashed a flood of revelations by other victims of abuse in the church.
(See church sex-abuse scandals around the world.)

But it was no tearful confession that Belgians witnessed on Thursday. Looking relaxed and sometimes smiling, Vangheluwe described the sexual abuse as no more than "a little piece of intimacy." While he claimed to recognize that he had done wrong and said he often went to confession about it, Vangheluwe played down his actions. "I had the strong impression that my nephew didn't mind at all. On the contrary. It was not brutal sex. I never used bodily, physical violence," he said. The abuse of his first nephew, in the 1970s and '80s, he said, "started as, I would call it, a game." At the time, the boy was just 5, and the abuse would last 13 years. The abuse of the second nephew, he said, was "merely over a year." Despite this, Vangheluwe insisted, "I don't have the impression at all that I am a pedophile." Following the interview, the first nephew said through his lawyer that he did not want to comment; the identity of the second nephew is not yet known.

The interview drew almost immediate rebuke. Prime Minister Yves Leterme said Vangheluwe's remarks "go beyond the boundary of what is acceptable" and called on the Catholic Church to "assume its responsibilities." Vice Prime Minister Laurette Onkelinx said the interview was "disgusting," adding that Vangheluwe "showed a complete disdain for his victims." Justice Minister Stefaan De Clerck urged the Vatican to punish the former bishop. "It is a slap in the face of his victims and all victims," he said. And Carina Van Cauter, vice chair of the parliamentary committee investigating sexual abuse, said Vangheluwe "tried to turn his victims into culprits. He throws salt in their wounds."

The church also responded fiercely, with bishops lining up to condemn Vangheluwe. The Bishop of Ghent, Luc Van Looy, said he was "ashamed, shocked, upset and angry. By trivializing the abuse, Vangheluwe is deepening the indescribable suffering of victims." Josef De Kesel, Vangheluwe's successor as Bishop of Bruges, said, "It's unbelievable, and so damaging for all involved — firstly the victims, but also us, our credibility."
(See the top 10 religion stories of 2010.)

Victims groups reacted with weary disgust. "I was angry but not surprised," says Linda Opdebeeck, president of the support group Human Rights in the Church. "[Vangheluwe] is just like the monk who abused me 30 years ago and never accepted any responsibility. Vangheluwe will never recognize what he did, never understand the gravity of his actions, even though it was legal rape."

Gabriel Ringlet, a priest and influential Catholic figure in Belgium, says that while Vangheluwe's interview was repulsive, it also risks undermining the wider campaign against child abuse. "If we focus too much on him, we might forget the bigger problems," says Ringlet, who has urged the church to issue an unequivocal apology, punish the pedophiles and compensate victims. "The pedophilia is linked to the church's authority. When the priest suggests his abuse is part of his holy function, it is difficult for a child or parishioner to denounce him."

Despite his admission, Vangheluwe does not face criminal prosecution, because the abuses occurred decades ago, beyond Belgium's statute of limitations for sex abuse. The Vatican had sent the former bishop to an abbey in the Loire valley in France weeks ago for "spiritual and psychological treatment" in the wake of last year's abuse admission. It's not known whether the church knew of his second victim. Vangheluwe could be stripped of his priesthood, but that was also an option following his first abuse confession — and it still hasn't happened.
(See pictures of President Obama meeting Pope Benedict XVI.)


Nor has there been much progress in Belgium over the past year when it comes to abuse by clergy. As the scandal has escalated, the head of the Belgian Church, Archbishop André-Joseph Léonard, has been reluctant to take firm action beyond a vague expression of regret. Léonard, an archconservative who frequently conducts mass in Latin, is widely seen as being out of touch with his flock. Two weeks ago, he was targeted by custard-pie-throwing activists angry over his description of AIDS as a kind of "intrinsic justice" punishing gays.

Dirk Jacobs, a sociology professor at Brussels Free University, says the Vatican must act forcefully now if it wants to salvage some of its credibility and moral authority in Belgium and abroad. "But it might still be seen as too little, too late," Jacobs says. "The image we have is of the church as an institution of power, foremost worried about its reputation, disconnected from the real world and with a twisted view of sexuality." However, there is little indication that the Vatican is ready for an image overhaul. And one year after he resigned in disgrace, Roger Vangheluwe appears — like the Vatican — to be in denial about the problem.



Read more: Outrage: Former Bishop Vangheluwe Downplays Child Abuse - TIME