I see much more of a continuity between Catholic and Orthodox churches with earliest expressions of Christian faith than Protestant denominations (bar Anglican and high ecclesial forms of Lutheranism and Presbyterianism). Though I don't think that invalidates Protestantism, I simply think that it evolved out of other needs and other myths.

The Eucharist has always been the symbol of Christian identity, filled with its rich atonement and sacrificial motifs. Though, in some Protestant churches it is a marginal practice, not a defining practice. I do find some forms of Evangelicalism somewhat insulting to the tradition, this included, yet I can see how this developed in response to other needs, etc.

What I find absolutely insulting is how Protestantism (particularly Americo-centralized Evangelicalism) portrays itself as Christian norm when it is in fact a newly established phenomenon within Christian/European history. I find it insulting how followers of these very new traditions express their concern in respect to "works/faith" when anyone with any knowledge in Biblical hermeneutics and church history can see that "works/faith" are the one single phenomenon of salvation. I also find it insulting that they class Catholicism as "works" salvation even though Catholicism has historically sided with St Augustine over and against Pelagius.

The fact is that some eras of Christian history respective of (time/space), have placed the emphasis on Pelagius and other eras have placed the emphasis on St Augustine. Christianity has been caught between those two polar dichotomies, paradoxically, even though it can affirm the truth in both and even though it institutionally affirms St Augustine as the truth in this regard. Just ask an Americo-centralized Evangelical whether faith is solely necessary for salvation and then ask them what they think about Christians who continue to "sin". They'll obviously give a socially conservative response claiming that practicing gays are damned and "abortionists" are evil even though they don't want anyone to "work" for their salvation. That seems to be just how far their "works/faith" dichotomy goes.

Evangelicalism is not normative, it is a distortation of what has always been Christianity, a radical distortation that maintains very little of the tradition. Americo-Central Christianity is an anti-Christ. Completely against what has always been Christianity, obnoxious and arrogant, fueled with ignorance and intolerance. Low ecclesiological expressions are a contemporary phenomenon which have no hold in normative Christianity. Any church which does not accept the Eucharist and which distorts it has placed itself outside of what has always been normative Christian practice and ritual. Plus, they're annoying and fundamentalist.

Allan

Originally posted by popaface

I see much more of a continuity between Catholic and Orthodox churches with earliest expressions of Christian faith than Protestant denominations (bar Anglican and high ecclesial forms of Lutheranism and Presbyterianism). Though I don't think that invalidates Protestantism, I simply think that it evolved out of other needs and other myths.

It depends on what you call the earliest expressions of Christianity. The evidence indicates the earliest expressions were quite variable. The Roman and Eastern Churches remain very Roman in tradition which is only one aspect of the early churches. The bottom line is that all the churches in some way evolved from early expressions and traditions.

The Eucharist has always been the symbol of Christian identity, filled with its rich atonement and sacrificial motifs. Though, in some Protestant churches it is a marginal practice, not a defining practice. I do find some forms of Evangelicalism somewhat insulting to the tradition, this included, yet I can see how this developed in response to other needs, etc.

I personally do not take sides on these issues, in part because they represent ancient world views, myths, and thinking which are not relevant to the greater picture of the diversity of human spirituality that has evolved over the ages.

What I find absolutely insulting is how Protestantism (particularly Americo-centralized Evangelicalism) portrays itself as Christian norm when it is in fact a newly established phenomenon within Christian/European history. I find it insulting how followers of these very new traditions express their concern in respect to "works/faith" when anyone with any knowledge in Biblical hermeneutics and church history can see that "works/faith" are the one single phenomenon of salvation. I also find it insulting that they class Catholicism as "works" salvation even though Catholicism has historically sided with St Augustine over and against Pelagius.

The Protestant response in this case may not reflect the actual reality of Roman and Eastern beliefs, but it does reflect the reality of the corrupt,materialist, and very human failings of these churches in history. My objection to reform movements in Protestant churches is that they represent a very humanist answer trying make an ancient world view relevant in a modern diverse world, and all it does is create more churches and more problems.

Considering the history of the Roman and Eastern Churches I have little empathy for their Roman doctrines and view toward the spiritual reality of existence. It is very ancient and egocentric.

The fact is that some eras of Christian history respective of (time/space), have placed the emphasis on Pelagius and other eras have placed the emphasis on St Augustine. Christianity has been caught between those two polar dichotomies, paradoxically, even though it can affirm the truth in both and even though it institutionally affirms St Augustine as the truth in this regard. Just ask an Americo-centralized Evangelical whether faith is solely necessary for salvation and then ask them what they think about Christians who continue to "sin". They'll obviously give a socially conservative response claiming that practicing gays are damned and "abortionists" are evil even though they don't want anyone to "work" for their salvation. That seems to be just how far their "works/faith" dichotomy goes.

This comes from clinging to old world views and trying to make things fit that are no longer relevant to the modern world.

Evangelicalism is not normative, it is a distortation of what has always been Christianity, a radical distortation that maintains very little of the tradition. Americo-Central Christianity is an anti-Christ. Completely against what has always been Christianity, obnoxious and arrogant, fueled with ignorance and intolerance. Low ecclesiological expressions are a contemporary phenomenon which have no hold in normative Christianity. Any church which does not accept the Eucharist and which distorts it has placed itself outside of what has always been normative Christian practice and ritual. Plus, they're annoying and fundamentalist.

Allan

I consider none of the ancient religions as normative, and they are distortions of reality in a limited cultural context. In my investigation of all these ancient moldy old world views, ignorance and intolerance, and worse is the rule in history and not the exception that can be used to label the preference of one church over another.

Originally posted by popaface

What I find absolutely insulting is how Protestantism (particularly Americo-centralized Evangelicalism) portrays itself as Christian norm when it is in fact a newly established phenomenon within Christian/European history. I find it insulting how followers of these very new traditions express their concern in respect to "works/faith" when anyone with any knowledge in Biblical hermeneutics and church history can see that "works/faith" are the one single phenomenon of salvation. I also find it insulting that they class Catholicism as "works" salvation even though Catholicism has historically sided with St Augustine over and against Pelagius.

I'd like you to explain the works/faith thing a bit further, just so I know where you're coming from. If you're getting insulted, though, that's something that only you can fix. You don't have to like all things, but you don't have to let them get to you either. It's not like the goal of Protestantism is to hurl insults at any other belief. At least, it shouldn't be...

Originally posted by popaface

Just ask an Americo-centralized Evangelical whether faith is solely necessary for salvation and then ask them what they think about Christians who continue to "sin". They'll obviously give a socially conservative response claiming that practicing gays are damned and "abortionists" are evil even though they don't want anyone to "work" for their salvation. That seems to be just how far their "works/faith" dichotomy goes.

Perhaps you should spend a little more time figuring out what exactly is believed. There is no "obviously" involved here. Every Christian continues to sin, but you can actively strive to avoid that. Learn to recognize your shortcomings and work on them. This isn't the same as "works based" salvation.

Originally posted by popaface

Evangelicalism is not normative, it is a distortation of what has always been Christianity, a radical distortation that maintains very little of the tradition. Americo-Central Christianity is an anti-Christ. Completely against what has always been Christianity, obnoxious and arrogant, fueled with ignorance and intolerance. Low ecclesiological expressions are a contemporary phenomenon which have no hold in normative Christianity. Any church which does not accept the Eucharist and which distorts it has placed itself outside of what has always been normative Christian practice and ritual. Plus, they're annoying and fundamentalist.

In other words, "blah blah blah I don't understand you and you insult me blah blah blah."

waht is protestantism? i thought this label could be used for all non-catholic denominations of christianity, and as such, is no more than an umbrella term... are we talking about the actual historical movement?

Originally posted by popaface

Evangelicalism is not normative, it is a distortation of what has always been Christianity, a radical distortation that maintains very little of the tradition. Americo-Central Christianity is an anti-Christ. Completely against what has always been Christianity, obnoxious and arrogant, fueled with ignorance and intolerance. Low ecclesiological expressions are a contemporary phenomenon which have no hold in normative Christianity. Any church which does not accept the Eucharist and which distorts it has placed itself outside of what has always been normative Christian practice and ritual. Plus, they're annoying and fundamentalist.

What about Evangelical Christianity is not normative or a distoration of what has always been Christianity? The individual Christian must put on Christ as he has been instructed - how do you condemn all of it? Evangelical Christianity believes and teaches:

"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son." (John 3:16-18)

"Jesus replied: 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments." (Matthew 22:39-40)

"As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you. Now remain in my love. If you obey my commands, you will remain in my love, just as I have obeyed my Father's commands and remain in his love....My command is this: Love each other as I have loved you....This is my command: Love each other." (John 15:9-17)

You cannot get any more traditional than love your God with all you've got and your neighbor as yourself.

Yes, protestants are Christians. No other statement is required.

Hey Tomski, nice to read you again!

Originally posted by Adrift

Hey Tomski, nice to read you again!

Adrift? I thought you'd be docked by now.

If we get in to heaven based on our works then you're definitely going to hell, Mr. Socialist. People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

And I agree with you that modern "communion" is flawed...but seriously, what a completely dumb way to define Christianity: Based on how well we carry out a specific ritual? Give me a break. The Catholic and Orthodox practice of communion isn't much better anyway, although at least they tend to have it a bit more frequently.

Originally posted by shunyadragon

It depends on what you call the earliest expressions of Christianity. The evidence indicates the earliest expressions were quite variable. The Roman and Eastern Churches remain very Roman in tradition which is only one aspect of the early churches. The bottom line is that all the churches in some way evolved from early expressions and traditions.

There are still very many expressions of Christianity that maintain a strong continuity with ancient expressions of faith. There are a number of Eastern Communions which were not as confronted with Protestantism as the West.

Originally posted by shunyadragon

The Protestant response in this case may not reflect the actual reality of Roman and Eastern beliefs, but it does reflect the reality of the corrupt,materialist, and very human failings of these churches in history. My objection to reform movements in Protestant churches is that they represent a very humanist answer trying make an ancient world view relevant in a modern diverse world, and all it does is create more churches and more problems.

Considering the history of the Roman and Eastern Churches I have little empathy for their Roman doctrines and view toward the spiritual reality of existence. It is very ancient and egocentric.

I disagree, Roman and Eastern doctrines do not fall because of their horrible histories. I do not, of course, deny those histories, the deaths, the persecutions, I think that they're terrible. I do however deny that one can charicature all of Christian history with these tragedies. Why not do the same with other religions? Have you ever read the Bhgavad Gita?

Originally posted by shunyadragon

This comes from clinging to old world views and trying to make things fit that are no longer relevant to the modern world.

I consider none of the ancient religions as normative, and they are distortions of reality in a limited cultural context. In my investigation of all these ancient moldy old world views, ignorance and intolerance, and worse is the rule in history and not the exception that can be used to label the preference of one church over another.

Again, this is not something that I agree with. Ancient mythology is absolutely relevant for today. Notions of neo-colonialism and redactionism are not. They are an ousted myth of 19th century German Romanticism.

Originally posted by Carrikature

I'd like you to explain the works/faith thing a bit further, just so I know where you're coming from. If you're getting insulted, though, that's something that only you can fix. You don't have to like all things, but you don't have to let them get to you either. It's not like the goal of Protestantism is to hurl insults at any other belief. At least, it shouldn't be...

Perhaps you should spend a little more time figuring out what exactly is believed. There is no "obviously" involved here. Every Christian continues to sin, but you can actively strive to avoid that. Learn to recognize your shortcomings and work on them. This isn't the same as "works based" salvation.

No, there is an "obviously" here. Contemporary Evangelicals present themselves as normative and continuous with ancient Christianity. Attack Catholics for being "works-minded" and then tell homosexuals that they will die in their sins. That is what "obviously" happens, it's not a charicature, it's not a stereotype, it's an observation.

Originally posted by Carrikature

In other words, "blah blah blah I don't understand you and you insult me blah blah blah."

I do understand Protestantism, I used to be an Evangelical/fundamentalist myself before I started studying theology and philosophy at university.

Originally posted by barnasha

waht is protestantism? i thought this label could be used for all non-catholic denominations of christianity, and as such, is no more than an umbrella term... are we talking about the actual historical movement?

I'm speaking more about/to contemporary Evangelical Americo-Central Christianities.

Originally posted by TomSki

What about Evangelical Christianity is not normative or a distoration of what has always been Christianity? The individual Christian must put on Christ as he has been instructed - how do you condemn all of it? Evangelical Christianity believes and teaches:

"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son." (John 3:16-18)

"Jesus replied: 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments." (Matthew 22:39-40)

"As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you. Now remain in my love. If you obey my commands, you will remain in my love, just as I have obeyed my Father's commands and remain in his love....My command is this: Love each other as I have loved you....This is my command: Love each other." (John 15:9-17)

Again, very Protestant/Evangelical readings of those passages which take nothing into account of context, culture, history of Wirkungsgeschichte. [applaud]

Originally posted by TomSki

You cannot get any more traditional than love your God with all you've got and your neighbor as yourself.

Yes, you can. You can begin by practicing Christian rituals, sacraments and worship and believing Christian theology and mythology. Then, I guess, you can start saying that you're worshiping God in a Traditional normative Christian way... Redactionism is a simple subsidy of German Romantic idealizations of the "simple-as-pure", which is not only historically ignorant (there was never a simple, or even a singular, Christianity), it's also culturally insensitive and insulting.

Originally posted by Pilgrim

Yes, protestants are Christians. No other statement is required.

No, your statement meerly means, "I believe Christians are Protestants", when any simple look in Church history and studies in Church Fathers will tell you that it's an incorrect, implausible observation.

Originally posted by Obsidian

If we get in to heaven based on our works then you're definitely going to hell, Mr. Socialist. People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

And I agree with you that modern "communion" is flawed...but seriously, what a completely dumb way to define Christianity: Based on how well we carry out a specific ritual? Give me a break. The Catholic and Orthodox practice of communion isn't much better anyway, although at least they tend to have it a bit more frequently.

Thanks for your kind words, I never ever said that anyone will get into heaven based on "works". I simply said that "works/faith" is the one single same phenomenon.

I also would never say that anyone was going to hell. My concern here is Christian identity not throwing stones at non-Christians. I have nothing at all against non-Christians, I value Islam, Judaism, Hinduism and Buddhist religions, even though I don't know much about them.

Christian identity has always been the Eucharist. It's never not been, until the Protestant reformation. It's very much down-played in contemporary Evangelicalism which I don't think shares much (if anything) in common with Christian history. Catholics and Eastern Christians maintain this Tradition as symbol of identity. That's just a simple observation. My concern is ecumenical in that Catholic tradition seeks communion with other rites, the Eastern and throughout the West. My concern is that "communion" is not even an issue with so many Evangelicals who claim continuity with Christian history. It's sad, it's an observation about identity and it's not meant to be judgmental.

Josh.

Originally posted by popaface

You can begin by practicing Christian rituals, sacraments and worship and believing Christian theology and mythology. Then, I guess, you can start saying that you're worshiping God in a Traditional normative Christian way

"A religion that is pure and stainless according to God the Father is this: to take care of orphans and widows who are suffering, and to keep oneself unstained by the world." (James 1:27)

Originally posted by popaface

Christian identity has always been the Eucharist. It's never not been, until the Protestant reformation. It's very much down-played in contemporary Evangelicalism which I don't think shares much (if anything) in common with Christian history.

First, at the last supper, Christ revealed Himself to His disciples through the Passover as the Afikoman and He held up the third cup in the Passover meal, the Cup of Redemption, as the blood He was about to shed for the world. Jesus said, "This do in remembrance of me" (Luke 22:19). And we do - albeit, we no longer celebrate the Passover in most Evangelical Churches.

We take Communion very seriously and do not down play it - we consider the great price our Lord paid for us, our great responsibility to live for Him and we celebrate - what a great and merciful God we serve! However, the Mass you celebrate has stripped away the Afikoman from the Passover meal and believe and teach that it has been a Catholic host since the day Jesus offered it and you don't even drink from the Cup of Redemption. I would say the Eucharist that you celebrate actually has less in common with Christian history because it's been all but washed of it's Jewish origin and it's missing an element that all at the supper were meant to partake of.

And second, Christian Identity is our love - "By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another." (John 13:35)

Originally posted by TomSki

"A religion that is pure and stainless according to God the Father is this: to take care of orphans and widows who are suffering, and to keep oneself unstained by the world." (James 1:27)

Christian religion has to stand against the injustice of the world, that's a given. Christian history has never taken this verse as prescriptive of a Christian identity. Christian history has traditionally taken the Eucharist as the absolute symbol of Christian identity though.

Originally posted by TomSki

First, at the last supper, Christ revealed Himself to His disciples through the Passover as the Afikoman and He held up the third cup in the Passover meal, the Cup of Redemption, as the blood He was about to shed for the world. Jesus said, "This do in remembrance of me" (Luke 22:19). And we do - albeit, we no longer celebrate the Passover in most Evangelical Churches. We take Communion very seriously and do not down play it - we consider the great price our Lord paid for us, our great responsibility to live for Him and we celebrate - what a great and merciful God we serve! However, the Mass you celebrate has stripped away the Afikoman from Passover meal and you don't even drink from the Cup of Redemption. I would say the Eucharist that you celebrate actually has less in common with Christian history because it's been all but washed of it's Jewish origin and it's missing an element that all at the supper were meant to partake of.

And second, Christian Identity is our love - "By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another." (John 13:35)

Celebrating the Eucharist is not celebrating the Pescha feast. Those are two different evolutions of the same Jewish tradition. Contemporary Jews don't celebrate it the same way that Jesus did and painting history in a way that "Judaism" becomes limited to some sort of singular Jewish cultural entity in the first century is historically naiive. The Second Temple period was a conglomerate of Judaisms which had various ways to celebrate their observations.

Contemporary Evangelicalism in no way does justice to the Judaisms of Jesus' day by appropriating contemporary fashions of Judaism, instead, it's a simple sign of neo-colonial appropriation. What happens to Tradition is that it evolves and changes, practices change and they do so naturally. The first few centuries of Christian existence was a time in which it was struggling to define and maintain an identity, it did so polemically against pagan and Jews, but always with reference to Judaism. Out of this, what developed was a rich milieu of Temple imagery in the Churches which informed the Eucharist and liturgies; that is, a meal representing atonement and the symbolism of Jesus’ death which becomes the full earthly manifestation of the Lord's own eternal life-outpouring, liturgically represented and performed each year on the Day of Atonement. The later liturgies of the Church seem more akin to the Day of Atonement than to Passover and it may be that the Day of Atonement was the context from the beginning. There can be no certainty that what the Eucharist became was different from Jesus’ original intention. The Eucharist is part, then, of the same gestalt as the Day of Atonement, a rite of healing and renewal manifesting that same ‘eternal Sacrifice’ concretely instantiated in Jesus’ execution.

Allan

Originally posted by popaface

Christian religion has to stand against the injustice of the world, that's a given. Christian history has never taken this verse as prescriptive of a Christian identity. Christian history has traditionally taken the Eucharist as the absolute symbol of Christian identity though.

Not according to Jesus (unless you can find me the words of Jesus that say otherwise):

"By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another." (John 13:35)

Originally posted by popaface

Contemporary Evangelicalism in no way does justice to the Judaisms of Jesus' day by appropriating contemporary fashions of Judaism, instead, it's a simple sign of neo-colonial appropriation. What happens to Tradition is that it evolves and changes, practices change and they do so naturally. The first few centuries of Christian existence was a time in which it was struggling to define and maintain an identity, it did so polemically against pagan and Jews, but always with reference to Judaism. Out of this, what developed was a rich milieu of Temple imagery in the Churches which informed the Eucharist and liturgies; that is, a meal representing atonement and the symbolism of Jesus’ death which becomes the full earthly manifestation of the Lord's own eternal life-outpouring, liturgically represented and performed each year on the Day of Atonement. The later liturgies of the Church seem more akin to the Day of Atonement than to Passover and it may be that the Day of Atonement was the context from the beginning.

What was Pope Peter's first Mass like since this Eucharist developed over centuries?

Originally posted by popaface

The Eucharist is part, then, of the same gestalt as the Day of Atonement, a rite of healing and renewal manifesting that same ‘eternal Sacrifice’ concretely instantiated in Jesus’ execution.

Well, if it is the same ‘eternal Sacrifice’, you should rejoice that we Evangelicals remember what Jesus did for us when we celebrate Communion - for, as the Scripture says, our Lord died once for all, took away our sins and now appears for us in God's presence and we wait for Him - to bring salvation to all of us who are waiting for His appearance.

"For Christ did not enter a man-made sanctuary that was only a copy of the true one; he entered heaven itself, now to appear for us in God's presence. Nor did he enter heaven to offer himself again and again, the way the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood that is not his own. Then Christ would have had to suffer many times since the creation of the world. But now he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself. Just as man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment, so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many people; and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him." (Hebrews 9:24-28)

Originally posted by TomSki

Not according to Jesus (unless you can find me the words of Jesus that say otherwise):

"By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another." (John 13:35)

Again, what absolute missunderstanding of the Christian religion. Throughout the 21 centuries of its existence it's never said that "Love" was the prime identification mark: a lot of people love one another, that doesn't make them Christian. What makes someone Christian is participation in the Christian rituals and belief in the Christian creeds.

Originally posted by TomSki

Well, if it is the same ‘eternal Sacrifice’, you should rejoice that we Evangelicals remember what Jesus did for us when we celebrate Communion - for, as the Scripture says, our Lord died once for all, took away our sins and now appears for us in God's presence and we wait for Him - to bring salvation to all of us who are waiting for His appearance.

I'm upset because I don't see the Eucharist being celebrated in Evangelical churches, it's marginal and does not carry any sort of self-identity. YET, they still represent themselves as normative Christianity, dispite the vast differences between themselves and Christian history.

Allan

Originally posted by popaface

Again, what absolute missunderstanding of the Christian religion. Throughout the 21 centuries of its existence it's never said that "Love" was the prime identification mark: a lot of people love one another, that doesn't make them Christian. What makes someone Christian is participation in the Christian rituals and belief in the Christian creeds.

Jesus said (and, I'm sure you agree that Jesus is pretty authoritative):

"If you love me, you will obey what I command...Whoever has my commands and obeys them, he is the one who loves me. He who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I too will love him and show myself to him...If anyone loves me, he will obey my teaching. My Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him. He who does not love me will not obey my teaching. These words you hear are not my own; they belong to the Father who sent me...As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you. Now remain in my love. If you obey my commands, you will remain in my love, just as I have obeyed my Father's commands and remain in his love. I have told you this so that my joy may be in you and that your joy may be complete. My command is this: Love each other as I have loved you. Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends. You are my friends if you do what I command. I no longer call you servants, because a servant does not know his master's business. Instead, I have called you friends, for everything that I learned from my Father I have made known to you... This is my command: Love each other. (John 14 & John 15)

"A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another." (John 13:34-35)

Originally posted by popaface

I'm upset because I don't see the Eucharist being celebrated in Evangelical churches, it's marginal and does not carry any sort of self-identity. YET, they still represent themselves as normative Christianity, dispite the vast differences between themselves and Christian history.

Allan

Allan (and Josh?), don't be so upset. Jesus died once already and is now seated at the right hand of the Father. We remember His sacrifice everytime we celebrate Communion and proclaim Him before men - "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son." (John 3:16-18) and of that, our Lord said, "Whoever acknowledges me before men, I will also acknowledge him before my Father in heaven" (Matthew 10:32). You should rejoice.