First?

By their own admission, they had a huge portion of funds dedicated to “strengthening”. Don’t know how much will be left over fo giving to the poor after that as well as keeping the shiny edifices running.

JYJames wrote:

“Church planting is not commanded anywhere in scripture. If your goal is to make disciples, you won’t have to work at church planting. Church planting will just happen.”
http://www.multiplyingdisciples.com/blog/?p=101

And — repeatedly — with PERSECUTION. Persecutuons followed by growth/forward movement etc. is repeated over and over and over in Acts. If they’re going to claim to go by the book, where’s that manifesting?

“Who pays for the trips to global and regional Advance gatherings (the pastor or the church)?”

In their helpful tips, they suggested the churches make it a budget item.

What are your thoughts on all this talk of church planting?

“Are congregations being harmed by this over-emphasis on church planting?”

Any that aren’t properly balanced could be. I think of the flight attendants who tell passengers not to put oxygen masks on a child first (which is often the natural instinct) but to put it on themselves so they can then help others. This is also reflected to a degree in Paul’s admonition to not neglect one’s own family in true need. Thus, you need sober actors looking prayerfully into the church priorities. If you’ve got authority-heavy echo chambers made up of humans, said priorities may get skewed.

“Is it possible for a pastor to shepherd his flock while promoting church-planting?”

It’s not something that is likely to happen without prioritizing it. (Of course, this is the age of the “teaching pastor”, so shepherding may not be on the individual to-do list.) If it is a priority, it would be wise to identify, interested, engaged, and AVAILABLE church attendees who are willing to make a commitment to participate in discipleship activities commensurate with church planting.

“Does promoting this global church-planting network take away from the local missions efforts of churches?”

This particular one? There are enough red flags to me to have a May Day parade, so…

GMFS

ION: Weather

Unable to get in to work today, but I do have an empty copy of the main database (PostgreSQL as it happens) locally on my laptop, and it wouldn’t do any harm to write some JDBC (I use the word “app” in its broadest sense..!) to get used to the entity relationships there. Also, I plan to dig into some Gradle and Groovy.

On a more humanitarian note – not that my comment is of any material help – my thoughts are with those who were trapped in their vehicles on the M80 last night, just a few miles from here. Kudos to local shops and residents who came out onto the carriageway with supplies.

IHTIH

Is “church planting” another one of those phrases that they use to mean something other than the basic, straightforward meaning? Because in my view, the local church should absolutely be making disciples, and hoping to grow and expand. We are witnesses; it’s our part to share the love of God and the message of forgiveness of sins through Jesus. It’s my own personal belief that 10 smaller churches is better than one mega church, so that believers can really know and love the people they gather with, and be free to share their lives and encourage one another. So once a church is over 100 people, I’d be looking to set apart a group from within there to start a new fellowship.

My issue with the Advance approach would be the level of control on how much the local church puts into mission and church planting. It’s got to be tailored to the local area needs. And I don’t know about a para-church church planting group – surely it’s the call of the church wherever they are to build the kingdom where they are? Something like Advance should either admit it’s a denomination, or it should be supporting the local churches where they ask for it, not dictating a formula for church growth.

The ultimate question comes back to “what kind of churches are they planting?” I know in the SBC “church planting” is new-speak for planting reformed theology churches. Reformers are becoming more and more aware of how difficult it is to sneak in and hijack established churches. So instead, they are taking this route because they can have the kind of churches they want (reformed) without a bunch of us old fuddy-duddies standing in their way! I am becoming increasingly more leery of how the SBC’s Cooperative Program and North American Mission Board dollars are being spent. In the end, however, it usually amounts only to “sheep shuffling” since many of these new efforts do not produce very many new believers.

SBC churches used to plant ‘mission’ churches which were supported or partially supported by the home church until the mission could financially sustain itself. It was my impression at the time that this was a good idea. As I child I went door to door with my mother in developing a ‘religious census’ by which churches could determine where planting a mission would be do-able, and at the same time my father went from a home church to a mission to establish/ teach a men’s bible class as part of the program. This was all SBC before they started using the term ‘evangelical’ and during a lull in mass revivalism just before and even in the early BG days. What happened after that time I have no idea.

If I am correct there is a missions theory regarding international missions that what one does is establish a little church in some location and asap put it under local control even if-important idea here-even if the ‘pastor’ was poorly educated or even a relatively new convert-the big issue being local because language and ethnicity and cost.

As far as I know the ‘mission’ idea for this country was a good idea, and but I have no idea how the other idea worked in other countries. IIRC however BG was a promoter of the international approach I have just tried to describe, and I get the idea that Paul Washer’s missions agency works on that same idea.

Now somebody correct me if I have ignored some evidence here, but is church planting not what Paul was doing? And writing back letters to the church at this or that place?

One can make some really good arguments that what some folks are doing here and now have little or nothing to do with the gospel and most to do with money and more money, but I am thinking that the ‘church planting’ ideas have been around a long time with various variations.

Arce wrote:

canvassing

Make disciples? or Join our club? or Enlist in our force?

okrapod wrote:

One can make some really good arguments that what some folks are doing here and now have little or nothing to do with the gospel and most to do with money and more money, but I am thinking that the ‘church planting’ ideas have been around a long time with various variations.

Agreed…church planting, as far as I can tell, goes all the way back to the New Testament. However, this new batch of planters (at least in the SBC) aren’t planting in new areas that don’t have any Southern Baptist churches. They merely plant new churches to push their own particular ‘brand’ of Southern Baptist church (i.e.–Reformed) and will oftentimes plant them within close proximity to other established SBC churches.

In the old days, we planted churches when the present church was busting at the seams and it calved off to an area where other SBC churches didn’t exist. Even the 50+ year old church I now attend had a “mother” or “sending” church. We were at one time, a mission. Somehow, that model makes more sense to me. As I said before, the way they are “planting” churches now merely amounts to sheep shuffling and little else.

Deb wrote:

I am NOT interested in planting Neo-Cal churches and don’t appreciate contributions being used that way.

This is why I think that SBC churches need to start talking with their wallets and quit giving to the Cooperative Program and NAMB. Maybe that will get their attention!

Essentially, the congregations that do not adhere to reformed theology are bankrolling those that do and that’s NOT how our missions dollars should be spent! Unfortunately, most church members have no inkling that this is happening in the denomination.

okrapod wrote:

But, as to whether one ought to plant a reformed Baptist church in an area in which there was only a non-reformed Baptist church, actually I have no problem with that idea unless we are also going to say how dare someone plant a Protestant church in an area which already has a Catholic church. In other words, since when have Christian groups not competed with each other for followers? More than that, if one strongly believes in what one is preaching, why would one not do that? I do not think that any existing ‘church’ in some area has exclusive and protected right of access to that geographic location.

You are right and I concur. I guess as long as they fully disclose what they are (reformed) and the people attending have no qualms with it, go for it! I just find it puzzling to see another SBC church spring up almost across the street when we can’t even fill the churches we have. It seems counter-intuitive to me. It appears they are attempting to multiply by dividing and that never ends well and usually results in everyone losing.

@ FW Rez:
“When the seed took root in a new community, the believers formed a new congregation.”

When it didn’t take root, they shook the dust off their sandals and moved on, throwing out more seed elsewhere.

JDV wrote:

And — repeatedly — with PERSECUTION. Persecutuons followed by growth/forward movement etc. is repeated over and over and over in Acts. If they’re going to claim to go by the book, where’s that manifesting?

Why where have you been? There’s horrific persecution against the Mighty Servants of the Lord. Look at the “season” of persecution that poor Mark Driscoll had to endure.

How is this group different than ARC with their goal of planting 2000 churches?

“ARC’s growth in the early years was slow, yet strong, averaging a few churches a year. In 2006, ARC planted 9 churches, in 2007 there were 16 more, 2008 saw 25, and by 2009, ARC was averaging around 50 new plants a year. With a more developed structure, ARC is now training and coaching hundreds of church planters each year. …Having planted over 600 churches, and with hundreds more partner churches, ARC has become not only a movement, but a collection of many “tribes” – all with a focus to see a life-giving church in every community in the world.”

https://www.arcchurches.com/about

Maybe it is a competition. I’ll pop some popcorn, sit back and see who “wins.”

Meanwhile, the church I grew up in is finishing their 3rd expansion in 30yrs. Read that as 3rd sanctuary/multi-purpose building. All on the the same plot of land…in the middle of no-where farm country. Same pastor, getting ready to retire in the next 5yrs or so. All is paid off – no debt. Slow, established growth. Deep relationships. Average weekly attendance is 100-200 on a good day. Strong mid-week children’s program that rivals that of the mega, multi-site church in the city where I work. They are active in missions – both financially and in sending teams each year. They exude the body of Christ. If that isn’t “church” planting, I don’t know what is. It has grown into a mature tree.

okrapod wrote:

In other words, since when have Christian groups not competed with each other for followers?

But when have they reached this level of pettiness?
It’s at the level of Orthodox/Coptic monastic fist fights in the Church of the Holy Sepulcher.

elastigirl wrote:

Hu•bris (n) 1. The belief that God couldn’t possibly reach anyone with the Gospel if a city of 670,000 people had 1,688 churches instead of 1,689.

But all those 1688 Other churches are FALSE Churches!
Our Church (the 1689th) is the Only TRUE Church!

Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

And Cee Jay Mahaney
And John Piper
And RC “Precious” Sproul Jr
And Douggie “Little Lord Fauntleroy” Phillips ESQUIRE…

“Persecution means you’re not being allowed to persecute everyone else.”

What these men have had to deal with, I don’t know how they persevere. Why, Mark found a rock on his estate and since it had somehow gotten inside the high walls, why it didn’t just migrate there, someone must have thrown it in. And Mark knew it couldn’t have been one of his boys playing with a rock, because boys never play with rocks and anyway they were inside the mansion the whole time cowering from the helicopter that flew overhead! Of course, it was the black helicopters coming for Mark and his children. I’ve never heard a helicopter near my house, have you? And then Mark had a reporter show up at the gate of his mansion and push the buzzer and ask for “Mark Driscoll” and then Mark had to sort of disguise his voice a little and say “Er, not here.” NOW THAT’S PERSECUTION, BROTHER!

@ Ricco:

Those are a lot of really good points. Growth per se, either by church planting or by building larger campuses for some mega, can be either good or bad. Children ‘grow’ and that tends to be good. Cancers ‘grow’ and that is not good. Growth, then, depends on what is growing. Looking at growth quantitatively but not qualitatively is a really bad idea. In other words, ‘amen, Ricco, preach it.’

Muff Potter wrote:

I’d venture a guess that not all of them were Bible believing Christians and yet they ‘did the right thing’. I wonder where this comes from if Man’s inherited state and his carrying on is only evil from the womb?

Yep, and when Jesus noted that even ‘evil’ people knew how to give good gifts to their children..reckon how on earth He came up with such an idea?? And then there would be the so-called good Samaritan-probably just a misunderstanding of some word in the Greek?? Or it never was a parable but rather some later addition from some conspiracy among the translators… Sigh. Headache time. Personally I think that on this issue the Calvinists are wrong and the Catholics are right-simple as that.

Ricco wrote:

I would like to see churches say, we are united around the Nicene Creed. Everything else is secondary. I can’t think of a single church/denomination that actually does that in practice.

That’s because there is no “christianity” but a bunch of “christianities”, many of which regard the others as false.

This “church planting” sounds like another way to fleece the sheep. It is aimed at churches that are authoritarian.

Red flags:
– “eldership” (this is not a real word) – There is no leadership. The church is the elders (and a bunch of sheeple who pay for everything). This is language right out of “1984” – only the proles and animals are truly free.
– No accountability – give us money and we may use it for this…or that….or whatever.
– How many blinking churches do we need? What’s the saturation point? The language reminds me of multi level marketing more that anything faith based.
– The recommended courses – got questions? – pay us and we’ll give you answers (and a never ending stream courses to answer the questions that this course will raise)

The churches that this outfit will cater to and try to create are churches like CLC with docile congregations that don’t question the elders. Unfortunately the best you can do is get the word out and hopefully limit the damage.

Check your churches folks – all that glitters isn’t gold.

Jack wrote:

– How many blinking churches do we need? What’s the saturation point?

Remember dot-coms some 18-20 years ago?

HUNDREDS of startups trying to crowd into a niche that could support maybe two or three.

All driving each other into Chapter 7 after burning through the investors’ money faster than the other dot-com.

@ okrapod:

It ain’t hard to do. Hell, all ya’ gotta’ do is have is a verse here, have a verse there (like climber’s pitons in a rock face), connect em’ with rope, and voila!, you got yerself an iron clad ‘Biblical’ doctrine.

okrapod wrote:

Children ‘grow’ and that tends to be good. Cancers ‘grow’ and that is not good. Growth, then, depends on what is growing.

“Growth for the sake of Growth is the philosophy of the cancer cell.”

Would any of these church planting funds have been used to help plant churches for Amy Carmichael, Gladys Aylward, Lottie Moon or George Mueller? Nope. But those were the real people out there doing the real work of the ministry.

They only wanted Lottie Moon to teach school. She said why bother teaching students who don’t want to learn when there were multitudes of other people hungry for the Gospel? So she had to disobey their orders in order to do the real work of the ministry.

The problem is that the real church planters who really do need the resources aren’t getting it.

okrapod wrote:

SBC churches used to plant ‘mission’ churches which were supported or partially supported by the home church until the mission could financially sustain itself.

I think I garbled my explanation above, but yes, I think a new church that meets a particular need and is connected to a particular church makes some sense. But it shouldn’t be a constant thing, or just sending a percentage of cash off into the ether without paying attention. That’s just a bad plan.

Anonymous Oracle at Delphi wrote:

For me the key is not to be connected to weird groups that are led by weird people

Interesting that you should say this. Because of stuff related to my Real Life — Charismaniac Neighbor — I’ve been reading up on the Toronto Blessing / Catch the Fire movement. From there I went on to read about spiritual abuse in general, and this led me to the Elder Ephraim monasteries (Greek Orthodox) and also back to a group I am personally familiar with (Regnum Christi). Not to mention the Catholic “charismatic covenant communities,” many of which have been either dissolved or restructured by the local bishop because they went so far off the rails with all that shepherding stuff.

My takeaway from all of this depressing research is: Stick with normal people. Once you hang out with crazy cultists — of any desription, from any church — you may never get your sanity back.

That’s why I am grateful for the parish system. Most parishes I have been involved with have been havens of normalcy. The good, the bad, and the ugly. Here Comes Everybody. Just regular people…not some weird Spiritual Elite.

“What are your thoughts on all this talk of church planting?”

On the surface it sounds nice. You think of evangelism, reaching the lost, growing and doing God’s work instead of being a stagnant business-as-usual-church. I was very active in a new church-planting church plant for about 5 years and have discovered it’s more about money than anything else. I see it as religious franchising. The church plants are not able to take on their own identity or ministries, they must copy-cat the sending church(es) and have little autonomy. They get the notoriety of the mother church(es) and maybe get to share the cool worship band or preachers to attract new people. It mostly attracts people from other churches or Christians who haven’t been attending church. Very little new growth. On the surface it’s great but there is very little depth.

The church planting agencies are just a system to shuffle money around. Congregants feel like they are a mission minded church because “church-planting” is in the budget but they don’t really know what that means or where the money is really going.

I think part of it is just to make sure all the new grads coming out of SBC seminaries have well paying jobs. Its crazy that there are a ton of mini SBC church planting networks in addition to NAMB such as Pillar network. Alot of these networks dont include much info on thier websites so it hard to get an idea of how many are really out there. When I googled searched Southern Baptist church planting networks the first suggested “others searched” was “NAMB church planter salery” Tells you what’s really important – the paychecks.

“Are congregations being harmed by this over-emphasis on church planting?”

Yes. It was quite the experience when we found out our (former) pastor was embezzling church funds. It was unreal how poorly it was handled by the leaders – they were unable to think for themselves and just followed lawyers’ and church partners'(financiers) advice – which was influenced by 9marks and Acts 29. They did what they could to save the institution and image of the church rather than caring for those hurt by it and moving forward with guidance of the Holy Spirit.

Ironic, I checked on the website of a network my former church is a part of and it says “Church is a stable plant” Stable? Over 5 years old and the church still receives 50% of its money from outside support and a pastor was forced to resign because he was caught stealing from the church is stable?
I’m can’t tell if they are intentionally being deceptive or if they honestly are so deep into this “church-planting” idea that their perceptions no longer match reality.

@ Law Prof:

The Christian systems that view people as pieces and parts of a machine. I heard it referred to once as mechanical spirituality. Spirituality is mechanized rather than humanized.

People are viewed as supply only, interchangable and indistinguishable from other people in their same category. Everyone is reduced to caricatures and roles.

If you go against the system and question it, or cause some clogging and hindrance, you break off as a part. Or if necessary, someone will come over with a wrench, compress you, turn you about, and fling you off into the abyss.

The system is set up to automatically replace you, it has no feelings or empathy or self-reflection, only concern that it keeps going. There are always more people to come in and take over where you left off (the caricature and reduced to a role version of you that is). Which anyone with surfacey characteristics and
categorical markers similar to your’s can supress themselves to fit. And the system just keeps on moving. Until the day it totally breaks down, of course.

A lot of church planting movements have a utilitarian approach to humanity running underneath it. I see a lot of utilitarianism in a lot of modern Western/American theology in general, actually.

Max wrote:

The aggressive proliferation of New Calvinism within the Southern Baptist Convention

Is this a shadow denom?

@ Nick Bulbeck:
#MeNeither or #NorUs…

@ Deb:
Thanks, Deb, for this important post. Things coming into the Light again on TWW. Appreciated. And best to Dee. Appreciate her tweets, too.

@ Max:
Yes, I remember it. I’ll try to find it and post the link.

@ Deb:
Thanks!

@ JYJames:
Yes, that’s the one. Thanks for looking for this, Deb. I suppose it is sort of related to the blog topic – another weird church planting group.

@ Max:
That photo evokes another Red Flag: “Authentic Manhood defined or culture” and “Authentic Womanhood” the same. Furthermore, protection of children.

Man, woman, child – God created them all. How a culture twists God’s creation intentions is concerning, defining.

Max wrote:

…the average Southern Baptist doesn’t really give a big whoop about “theology” and that their missions giving is financing a proliferation of reformed theology in SBC ranks. But if you mess with their potluck dinners, you will have a war on your hands!

That’s funny, because that sort of thing happened to me—for real! In two straight cultic churches where I was an elder, over my objections, the pastor managed to eliminate or severely curtail the potluck dinners. In the first instance, the pastor said it was because we’d “grown too big for these things”. In reality, we hadn’t grown at all, we were still a tiny church of just dozens. In the second case, the pastor was more direct: “The potlucks diminish the importance of my message.” There would typically be a few people in charge of getting things together in the church kitchen, so not everyone was always there for his sermon, so the potluck fellowships had to go.

Of course, as is common in cults, the last thing an abusive, narcissistic leader wants is people getting together in genuine, unscripted fellowship outside of his control. The care groups or life groups or whatever annoying thing they call them are generally heavily controlled by an associate of the leader who provides the leadership intelligence, so they’re not so dangerous to the leader’s unremitting control.

Some of the discussion made me think of this informative article on the Peace Corps:

https://www.fff.org/explore-freedom/article/forgotten-failures-peace-corps/

Some excerpts:

“Loret Ruppe, Reagan’s Peace Corps director, declared, “The number of people whose lives have been touched by the Peace Corps was estimated at one million every month.” This is one more reflection of the “Pope’s robe” mentality — the idea that foreigners are benefited simply by seeing idealistic young Americans. The Corps’s obsession with measuring its success not by what is achieved but by what can most easily be counted often ventures into the absurd.”

“Faced with 20 years of such grim evaluations, the Reagan administration got rid of the Inspector General. Instead of an IG that evaluated what volunteers did abroad, the Peace Corps got a new “Office of Compliance,” which mainly worried about whether the country’s programs were following regulations. Charles Peters, chief of Peace Corps evaluation in the 1960s and now editor of The Washington Monthly, observes, “That means the guy in charge doesn’t want to find out what’s wrong.” A former top Peace Corps official under Reagan confirms this charge: “You’re talking about Alice in Wonderland management. It’s not important what’s happening — it’s only important what people think is happening.” The Peace Corps under Reagan even stopped taking annual surveys of volunteers’ assessment of the Corps’s strengths and weaknesses.”

“As early as 1969, a Peace Corps official complained that the Peace Corps had become an organization “of the volunteers, by the volunteers, and for the volunteers.” Chilean sociologist Ricardo Zuniga, in his Harvard doctoral dissertation on the Peace Corps, observed, “There is a pervasive focusing on the giver rather than the host.” After surveying thousands of pages of Peace Corps literature, Zuniga concluded that it gives “almost no attention to ‘goal attainment’ (effectiveness).”

“Most of the former Peace Corps volunteers I have met conceded that their time abroad did little good for the foreigners but was a wonderful growing experience for them personally. It’s nice to have growing experiences — but we don’t morally canonize people for going to graduate school, and we shouldn’t do it for those who join the Peace Corps.”

Honestly, I’ve never understood all this emphasis on church planting, especially in areas such as South Carolina, where it seems like if you drive ten miles you’ll pass 15 churches, most of which are Baptist. I knew a youth leader who took his youth group on a missionary trip to the coal region of Kentucky, because he said they were all lost there and they didn’t have churches. I asked him, if he was blind? Because there is no way you could drive through any small town in coal country and not see all the churches. Of course what he meant was that they didn’t have any large hip churches with rock music and skinny jean pastors.

But, I think my main problem is that I see Church differently then these people. To me the church, as in the Pastor, worship service, music, building, is not for winning people for Christ, but is the place for the already saved(or the Church) to come together to worship Christ, rejoice in fellowship with one another, receive encouragement in the Word, support from their brothers and sisters in Christ and should be tailored to fit those already in the church, not those of the world. A church should be welcoming and open to all, like how the early church was open to all in the first part of the service but then the unbaptized departed before the Lord’s Supper.

It is the role the Church, or all the believers, to bring people to Christ outside of the church building all the other days of the week, through Evangelism and behaving in the humble ways of charity and compassion modeled by our Saviour. The Preacher should not be preaching on Sunday morning, that is teaching time, he (or she) should be preaching outside of the church, Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, and Saturday.

Too many of these “church planters” seem to take “Field of Dreams” as some sort of apocryphal Gospel, and they misquote it “If you build it, they will come.”

@ Jarrett Edwards:
Describes not only many churches but most of government which is by bureaucrats for bureaucrats with guaranteed pensions, to boot.

Thersites wrote:

If you find you need to hide your opinions and to censure yourself then you are likely repressing the Spirit and it is time to leave.

This is exactly the place I came to about 14 years ago. The church we attended wasn’t so much authoritarian but certainly had specific belief requirements that I couldn’t reconcile (young earth creationism one of them). You couldn’t have a dissenting opinion.
I found that once gone, I didn’t miss church at all. I still maintain a certain spirituality but not Christian.
Fortunately my wife embodies a true spirit of tolerance & understanding which made it easy to be honest about how I felt.
But I wasn’t that invested in the church, once any group becomes your primary social network for the whole family, then it’s complicated.

Deb wrote:

It’s amazing how much funding goes to paying the rent and keeping the lights on.

There’s been a paradigm shift in journalism, from paper or analogue to digital. In education from face-to-face to remote or online. In film from theaters to Netflix.

Brick and mortar has in large part gone away in some circumstances. Wonder what this will do to the church experience, and why there are still (mega) building projects going on?

(This shift is what makes TWW possible.)

Law Prof wrote:

The care groups or life groups or whatever annoying thing they call them are generally heavily controlled by an associate of the leader who provides the leadership intelligence, so they’re not so dangerous to the leader’s unremitting control.

The New Calvinists have mastered this spy technique. Some churches require all members to be a part of a weekly “LifeGroup” meeting by putting that language in the membership covenant they have to sign. These small group meetings corral the membership under the surveillance of leaders who are hand-picked by the pastor and his elder team. They are always men (of course), faithful reformers who have aspirations to be an elder themselves some day if they walk the line and identify (squeal on) potential dissenters in the church. Just another great reason not to join yourself to a New Calvinist church.

JYJames wrote:

Holy Spirit, anyone?

That’s the last thing a narcissistic pastor wants in church! He can do just fine leading his congregation into “truth” without any intervention from the Trinity, thank you. Take this New Calvinist bunch, for example … they have subordinated the Son, diminished the Holy Spirit, and replaced the Almighty with a reformed higher power. There’s just no room for Holy God to speak to and through His people – the pulpit handles that in order to control every jot and tittle of the message.

Law Prof wrote:

their lives have become not all about Jesus, but all about this particular church and this particular group of people

The 21st century church in America is not aware of the waning authority of Jesus in its gatherings. The average churchman is defined by the group he belongs to, rather than a personal relationship with Christ. Today, Jesus has little to no authority in churches which gather under the banner of Christianity. Church leaders may give Him occasional lip service, but really don’t want Him to have any Lordship over their church. The New Testament Church would not recognize the thing we’ve put together in most places.

Max wrote:

JYJames wrote:

Holy Spirit, anyone?

That’s the last thing a narcissistic pastor wants in church! He can do just fine leading his congregation into “truth” without any intervention from the Trinity, thank you. Take this New Calvinist bunch, for example … they have subordinated the Son, diminished the Holy Spirit, and replaced the Almighty with a reformed higher power. There’s just no room for Holy God to speak to and through His people – the pulpit handles that in order to control every jot and tittle of the message.

Yes, the Holy Spirit is missing in most churches today! A.W. Tozer put it this way, “If the Holy Spirit was withdrawn from the church today, 95 percent of what we do would go on and no one would know the difference…” Sadly, Tozer was absolutely spot-on.

Oh, how we need the Spirit’s reviving and life-giving power!

Max wrote:

Church leaders may give Him occasional lip service, but really don’t want Him to have any Lordship over their church. The New Testament Church would not recognize the thing we’ve put together in most places.

The idea, for most church leaders, even the decent ones, the ones who actually do know Jesus, of giving up their leadership as they know it (calling the shots, knowing that as they walk through the room people are admiring them, going to pastors conferences and talking about “my fellowship, my programs, my long-term strategic growth plan, stomping out “bad” doctrine, standing boldly for “good” doctrine, being a Hero of the Faith, drawing a salary and benefits which expand as their influence and church expand, casting their vision, being The Man) and just stepping down from the stage, turning off the spotlight, being a humble servant, submitting one to another, being just another member of the body, no more prominent or important than any other, willing to do those tiresome, thankless things, why that’d be a fate worse than death. Of course, that’s what Jesus wants to do: kill them, at least kill their vision of themselves as Great Ones.

Law Prof wrote:

Keep count of how many times the name “Jesus” drops out of pastor’s mouth. At a church where I attended, the Wayne Grudem-loving one, we once went five weeks without pastor saying “Jesus”.

I bet Grudem’s name was dropped more than the Name of Jesus! New Calvinist churches talk a lot about “God”, with only occasional mention of Jesus and hardly ever bring up the Holy Spirit. New Calvinist icons get more publicity than Christ in their sermons. You can test that yourself by listening to New Calvinist sermon podcasts with a tablet containing four columns: (1) God, (2) Jesus, (3) Holy Spirit, (4) Reformed Icon (Calvin, Grudem, Piper, etc.). When the final Amen is said, you will have more icon check-marks than a tally for Jesus, perhaps none for the Holy Spirit.

Law Prof wrote:

Root 66 wrote:

What is the purpose of a Christianity without Christ?

For many of the leaders? Money. Fame. Adoring fans. Narcissistic supply.

Again, quoting A.W. Tozer, his thoughts on the makings of a genuine and true leader:

“A true and safe leader is likely to be one who has no desire to lead, but is forced into a position of leadership by the inward pressure of the Holy Spirit and the press of the external situation.”

True leadership stems from humility and a genuine heart to serve. If your pastor lacks these traits, that pastor isn’t called of the LORD.
Our former YRR, Neo-Cal pastor once told my daughter that they “didn’t come here just to serve, serve, serve.” That was a HUGE red flag that something was seriously wrong!

Root 66 wrote:

Law Prof wrote:

Root 66 wrote:

What is the purpose of a Christianity without Christ?

For many of the leaders? Money. Fame. Adoring fans. Narcissistic supply.

Again, quoting A.W. Tozer, his thoughts on the makings of a genuine and true leader:

“A true and safe leader is likely to be one who has no desire to lead, but is forced into a position of leadership by the inward pressure of the Holy Spirit and the press of the external situation.”

True leadership stems from humility and a genuine heart to serve. If your pastor lacks these traits, that pastor isn’t called of the LORD.
Our former YRR, Neo-Cal pastor once told my daughter that they “didn’t come here just to serve, serve, serve.” That was a HUGE red flag that something was seriously wrong!

And, if the pastor’s on a stage under a spotlight each week doing most of the talking and sitting in a boardroom presiding over a team of elders making strategic decisions like a CEO, drawing a salary off of the church which he thinks he has a right to based on the necessity that the church members tithe to support him, then he’s not even a pastor, he’s someone occupying a made-up position called “pastor” that doesn’t exist in the New Testament.

Law Prof wrote:

that’s what Jesus wants to do

“Deny yourself, take up your cross, and follow Me,” that is, follow Jesus. And denying oneself is universal, for everyone, male and female, Jew and Greek, all comers = discipleship. The ground at the foot of the Cross is level.

Max wrote:

General William Booth, Founder of the Salvation Army, saw this coming:

“I consider that the chief dangers which confront the coming century will be religion without the Holy Ghost; Christianity without Christ; forgiveness without repentance; salvation without regeneration; politics without God; and Heaven without Hell.”

Worth repeating.

Root 66 wrote:

Our former YRR, Neo-Cal pastor once told my daughter that they “didn’t come here just to serve, serve, serve.”

Then you won’t find those non-servant leaders visiting the sick in hospitals, praying with nursing home patients, reaching out to those in the community who need food and shelter, preaching the Gospel on a street corner, visiting in church member homes, preaching funerals, or otherwise serving the Body of Christ. But they always seem to have plenty of time to sit for hours in the local coffee shop where they drink, drink, drink espresso and tweet, tweet, tweet their lives away.

JYJames wrote:

Deb wrote:

It’s amazing how much funding goes to paying the rent and keeping the lights on.

There’s been a paradigm shift in journalism, from paper or analogue to digital. In education from face-to-face to remote or online. In film from theaters to Netflix.

Brick and mortar has in large part gone away in some circumstances. Wonder what this will do to the church experience, and why there are still (mega) building projects going on?

(This shift is what makes TWW possible.)

They still like the big fancy church where the *pastor* performs. Everybody else gets to worship, erm, watch their *hero* online.

Forrest wrote:

They still like the big fancy church where the *pastor* performs. Everybody else gets to worship, erm, watch their *hero* online.

In the words of the Prophets Emerson, Lake, and Palmer:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IwSTe9uit48

Max wrote:

If they can maneuver you into this position, then they can begin to take .. take your minds and take your stuff.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6rTPXoE8pyI

@ Law Prof:

Yes, good thoughts.

The question for me becomes: what is the ultimate value this group centers itself around? And is that ultimate value actually virtue or vice? And what values (and vices) are consequentially supporting all of this?

You see groups like SGM and many other churches sacrifice the sexual, spiritual, physical, emotional well-being of children for the greatest good of “insert here”. That sacrifice is made to keep the “happiness” of the gro…er… machine going. Without that ultimate value being maintained, the machine loses its function or power. Everything must submit to it and work toward that end.

Of course often it is the leader or leaders and their ego that is the ultimate value.

Or that greater good may be a Christian term or concept, but if you diagnose it and look at how the term is functioning, it’s not really representing a traditional Christian virtue or what it pretends, but something else vicious and misappropritated or only half or sometimes true.

I think the words gospel and mission and kingdom often functions this way. They are virtue-world statements, meaning they are meant to encompass a whole theology and picture of the world behind them when the word is used. But depending on the group, they mean different things and often include fringe ideals.

You see the package “gospel” but open it up and see that “homeschool or else” is in there. Another group’s “gospel” box has twenty other things in it once you get to looking and so on. But who is going to question the terms gospel-centered or kindgom-focused at first glance? What church wouldn’t want to be those things?

The Christian terms and ultimate values can sometimes act as bait and switch tactics.

It can mask true meanings, and what is happening doesn’t always match what is being said.

Law Prof wrote:

Some cults will do it by simply taking up all your extra time: Sunday morning service, Sunday evening service, Tuesday life group, Wednesday night service, Friday youth night, periodic Saturday picnics, retreats, sports days, carnivals, etc. A family can become thoroughly exhausted, especially if you’re driving 20, 30 miles to the mega campus to engage in all this “life together”.

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Song_of_the_Wheels

@ Max:
Wow. Yes we are there.

JYJames wrote:

Is this a shadow denom?

For a moment, I thought you’d written “shadow DEMON”. Which sounds like something from the cheesier end of the sci-fi genre.

The irony of this will not be lost on regular Wartburgers.

Law Prof wrote:

the pastor was more direct: “The potlucks diminish the importance of my message.”

I must increase so the he will decrease.

Muff Potter wrote:

@ Max:
I remember the pic too.
Seems they were peddling an alpha-male-warrior lifestyle for their respective congregations. All sanctioned by Scripture of course.

I also recollect making a comment to the effect of:
…Those guys can’t hold a candle to the Russian women who fought and died on the Eastern Front (1941-1945)…

I made a lot of technical comments regarding the M4s they were packing — EMPTY!

Jack wrote:

Keep the sheep focused on the leadership and distrustful of each other.

Which may lead to the New Calvinist practice of “shunning” for members who don’t walk the line. If leadership puts a mark on you, then members are obligated to shun you when they cross your path in the community. They don’t want members to talk to you, to know what you know. Petty high-school stuff.

Jack wrote:

These closed communities are fed a constant diet of fear – fear of the outside and each other – by a leadership that perceives itself to be at the head of that table by divine right.

Cult.

Jack wrote:

I don’t think these church planting movements will have an effect on our society over all.

No, but they are sure having an effect on Generation X, Y, and Z who are looking for a way to do church differently than their parents. The frenzy of New Calvinist church planting activity is feeding this desire. Movements come and go; ten years from now, another group will be serving up a new flavor of aberrant faith to attract seekers. America has gotten over the Gospel of the Cross of Christ – church must be more exciting than that these days.

Jarrett Edwards wrote:

Honestly, I’ve never understood all this emphasis on church planting, especially in areas such as South Carolina, where it seems like if you drive ten miles you’ll pass 15 churches, most of which are Baptist. I knew a youth leader who took his youth group on a missionary trip to the coal region of Kentucky, because he said they were all lost there and they didn’t have churches. I asked him, if he was blind? Because there is no way you could drive through any small town in coal country and not see all the churches. Of course what he meant was that they didn’t have any large hip churches with rock music and skinny jean pastors.
But, I think my main problem is that I see Church differently then these people. To me the church, as in the Pastor, worship service, music, building, is not for winning people for Christ, but is the place for the already saved(or the Church) to come together to worship Christ, rejoice in fellowship with one another, receive encouragement in the Word, support from their brothers and sisters in Christ and should be tailored to fit those already in the church, not those of the world. A church should be welcoming and open to all, like how the early church was open to all in the first part of the service but then the unbaptized departed before the Lord’s Supper.
It is the role the Church, or all the believers, to bring people to Christ outside of the church building all the other days of the week, through Evangelism and behaving in the humble ways of charity and compassion modeled by our Saviour. The Preacher should not be preaching on Sunday morning, that is teaching time, he (or she) should be preaching outside of the church, Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, and Saturday.
Too many of these “church planters” seem to take “Field of Dreams” as some sort of apocryphal Gospel, and they misquote it “If you build it, they will come.”

I’ve seen building projects justified by this “architectural evangelism” — while not so coincidentally, the actual evangelism training and initiative withered on the vine.

Jack wrote:

I could be wrong but I think this is was a common tool in Stalin’s Russia, China and North Korea. Keep the sheep focused on the leadership and distrustful of each other.

You’re not wrong, Jack.
Max was describing Party Cells, with a Party Commissar or Informant in every Cell.

@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
Wrong. Totally wrong. It’s a total realignment and the God ship mostly sailed. It’s now all over the board. You are seeing just as much God stuff from the other side. I could give you many links of stuff but recent are not including Jesus as a refugee:
http://thehill.com/blogs/in-the-know/375969-oprah-if-im-supposed-to-run-for-president-god-has-to-tell-me

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/08/hillary-clinton-devotionals/535941/

I’m one who sees the purpose of the church IS evangelism and proclaiming ALL the truth taught in God’s Word.

That said, I don’t get the concept of “church planting.” I am ancient I guess but I remember when the SBC and the Methodists (pre UMC) grew new churches very simply. When enough people of those faith moved to a community and wanted a church, they formed one and THEN notified the hierarchies. As in, “We recently formed a Baptist or Methodist church at this town and location. We have xyz membership. We are considering partnering with you.”

The main problems I have with Acts 29 are:

1) Plural elder model, when church (“ecclesia”) literally means an assembly of equals with an equal vote on all matters. It’s the Greek word for the Athenian pure democracy.

2) Complementarianism, the belief that both sexes are equal, but one is more equal than the other

3) Abuse of church discipline for profit motive

4) The way their theology creates an unloving environment. See the Yelp reviews about my old Acts 29 church: https://www.yelp.com/biz/the-resolved-church-san-diego-2?hrid=rvRYmE8X1qNyVRk2nV63FQ&utm_campaign=www_review_share_popup&utm_medium=copy_link&utm_source=(direct)

Muff Potter wrote:

Seems they were peddling an alpha-male-warrior lifestyle for their respective congregations. All sanctioned by Scripture of course.

The “Wild at Heart” men’s video series, and the “Stepping Up” series are along those lines too.

Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

Lead Pastor/Head Apostle’s Agenda, of course.

WWJD or WWJSay – “Woe to them…”

hoodaticus wrote:

when church (“ecclesia”) literally means an assembly of equals with an equal vote on all matters. It’s the Greek word for the Athenian pure democracy.

Why have I never heard this before? The word Ecclesia is tossed around, but gathering of equals? Is the word Ecclesia used in the Bible for church? For real? And equals is what it means? What’s up with all of the hierarchies? Something’s adrift in Evangel Haven.

linda wrote:

When enough people of those faith moved to a community and wanted a church, they formed one and THEN notified the hierarchies. As in, “We recently formed a Baptist or Methodist church at this town and location. We have xyz membership. We are considering partnering with you.”

This sounds so normal. Or, people were meeting as a Bible study and then grew into a church-size-type-thing-with-financial-commitment-at-a-point that, just as you describe, considered formation and then looked for appropriate affiliation. Gone are those days, I guess.

I’ve told some local pastors that with the cost of starting up a church being so high, we can’t afford another “Great Awakening.”

Baptist and Methodist chucked grew rapidly on the US in the 1800s, partly because the preachers weren’t well trained, and would often preach for free. Church buildings were made by local builders, using materials on hand. They planted lots of churches because they could do it while spending little money.

We need to plant churches. But we’re going to have to find better ways to build better churches.

Whenever we get on the topic of ecclesia—some will argue that church buildings are unnecessary. But if spreading the Gospel was more effective without the use of any four walls, then why do cults have church buildings?

Think about the millions of dollars that cults will spend on lavish church buildings. Why? Because those buildings help them reach people. Those buildings provide a gateway for drawing people in. Church buildings are a help—not hindrance in spreading the Gospel.

The problem is not the resources and tools that get the job done. The problem is the wolves siphoning off the resources for their own benefit.

Lydia wrote:

You are seeing just as much God stuff from the other side.

I know what you mean. Back at the old church I had worked with some members over the years to keep politics out of the church, most of it then was primarily from the red end of the spectrum. About the time I left the membership was taking a swing into blue territory and many of those I thought were allies in keeping out partisan politics turned out to be only interested in keeping out the other side. Since then that church has become a hotbed of virtue signaling, another reason I’m glad I’m out. I grow tired of those who act as if their politics is not political.

Brent Detwiler has just published an article which clearly shows CLC senior pastor PJ Smyth to be a liar and the assistant pastors of CLC to have aided him in his deception. They all need to resign. Members should demand it, and when they refuse to resign members would be well advised to find a new church.

http://www.brentdetwiler.com/brentdetwilercom/new-indisputable-evidence-proves-pj-smyth-knew-all-about-fat.html

Jack wrote:

Not sure what your second sentence means.

Search on Lindsay Shepherd’s inquisition and listen to the recording for a hint.

Does anyone know if it is possible to write US Immigration and ask them to revoke PJ Smyth’s visa?

@ Jack:
That doesn’t surprise me based on your comments here. My view is that left and right have the SAME problem when it comes to controlling and social engineering. It’s why I keep repeating: Church is voluntary. But compelled speech laws in Canada, for example, isn’t voluntary. There are tons of examples that are similar, here, so not picking on our Northern neighbors. The key is “control”. Totalitarianism.

@ Thersites:
It’s why I can’t find a church. They all want to tell me who to vote for or what social issues I must support if I am a real Christian. The lefty churches were actually worse in every attempt. Very shame censoring with perceived enemies all around. One can sense there would be no rational discussion from the start. Everything is political. Even Avocados.. 🙂

Todd Wilhelm wrote:

If P.J. and the pastors don’t resign and come clean, I’d recommend people leave (Brent Detwiler)

But, P.J. has got such a cool accent! Sadly, some folks are that easily suckered into these church messes.

@ Forrest:
It’s voluntary.

@ Todd Wilhelm:
For constituents in the area, they can contact their Senators and House Representatives, who would look into this.

It seems to me that the ecclesia in ancient Athenian democracy was quite different from what hoodaticus is saying, if one uses the definition of equality as it is used in today’s understanding in this nation.

The called out ones who constituted the assembly were a minority of the population by law.

So check this out. The first first link is about the ecclesia. The ecclesia was for adult male citizens only.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecclesia_(ancient_Athens)

This second link addresses what constituted a voting citizen in ancient Athens. It is a real eye-opener. No women, or slaves or freedmen or resident aliens; in fact citizens were the minority of the population. Now that sounds like neo-cal understanding if indeed one wants to reduplicate ancient Athens and make that politic the rules of procedure of the church.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athenian_democracy

I have another problem here. Of those who first put the Jesus story into common Greek did they really mean that the word was to be understood as being highly selective as it surely was in Athens, or were they using the meaning of called out ones who constituted a group without the baggage of what that actually turned out to be in ancient Greece?

Along with this there is now, as I am sure everybody knows, a large academic pursuit of trying to see how a Jewish sect turned so non-Jewish (Greeco-Roman) so soon after the actual Jesus event. In simple and plain words, was Jesus actually a Hellenized Jew whose preaching could be understood to have included some influence from aspects of Greek politic and philosophy, or have we misread Jesus the observant Jew and thus are ‘we’ the ones who took a turn in a different direction.

But no, the ancient Athenian democracy was ‘egalitarian’ only for the minority of the population who qualified as citizens.

Lydia wrote:

The bigger problem, IMO, comes from the word “office” being added by translators. Descriptors such as pastor, teacher, etc are more like functions of gifting and are not necessarily static. Elder is simply someone with more experience as in more mature in the faith.

As a Protestant, this is very much what I want to believe. But I can find no evidence for this type of church until post-reformation. Very early writings, such as 1 Clement and the seven letters of Ignatius, describe the offices of Bishop (episkopos), Priest (presbuteros), and Deacon (diakonos) as well established by the end of the first century. This is not to say that the type of church you describe did not exist back then, but there appears to be no written record of it. Here is an example from Ignatius (a disciple of the Apostle John, and who died in 107 AD):

“Let all things therefore be done by you with good order in Christ. Let the laity be subject to the deacons; the deacons to the presbyters; the presbyters to the bishop; the bishop to Christ, even as He is to the Father.” (St. Ignatius: Letter to the Smyrnaeans; Ch 9)

Similarly, Polycarp (Bishop of Smyrna and a disciple of the Apostle John), in his letter to the church in Phillippi, wrote about the hierarchy of priests and deacons. I am still sorting out what this means for me. If anyone can point to historical evidence contrary to the type of church hierarchy described by Ignatius, Clement, and Polycarp, I would love to see it.

@ okrapod:
This is true but my view is that verses such as we find in Galatians (no Greek or Jew, slave or free, male nor female) override that but —the concept remains

Lydia wrote:

Jesus also said don’t lord it over and many other things with that perspective.

Here is what Polycarp wrote about the role of priests/elders:

And the presbyters also must be compassionate, merciful towards all men, turning back the sheep that are gone astray, visiting all the infirm, not neglecting a widow or an orphan or a poor man: but providing always for that which is honorable in the sight of God and of men, abstaining from all anger, respect of persons, unrighteous judgment, being far from all love of money, not quick to believe anything against any man, not hasty in judgment, knowing that we all are debtors of sin.

So from very early on there is guidance that priests should not be lording over others. If church hierarchy today actually looked like this, would you still reject this guidance as not applying because it comes are from another time? As I read early church history, what stands out to me is how different Christians were from the secular culture in terms of their morality, compassion, mercy, etc. They were certainly not perfect, and one can find very bad examples, but I still get the sense that those ancient paths were not all bad, and that the modern church would benefit from looking at early church history. I guess I’m stuck on the fact that the same early church that handed down traditions that Protestants reject also handed down the written tradition (NT) that we do not reject. We tend to believe they got it right with the NT, but got it wrong with pretty much everything else. Right now that is not making sense to me.

@ Ken F (aka Tweed):
I want to add one other thing that rarely gets mentioned. Literacy. The Jews were pretty good at educating their children to read. The Romans had a much more hierarchical approach to education.

@ Forrest:
There are no safe spaces! So the best I could come up with is: Wise as snakes and gentle as doves.

Lydia wrote:

Have we evolved in some respects? And what does that mean to interpretation?

I’m not really sure how to reply because I think we might be talking past each other. I thought you were making the case that the ancient meaning of Greek words as they were understood in the time of the early church should have relevance for how “church” should be done today. I thought I was building on that theme by showing how the meanings of some ancient Greek words were actually applied in the early church based on historical Christian writings. Whether or not those writings should be any kind of authority or example for us today is a good question. If there is merit in applying word meanings such as ekklesia in terms of how those words were interpreted in the earlier church, then it seems like we should do the same with words like episkopos, presbuteros, diakonos, and others. It’s not clear to me what gives us the authority to pick and choose which history to accept as normative and which to reject. I actually do not like what I have been finding, which is one of the reasons I am hoping that someone can point me to other ancient writings that tell a different story.

As for us evolving culturally, I’m questioning that as well. While our culture no longer discards post-born infants like they did in ancient Rome, our culture is quite efficient and productive in discarding pre-born infants. The main difference is our way of doing it is appears much more clinical – no one has to hear the screams. But does it make it any better? Similar for caste systems. I think we have improved from Greco-Roman times, but we still have many barriers to equality through what kind of family/ethnicity/gender/inheritance one is born into. The castes might be less formal, but they still well entrenched.

Maybe we are saying basically the same things but with different words. What does appear indisputable is how so many early Christians rose above their times through things like adopting discarded babies, taking care of the infirm, refusing to worship Caesar, etc. Now we have “churches” getting lawyers to throw people under buses.

Ken F (aka Tweed) wrote:

The castes might be less formal, but they still well entrenched

Sorry but our society is way better than it was. Racism, castes etc may never go away but at least in North America they aren’t formalized anymore. Until the 1960’s my marriage would have been illegal based on the difference in our skin colour in many states.
There are no “good old days”

@ Ken F (aka Tweed):

Yes. Just yes. I agree with you.

Re-characterizing ancient vocabulary meanings and for that matter nuances to fit in with today’s religious and political concepts, on the one hand, as compared to reading other writers of the day back then to gain insight as to how the word and the concepts were understood by the church at the time-that seems to be to be not just nonsensical but even perhaps deliberately misleading. Why remotely would we know better what they were saying back then than the people of that day knew what was being said and what it meant? That makes no sense at all to me.

And about child abandonment which you mentioned. I am the grandmother of two abandoned babies who were adopted into our family. Who thinks that has gone away somehow? Or who thinks that customs and attitudes in the US represent the customs and ideas of the whole planet? Or who thinks that all US citizens agree with each other for that matter? Have we evolved? Well, we are more proficient at the slaughter of the unborn, and more pregnant women survive the procedures that bring that about? But we as a nation condone this. Officially. By law and according to our constitution we permit this for any reason and for no reason, because all those non-people in utero are not really people. Thus saith the law of this land. Are we proud of this; is this ‘evolving’ and therefore good?

Are our families more stable? Do we have a dependent and basically hopeless underclass right on? In this nation of plenty do we have homelessness, out of control drug abuse, children trapped in nutritional inadequacy for whom the school lunch is their only decent meal of the day, single parent families where said single parent (usually mom) works two jobs and the kids do without and do we have a congress which cannot adequately solve the issue of even rudimentary health care to said kids? Yeah and whoopee; real progressive evolution right there in all that.

But the military options have definitely ‘evolved’ because when you look at the toll from the last century and then look at what we all are able to do now in terms of pure destruction we are far more destructive capable now than then. Our ability to cause possible extinction of ourselves is at hand.

But heaven forbid that Jesus actually meant to build his church in any traditional sense. Heaven forbid that when Jesus said if you love me keep my commandments there would be any actual commandments to keep because what he really meant was that we ought to be nice. Nice. Salvation by nice alone perhaps? But how can you be nice when you consider these things? Simple. Pretend that you don’t see them. No problem. Just don’t drive through that part of town. Ignore Lazarus at the gate. Remind yourself how great we are, particularly as compared to the really awful people of yore. Repeat after me: to pay much attention to this would be works and that is forbidden. To have something called church might mean that there are other people, perhaps even leaders, who would take church in a direction I don’t want to go. It might even mean that the Holy Spirit would undertake to lead church and not just whisper in my ear. Church might turn out to use plural personal pronouns of we and us and our and not just I and me and mine.

Sorry but I don’t buy any of it. We have not evolved. Church means church. Commandments are commandments. The gate and the way are narrow and difficult, and necessary. Sin is real and fatal and also forgivable, but only on God’s terms. There are eternal consequences, whatever ‘eternal’ means. No amount of scriptural redaction has changed any of that.

Ricco wrote:

I don’t understand how we get from Jesus’s words to the hierarchy we see in the institutional church in every branch (Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant).
…
I don’t see how these verses square with how church is now.

This is an outstanding observation and question. I am struggling with it myself. Jesus also told us that he will send the Holy Spirit to teach us all things, and that the gates of hell will not prevail against his church. So the big question is this: did Jesus lie? If he did not intend for the church to be hierarchical, why do all the historical documents indicate that it was? Why do the very first disciples of the Apostles believe in the authority of these church offices if Jesus didn’t? Did they mess up that quickly? Did the gates of hell prevail? Or did Jesus set up a certain type of hierarchy out of deference to us because he knows that humans are hierarchical creatures by nature? Did you read the quote from Polycarp I posted above? If all bishops, priests, deacons, and whatever else we want to call our church leaders, followed Polycarps’s standard, would it be so bad? Jesus seems to have set a pretty high bar for church leaders – humble servants. Perhaps this is the nugget that our modern church culture is missing. I with I knew the right answer.

Jack wrote:

I still don’t get what it’s got to do with this discussion. Religion wasn’t the issue.

I concede that including Trudeau in the discussion is a distraction. I don’t agree the problems in the academe are unrelated because it isn’t a religion and they apologized so we should move on. Ideology and religion are two sides of the same coin and I live in a university town where many of the inhabitants are more fervent in their ideology that those here who are “religious”. I’ll toss in again my oft used quote from Adams, “Ideology is a systematic way to be wrong with confidence”. Feel free to substitute in “religion” for “ideology”.

Ken F (aka Tweed) wrote:

Did you read the quote from Polycarp I posted above? If all bishops, priests, deacons, and whatever else we want to call our church leaders, followed Polycarps’s standard, would it be so bad?

I 100% agree. I think in any form of Christianity, being surrounded by people like that would be far superior than being treated like crap by people with the “right doctrine.” The problem is, we have examples in every branch, from Mennonites to Catholics to Calvinists, that have not. I don’t really know where that leaves us.

Ken F (aka Tweed) wrote:

Did the gates of hell prevail?

The gates of hell will never prevail against ‘His’ Church … but they are triumphing over the churches men put together.

The SBX is doing that alot now.
T@ Anonymous Oracle at Delphi:

@ Ken F (aka Tweed):

“I’m not really sure how to reply because I think we might be talking past each other. I thought you were making the case that the ancient meaning of Greek words as they were understood in the time of the early church should have relevance for how “church” should be done today.”

I think you might be right about talking past each other. I thought you were debating for the early writing. But I see you are trying to make sense of them.

I just don’t think it’s that cut and dried. Example would be females functioning in the Body. IMO, scripture interpreted as understood in that day and time was pretty radical considering Jewish women were separated at synagogue and Roman women often lived in separate part of the house with kids. Women were separated in most areas of society. Yet today, interpretation often does not recognize the evolution of women’s status in society. We don’t have cultural problems such as whether to cover or not while prophesying in the Body. Yet, totally different from the synagogue where they were separated behind a screen.

I think it’s normal for people of that time to accommodate their culture in interpretation such as the early church fathers seemed to be doing. Yet, it caused no end of friction between Jew and Gentile as we see in the letters. the terminology seems to call for a whole different structure and focus from a Temple whether Jewish or Pagan. I don’t believe a state church was ever God’s intention, for example. And I think we can look at JTB and see something very different and informal was being affirmed by Christ from the get go.

How do we accommodate meanings? Romans is a good example when it comes to interpretation of obeying government. We are now the government. We don’t obey leaders but agreed upon laws because we choose our government. A radical concept that just does not map to the 1st century. Freedom of speech, as an example, is a very spiritual concept that goes to the heart of our existence.

I think all I am saying is we have to be wise in interpretation when looking at then and now. What was the intention and accommodate from there. Scripture is not a how to manual as some like to interpret. And even remember to keep God’s original intention for His creation in mind. I don’t do a very good job of articulating my thoughts on it!

Ken F (aka Tweed) wrote:

So the big question is this: did Jesus lie? If he did not intend for the church to be hierarchical, why do all the historical documents indicate that it was? Why do the very first disciples of the Apostles believe in the authority of these church offices if Jesus didn’t? Did they mess up that quickly

I don’t view them as offices but functions that are not static. Why use the head/body metaphor for the body of Christ? Why claim we are all priests?

Are we compelled to associate? All hierarchies tend to become corrupted at some point. We can search our entire lives for a church with no corrupted hierarchies. How do we even know if they operate as closed systems whether denomination or a local church?

This was often the topic at the sgm survivors blog. They spent a lot of time talking about finding a church with a leader they can follow.

But do we follow Christ or men? Whst is the point of a heirarchy, I guess?

This was a problem for Augustine and the Donatists. The Donatists were refusing to take sacrament from corrupt priests. This infuriated Augustine who wanted to wipe them out for disobeying.

@ Thersites:
That is sort of where I am even if I don’t sound like it because I love discussing this stuff with other people who think about these things even if differently from me.

I really despise systematic theology, though. My favorite story from NT Wright was a cab driver who saw his CofE clerical garb and made a mention of some of the CofE disagreements that made the news. The cabbie then went on to say the way he saw it was if Jesus raised from the dead, everything else is just rock and roll. 🙂

Lydia wrote:

I love discussing this stuff with other people who think about these things even if differently from me.

My son writes software that models the behavior of complex cooling systems. Another group where he works maintains a large scale model to also test the behavior and they frequently compare results from the two methods in simulated tests. Occasionally they will test those results against the real thing.

The point is they do not get wedded to their models, they are imperfect representations of reality. In our case our models we develop are of a system we can only guess at and reality may be well beyond our feeble minds to comprehend. If my son were to get the idea his model of plant design was sacrosanct and anyone who disagreed should be driven off as a heretic, then he would be fired because he would be unsafe.

These theologies are aids to our understanding and useful for discussion but when we rigidly adopt them as the way things function we commit what I believe to be a grave error.

Bridget wrote:

Lydia wrote:

This was a problem for Augustine and the Donatists. The Donatists were refusing to take sacrament from corrupt priests. This infuriated Augustine who wanted to wipe them out for disobeying

It’s not much different now. Well, the church has no power to put people to death, thank God, but believers are definitely blacklisted if they refuse to participate in a local church, no matter what their reasons.

And we who do not go along with any particular tribe are expected to feel guilty for forsaking the assembly. Today my husband and I attended a church for the first time in 6 years. I was excited and hopeful, though I knew better than to allow my emotions to get in the way of my head and spirit. Worship brought tears to my eyes. No YRR. Good sermon. Good music, nothing loud and rock. We came home, discussed, decided to listen to a sermon online. Five minutes in…. John Piper was quoted.

So no…. no guilt for not going along to another church full of error. It is sad. But there you have it.

Max wrote:

That’s why we have 30,000 Christian denominations and organizations worldwide, separated by the teachings and traditions of men – Jesus told us not to do that!

I have to disagree with what you have said, albeit I do not disagree that there is a problem here.

Jesus never said one word about organizations, like for example The International Mission board (SBC) or Catholic Social Services (RCC) or like The (local) Rescue Mission. Not one word.

As to how many ‘denominations’ there may be let us look at that. Jesus did say he would build his ‘church’, a singular noun. He did not say ‘churches’. If then we trace history back to the time when one proto-orthodox group had achieved supremacy and said group continues to exist, for those who believe there is only one ‘church’ in the sense of denomination/ organization then you and I and all of us should ASAP convert to Roman Catholicism. I am dead serious. If denominations are wrong, then protestantism is wrong, and we all need to reconcile with the ‘original’ group now known as Roman Catholic.

Once we have done that then we have to eliminate ‘organizations’ if they are wrong including Catholic orders one and all (who have their own ‘rule’ system) as well as a plethora of Catholic schools, hospitals and other charitable organizations as well as semi-independent service groups just to mention the tip of the iceberg of Catholic organization.

In the meantime we have to quit calling every group a ‘church’ especially not doing that to those of us with lots of ‘parishes’ which are not ‘churches’ in the evangelical sense of a self sustaining and self governing autonomous body.

Personally I don’t totally have a problem with undoing the reformation entirely, all of us becoming RC but with some more changes on the part of the RC itself in order to make that possibly. That is not about to happen, but it would solve the problem that you and others have about denominations and organizations.

I do have a problem with destroying organizations just because they are organizations, because that makes no sense at all. Some things do need eliminated, but not just because they exist. But if your statement is correct that it is all about the traditions of men then we need ASAP to destroy the Baptists and the Lutherans and goodness knows the Episcopalians and Methodists along with all the rest.

I know I sound flippant but I have seriously considered this matter as to what I personally should do. Which is worse, to be a Catholic who strongly disagrees with the Church on various matters, or to be a schismatic or a heretic who affiliates with another group because of those differences. Because there is no perfect answer for millions of people.

I take it that you mean there ought to be one ‘church’ and that any and all differences are traditions of men and should be forsaken for the sake of organic unity. Maybe so.

@ okrapod:
Not one of the denominations today can legitimately claim they go back to the original apostles. All of them, including the Roman Catholic Church were established centuries later. So we are left with the scriptures and the Holy Spirit to guide us as to what is right and what isn’t. There is some truth in many denominations and there are genuine believers there too. What we will not find is “One True Church”.

Forrest wrote:

Not one of the denominations today can legitimately claim they go back to the original apostles. All of them, including the Roman Catholic Church were established centuries later.

Do you have evidence for this?

Lydia wrote:

This quote from a letter John Adams wrote to John Quincey in 1816 seems relevant:
“All Religions have Something good in them: but the Ambition and Avarice of Priests and Politicions have introduced into all of them, monstrous Corruptions and Abuses, and into none more cruel bloody and horrible than into the Christian. My Advice to you, is to be extreamly cautious and reserved on the Subject of Religion.”

Wow, great quote Lydia. I will have to use that.

okrapod wrote:

About early Christianity, you all might find this interesting.

Ignatious: “Be subject to the Bishop as to the commandment…We are clearly obligated to look upon the bishop as the Lord himself”
Ignatius was neither the first nor the last to proclaim positions of authority in the church. Thankfully Ignatius’ writings are not canon.

@ Lydia:
He also said this
“They [the Puritans] saw clearly, that of all the nonsense and delusion which had ever passed through the mind of man, none had ever been more extravagant than the notions of absolutions, indelible characters, uninterrupted successions, and the rest of those fantastical ideas, derived from the canon law, which had thrown such a glare of mystery, sanctity, reverence, and right reverend eminence and holiness, around the idea of a priest, as no mortal could deserve, and as always must, from the constitution of human nature, be dangerous in society. For this reason, they demolished the whole system of diocesan episcopacy; and, deriding, as all reasonable and impartial men must do, the ridiculous fancies of sanctified effluvia from Episcopal fingers, they established sacerdotal ordination on the foundation of the Bible and common sense. This conduct at once imposed an obligation on the whole body of the clergy to industry, virtue, piety, and learning, and rendered that whole body infinitely more independent on the civil powers…” (Dissertation on the Canon and Feudal Laws, 1765).

Lydia wrote:

After Pentecost the newly converted diaspora pilgrims in Jerusalem eventually went home all over the region. I don’t see how it could be that organized.

This is a reasonable thing to think, but there are a few points that support unity and organization in the early church:
1) The Roman infrastructure was very developed, and the early Christians were able to make use of that infrastructure.
2) The New Testament mentions travel and correspondence among scattered leaders of the early church, and at least one church council.
3) The history of the New Testament shows that churches throughout the Roman empire were universally reading from the four gospels and various writings of Paul from early times. It looks like Origen may have had a complete listing of the NT by around 250AD, well before the Edict of Milan. While there were some differences between Eastern and Western churches in what books were finally considered canonical, most of the NT was not in dispute from the earliest of times.
4) Bishops were established in important cities like Rome, Alexandria, Jerusalem, and Antioch very early in Christian history, and there is good historical evidence that they communicated with each other.
5) Irenaeus wrote about the widespread unity of the church in the 2nd century (see http://freedominorthodoxy.blogspot.com/2013/09/irenaeus-of-lyons-on-unity-of-church.html). This quote is significant:

For the Churches which have been planted in Germany do not believe or hand down anything different, nor do those in Spain, nor those in Gaul, nor those in the East, nor those in Egypt, nor those in Libya, nor those which have been established in the central regions of the world.

To make a claim that the early church was scattered and diverse one would have to have evidence. The absence of that evidence does not prove that they were not diverse. But the presence of evidence like the writings or early church fathers has to be explained away. I just finished reading “The Apostolic Fathers in English” by Michael W. Holmes. These early writings present a compelling picture of early Christianity (but some of it is pretty crazy, like Shepherd of Hermas). Those writings make the early church look organized and hierarchical from the very beginning. Whether or not is should have been like this is a good question.

okrapod wrote:

If denominations are wrong, then protestantism is wrong, and we all need to reconcile with the ‘original’ group now known as Roman Catholic.

I mostly agree with this. However, there is at least one, if not two, other viable options: Eastern Orthodox and Coptic. They all claim (with good evidence) to be the original church, which makes it a bit difficult to know which one to revert to. From what I know about the East/West schism, I don’t see any reasonable way for it to be healed in my lifetime, so the choice won’t get any easier. As a purist, I would like to just follow the original and pure form. But I doubt it exists in a truly pure form, or in a form that has been well-adapted to modern pressures and concerns. Things were much easier for me before I started digging into church history – the history did not unfold as I had expected. For now I am staying in my SBC church, mostly because it has not yet gone YRR. But I am more loosely holding onto things I once considered essential.

@ Ken F (aka Tweed):
I’m currently reading through the ante-Nicene Fathers and through reading other stuff I was directed to Ignatius’ Letter to the Church at Tralles, written about 107ad, the year before he died. In chapter 2 he asks them to “be subject to the bishop”; in chapter 3, “to honour the deacons and in chapter 10 entitled “The reality of Christ’s Passion” you have what could almost be the forerunner to the Apostles’ Creed. So there is, in my view, an unbroken continuity from our day to the Apostles. It also shows that, less than 10-15 years after the death of John, there was some kind of hierarchical structure in the church.

@ Ken F (aka Tweed):

1) are you referring to the Pagan temples that were converted to churches by Constantine?

3) where they cherry-picking what they liked best because both views are arguable from scripture.

What that hierarchy morphed into across Western Europe was not a good thing. It was bloody.

Lowlandseer wrote:

It also shows that, less than 10-15 years after the death of John, there was some kind of hierarchical structure in the church.

It sure didn’t seem to take long to abandon the priesthood of the believers to go back to the old testament priesthood. At least we should be able to set aside the old claim that Constantine is responsible for the ills of the church, in particular the adoption of hierarchic offices.

@ Lydia:

I have long admired John Adams’s simplicity regarding the Christian religion in general.
Even more so now that I reflect on my own exit from the Calvary Chapel Bible cult, and later, even Lutheranism.

Max wrote:

okrapod wrote:
Max wrote:
That’s why we have 30,000 Christian denominations and organizations worldwide, separated by the teachings and traditions of men – Jesus told us not to do that!
I have to disagree with what you have said, albeit I do not disagree that there is a problem here.
Jesus never said one word about organizations …
Agreed. But, He did say “in vain they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men” (Matthew 15:1-9). “They” in my mind would be any religious group which puts more emphasis on tribal adherence to the teachings and traditions of men than the pure Word of God.

After reading this thread that was what i was wondering too. The Word of God seems to have taken a back seat. And moreover, where is Jesus?

@ Ken F (aka Tweed):
I don’t disagree with your last statement except to say, the hierarchy adopted is not really authoritative just historical. There are tons of other factors to take into consideration such as context, Holy Spirit, what Jesus modeled, etc, etc. Not even Paul had a how to do church manual. We don’t even take creation intention into consideration much less the new creation of the resurrection.

@ Ken F (aka Tweed):
In my opinion, the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox “chuches”, while they may have been earlier in history than other “churches”, are just as much man-made denominations as any “potestant” organization – and potentially just as prone to man-made traditions / doctrine that are not found in Scripture. To “return” to one of them solves nothing as far as I am concerned. For myself, I prefer to fellowship with my brothers and sisters in Christ in small Bible study / prayer groups that are outside of traditional bureaucratic structures.

@ okrapod:
Yes just the facts!

Mercy wrote:

Max wrote:

Ricco wrote:

… Nicene Creed … We have something that almost all Christians agree on … It seems like every denomination has beliefs in addition to the creed that it views as non-negotitiable.

That’s why we have 30,000 Christian denominations and organizations worldwide, separated by the teachings and traditions of men – Jesus told us not to do that!

Max, you are absolutely right! Creeds, men, systems….. nothing about Jesus. All man made.

Nothing about JESUS in the Creeds???

SMH.

Bill wrote:

In my opinion, the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox “chuches”, while they may have been earlier in history than other “churches”, are just as much man-made denominations as any “protestant” organization

That’s exactly what it is, though: your opinion. With all due respect, you have not offered one shred of evidence to back up your opinion. You have simply asserted it. Mere assertion is not even argument, let alone proof.

Here is my assertion, which I believe I can back up with plenty of actual evidence: The historical record does not support your opinion. It simply doesn’t.

Again, assertions to the contrary are simply that: assertions. They are not arguments based on actual historical evidence.

@KenF is reading actual primnary sources from the earliest centuries of Christianity — including some written by people who knew the apostles personally.

@Okrapod has apparently already read at least some of those same sources, perhaps even all of them.

There may be legitimate disagreement about the import of these early writings, but it cannot be denied that they paint a certain picture of the early Church — complete with bishops, hierarchies, sacraments, and clear belief in Christ’s Real Presence in the Eucharist. (See the Didache, the writinsg of Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, St. Justin Martyr, and Irenaus of Lyons, among many others.)

Just as one example:

The Didache, one of the earliest Christian writings — which may come from the first century and certainly from no later than the mid-second — describes a typical church service of the time. It bears ZERO relation to a 21st-century Baptist service. It is liturgical, sacarmental, and Eucharistic.

This is the historical recoed. It cannot be wished away. You may not like it, but it is what it is.

It sure didn’t seem to take long to abandon the priesthood of the believers to go back to the old testament priesthood.

Well, so much for that “Gates of Hell Won’t Prevail” stuff, then.

If you seriously think the Church went off the rails within 10 years of John’s death, then God help us.

Do you realize that the early Apostolic Fathers — the same guys talking about bishops and sacraments — actually knew the apostles and the NT writers personally? Ignatius, Clement, et al., did not just pop out of nowhere, like Athena from the head of Zeus. They knew the apostles. They were taught by the apostles. They were ordained by the apostles. They were transmitting what they had been taught — the teaching of the apostles. That’s why they are called the Apostolic Fathers.

If they were inclined to go off the rails, don’t you think their mentors (i.e., the apostles) would have said something about it?

Paul said, “Hold fast to what has been handed down to you (paradosis), either in writing or orally.” That’s exactly what Ignatius, Clement, Justin, and the other Fathers were doing: holding fast…and handing down.

(BTW, that word — “paradosis” — is the exact same word the Gospels record Jesus as using when he condemned “traditions of men.” Some Protestant Bibles — rather conveniently and tendentiously — translate it differently when it’s being used in a positive sense. But it’s the exact same word. IOW, the NT does NOT condemn all tradition [paradosis]. It actually commends some — the written and oral traditions handed down by the apostles!)

Also BTW…how do you know exactly when John the Evangelist died? That’s not recorded in the Bible at all. We have some ideas about it only from historical research. Isn’t that a “tradition of men,” then? 😉

OK, gotta do some keyword research for a client, so I’ll sign off on that note. Love yas, my brothers and sisters in Christ.

Catholic Gate-Crasher wrote:

Well, so much for that “Gates of Hell Won’t Prevail” stuff, then.

On the contrary, we are still here 2,000 years later, still getting it wrong, but still here nevertheless.

@ Thersites:
Exactly. And probably includes everyone on this thread.

Jesus said everyone who does the will of the Father is His family. In my view that’s the “church”.

Bill wrote:

@ Ken F (aka Tweed):
In my opinion, the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox “chuches”, while they may have been earlier in history than other “churches”, are just as much man-made denominations as any “potestant” organization – and potentially just as prone to man-made traditions / doctrine that are not found in Scripture. To “return” to one of them solves nothing as far as I am concerned. For myself, I prefer to fellowship with my brothers and sisters in Christ in small Bible study / prayer groups that are outside of traditional bureaucratic structures.

That pretty much sums up where we are, Bill.

okrapod wrote:

Lydia wrote:

Are you equating history with spiritual truth?

That question was not addressed to me but I may have something to contribute at this point.

And I have no idea what ‘spiritual truth’ is or would be as opposed to something just true or not true. Perhaps you can just overlook the fact that such a thing as ‘spiritual truth’ makes no sense to me at this point.

However, Christianity is based on what we claim to be an historical reality. We think there is enough evidence to substantiate the belief that there was such a person as ‘Jesus’. We think then that there is enough evidence of proximity in time and location to believe that the gospels contain accurate writing down of the oral traditions associated with the life and teachings of this historical person called ‘Jesus’. We believe that the resurrection actually happened, even though historians tell us that there is no way that they can validate or disprove something which is both unlikely and which happened only once-their discipline does not give them the tools to do this. At minimum and regarding the resurrection we think that the available record is sufficient to believe that ‘something happened’ or at least to believe that the observers at the time thought that something actually happened.

This is all historical, and it is this on which Christianity is based.

Now for the next step we say that there is or there is not enough evidence in certain early writings to justify a belief that the early writings are consistent with the beliefs among the witnesses and their immediate students of the events. Then following further writings there is or is not enough evidence to say that the later writings are consistent with the former writings, and on and on.

Was there a Jesus? What did he say and do? What did the witnesses think he said, did and meant? Is there a continuity of these concepts or does there come forth reason to doubt the concepts and reports themselves?

Christianity is not some free-floating philosophy. It is an historical tale which is or is not accurately told over the centuries and therefore something which might-just might-be believed.

So, is Christianity just something ‘spiritual’ like some other religious or philosophical ideas? It is not. It stands or falls on its historical actuality.

Now someone may say that this is not what they think. Okay, then, they and I live on different planets. Of course we would not understand each other. I don’t know anything to do about that one way or the other.

That was an absolutely superb response.

Catholic Gate-Crasher wrote:

Bill wrote:

@ okrapod:
Yes just the facts!

Make sure you get the actual facts, though. When people start claiming that there’s “nothing about Jesus” in the historical Creeds (Apostles’, Athanasian, Nicene), well, that’s not the “facts.” Just sayin’.

I don’t see anybody claiming that Jesus is absent from the creeds. I do see how He is pretty much absent from a lot of the comments, which instead emphasize the writings of men. Best not to shoot from the hip.

Max wrote:

Religious folks have tortured, imprisoned, and killed other religious folks over differences in belief and practice (e.g., John Calvin). Some try to draw Jesus into their madness, but He will have nothing to do with it.

“YOU DO YOUR OWN DIRTY WORK! DON’T DRAG ME INTO IT!”

i.e. The original meaning of “Taking the Name of the LORD in Vain”.

Catholic Gate-Crasher wrote:

The Didache, one of the earliest Christian writings — which may come from the first century and certainly from no later than the mid-second — describes a typical church service of the time. It bears ZERO relation to a 21st-century Baptist service. It is liturgical, sacarmental, and Eucharistic.

And a full third of the Didache is how to recognize phony preachers and con men.

Lowlandseer wrote:

It also shows that, less than 10-15 years after the death of John, there was some kind of hierarchical structure in the church.

There’s this thing called “the troop-size limit” among humans.

The average human can recognize only about 100-150 others (the size of a hunter-gatherer tribe or Army Company) as individuals; more than that tends to blur into an abstract collective mass. Once you exceed the troop-size limit, some sort of organization, hierarchy, and specialization of roles is inevitable.

@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
Pope’s, too? Oops, that came later.

Mercy wrote:

My mother was raised in a Catholic girls school in the 30’s. She was a strict Roman Catholic. Her view of the Bible was knowledge gained at school, although she made sure that we knew that it belonged to the RCC. She knew her creeds, dogmas, and every canonized saint. She believed every word out of the mouth of the Pope. When i dared to question papal inconsistencies, at the age of thirteen, she then said that the Pope was human and entitled to make mistakes. So much for the vicar of Christ. When i declined to go to commnion on any given Sunday i was called names, such as “Satan”. She was verbally and physically abusive. Years later, as a young mother, I was saved. And she was very angry. I was belittled for becoming born again.

Your mother sounds like a type example of “doing everything right while completely missing the point”.
Very similar to those professional Christians who get a light shined on them here at TWW.
Fundamentalism with Rosaries.

And the danger on your end of flipping equally out-of-balance in the opposite direction in a “Communism begets Objectivism” reaction.

@ Mercy:
That is what I was talking about earlier as in constantly defending a denomination, group or sect– instead of Christ.

It’s just another reason why I find it hard to go to church anymore.

@ Mercy:

Sorry about your relationship with your mom, Mercy. There are zealots in every religion. But it is hard when a parent can’t look past their beliefs and love their child freely.

Max wrote:

Religious folks have tortured, imprisoned, and killed other religious folks over differences in belief and practice (e.g., John Calvin). Some try to draw Jesus into their madness, but He will have nothing to do with it.

Late in life, I’m more and more convinced that Jesus is far more concerned with your deeds than what you (generic you) believe or disbelieve.

When i dared to question papal inconsistencies, at the age of thirteen, she then said that the Pope was human and entitled to make mistakes. So much for the vicar of Christ.

Mercy, no orthodox Catholic has ever claimed that the pope is infallible every time he blows his nose or says “boo.” That is a position known as ultramontanism, and it was soundly defeated at the first Vatican Council.

Of course popes can say wrong things. I have a few issues with the current pope on that score. We honor the man. We don’t worship him. The doctrine of papal infallibility is very strictly defined: It applies only to very carefully delimited situations (i.e., when the pope is formally teaching and reinforcing a truth concerning Faith and Morals, “ex cathedra,” for the benefit of the entire Church). This is actually very rare.

I know you claim you know all about What Catholics Believe, but your comments belie this. I am sorry you have been burned and hurt by your experience, and, as I said before, I am certainly not trying to re-convert you. But if you are going to lambaste the Catholic Church, at least please try to know what you’re talking about. Right now you don’t.

Growing up Catholic does not necessarily mean you know all the facts. If you are truly interested in learning the facts (so you can at least know what you’re attacking), you can avail yourself of the copious resources available via Mr. Google…starting with the 1992 Catholic Catechism. 😉

Catholic Gate-Crasher wrote:

To this day she is not saved.
With all due respect, you have no way of knowing this. Only Jesus can read a human being’s heart.

I’m not going to respond to your comments any longer. One is unable to share any personal experiences regarding Catholicism without your swift attack.

Catholic Gate-Crasher wrote:

The doctrine of papal infallibility is very strictly defined: It applies only to very carefully delimited situations (i.e., when the pope is formally teaching and reinforcing a truth concerning Faith and Morals, “ex cathedra,” for the benefit of the entire Church). This is actually very rare.

Even if it rare, saying that ANY man’s statements are infallible takes a lot of hubris.

CGC, I thought you left here a while back because of all of the anti-Catholic bigotry here.

Catholic Gate-Crasher wrote:

Pardon me for returning, LOL!

I’m glad your back. We Protestants here need to have our assumptions challenged from time to time…

@ Ken F (aka Tweed):

As always, you hit the nail squarely on the head.

I do not think you “started” this. The Authority Issue always bubbles beneath the surface. Sooner or later, it has to come up for air.

Ken P. wrote:

Catholic Gate-Crasher wrote:

The doctrine of papal infallibility is very strictly defined: It applies only to very carefully delimited situations (i.e., when the pope is formally teaching and reinforcing a truth concerning Faith and Morals, “ex cathedra,” for the benefit of the entire Church). This is actually very rare.

Even if it rare, saying that ANY man’s statements are infallible takes a lot of hubris.

CGC, I thought you left here a while back because of all of the anti-Catholic bigotry here.

BTW a good friend of mine recently joined a local Independent Fundamental Baptist church. She and her family could no longer endure the liberalism in her Methodist parish.

Well, I totally see where she​ is coming from. Nonetheless, there is such a thing as “out of the frying pan, into the fire.” At his church website, her new pastor claims that only HE can correctly interpret Scripture. Any Scripture. If you are having trouble understanding a particular Scriptural passage — any passage​ — you are to come to him, this pastor. And to no one else. I am not making this up.

No Pope would ever claim such a thing. Never, ever, ever. IMHO (ed.) many evangelical and fundamentalist pastors are “super-popes,” arrogating to themselves overweening authority that even Gregory VII never dreamed of.

For the record, Catholics believe that papal infallibility applies to the office, not the man. As Karl Keating says, it is a negative protection, not a positive one. When the pope teaches *ex cathedra* re faith and morals, formally and officially, the Holy Spirit keeps him from teaching error — for the sake of the faithful. Moreover, what he teaches *ex cathedra* must be fully consonant with Scripture and Sacred Tradition. He cannot make things up. He is bound by 2000 years of Sacred Tradition.

If the pope wants to promulgate error — under these carefully defined and delimited circumstances — the Holy Spirit will prevent this. Even if that means keeping the errant pope from saying anything at all. (*Ex cathedra,* I mean. Shooting the breeze with reporters on a plane is an entirely different story. Not ex cathedra. Not infallible. Not even close.)

Personally, I will take this over Protestant “super-popes,” both lay and clerical, who are convinced that they alone have the true and proper interpretation of every single verse in the Bible. ISTM that many if not most of these dudes DO think they are infallible every time they blow their blasted noses. I find this rather problematical, especially since these super-popes are usually self-appointed. But maybe that’s just me. 😉

Thanks so much for the edit, Man Behind the Curtain! 😀

Well, I feel as if I’ve over-contributed on this thread, so this will be my last comment for awhile.

First, I want to thank KenF for his kind words. Second, I want to apologize (again) to Mercy. I did not at all mean to minimize or dismiss her bitterly bad experiences. Bad experiences, especially when we are growing up, are traumatizing. Been there. Totally get it. Really.

At the same time, I must explain that it chaps my grits when someone claims that another person “isn’t saved” or “doesn’t have a personal relationship with Jesus.” ONLY Jesus knows the heart. Only Jesus. No one else.

My Pentecostal neighbor once confided in me, about our other next-door neighbors, “I don’t think they’re saved. They drink beer at cookouts.”

I wanted to say, “Well, what *else* would they drink at cookouts?” I also wondered what she was doing snooping on their cookouts and noting what they were drinking! But I was too intimidated to say anything. She’s a very bossy person with an overpowering personality. It’s only recently that I’ve gained the courage to stand up to her meddling cray-cray.

Anyway, I guess I’m saying that I think the state of someone else’s soul is none of our cotton-pickin’ business. If we are concerned about someone else’s soul, we should pray. Not condemn. But I realize that I usually fail to take that advice myself, so I’m a fine one to talk. Plus, I recognize that it is always incredibly difficult when we are dealing with a close relative who has deeply hurt us. Again, been there. Get it.

But re assumptions that certain people “aren’t saved” just because they express their faith in ways unfamiliar to modern American evangelicals: I stand my ground here.

Does the Orthodox yiayia who kisses icons and lights candles have a personal relationship with Jesus? You bet she does!

Does the Knight of Columbus sitting in the Perpetual Adoration Chapel, lost in loving adoration of Christ in the Blessed Sacrament, have a personal relationship with Jesus? You bet he does!

Does the Coptic Christian about to be beheaded by ISIS because he refuses to renounce Christ have a personal relationship with Jesus? You bet he does! What’s more, he puts the rest of us to shame.

Moreover, “relationship with Jesus” versus “religion” is a false dichotomy. It’s both/and, not either/or.

Someone mentioned the “writings of men” versus “relationship with Jesus.” To the person who wrote this, with all due respect: Have you ever read those “writings of men”? Let’s look, for instance, at the Epistles of Ignatius of Antioch (c. 107 AD). Do you know when Ignatius wrote those epistles? As he was being taken to Rome to be martyred for Christ (eaten by lions). Have you ever faced martyrdom? Have you ever faced being torn limb from limb by lions? Maybe when you have, you can dismiss Ignatius’ epistles as having nothing to do with a personal relationship with Jesus. Until then, I would very respectfully submit that you — and I — are not worthy to unlatch Ignatius’s sandals.

@ Ken F (aka Tweed):
“Really boils down the question of “Says who?” Whatever we want to believe about Jesus, does it matter what he wants us to believe about himself? If so, how are we to sort out what is true vs what is false among the cacophony of voices each claiming to be right? What makes my interpretation any better or worse than yours (generic you)? Can we have fellowship with other Christians who have radically different beliefs about Jesus, or are there some essentials beliefs that are required for any meaningful fellowship?”

Great points. Besides the basics I am a big proponent of soul liberty. As far as what’s authoritative that is also, IMO, a part of soul liberty and the Holy Spirit —if we so choose. No one thing is gyoing to be authoritative for everyone. Yet big groups will often claim one thing as authoritative whether a human leader, scripture, histyory or even an institution.

My grumble with the any creed is the systematic approach that leaves out Jesus’ time on earth. I understand the reason but it’s an important part that seems to get downplayed. At least scripture, in all its varying translations,gives
us a glimpse of what He modeled but, sadly, more time is spent on how Paul and how to do church, in many groups.

After my experiences in the mega world, I stopped giving any sort of credibility with the “vast majority believe it” appeal. Yes, millions can be wrong on something very important. That is where soul liberty becomes very important to me because if I am wrong, it’s on me. I should never be in any position to insist people believe as I do. That’s where the behavior part is also important.

I enjoy the interaction but i realize many dont. there is a lot of room for misunderstandings and hurt feelings.

Muff has it right about behavior over doctrine. It’s crucial. From pedophiles in the church to allowing a mere human to replace the HS.

I also fear that history shows more following of humans than the Holy Spirit. The HS is rarely mentioned anywhere.

Lydia wrote:

. That’s really something. Does the Holy Spirit never do this with others and if yes the HS does, what’s the point?

Two things:

First: google ‘extraordinary magisterium’. This will lead you to two other links in google concerning magisterium and infallibility.

Second: understand the use of the terms ‘ordinary’ and extraordinary’ and ‘magisterium’ in ecclesial vocabulary.

I am neither defending nor condemning these concepts. We use the terms ordinary and extraordinary also, and it may well be that other liturgical denominations also use those terms, I don’t know for sure.

And the point in application would be, in protestant terms I suppose, that it addresses the issue of who ya gonna believe. Are you going to listen to ever Tom, Dick and Harry theologian/ priest/ popular speaker/ political activist/ popular author/ dominant personality at church and miscellaneous other or are you going to listen to the magisterium which has some built-in protectives. Now one may say that the system is not perfect, and that seems to me to be quite true. But it does work toward establishing what they believe to be true and work toward eliminating what the do not think to be true.

From what you all are saying I take it that the mega pastors in evangelical world take on that position for themselves, and some commenters seem to be advocating that individuals take that position for themselves individually. I am not saying anything about this further other than that this is the point, and we all in one way or another address this issue of who ya gonna believe.

Lydia wrote:

@ Catholic Gate-Crasher:
“If the pope wants to promulgate error — under these carefully defined and delimited circumstances — the Holy Spirit will prevent this. Even if that means keeping the errant pope from saying anything at all. (*Ex cathedra,* I mean. Shooting the breeze with reporters on a plane is an entirely different story. Not ex cathedra. Not infallible. Not even close.)”

. That’s really something. Does the Holy Spirit never do this with others and if yes the HS does, what’s the point?

I do think that once we put our heart and soul into defending an institution, or thinking its the same as Christ, we are in real trouble. The Megas are just as bad at this explaining everything away without a second thought of diving deep into what it means and anyone who dares question is “attacking”. Yet it was fine for the Megas to go after other churches.

So understand that I don’t have any institution to defend. I “attack” the SBC and Mega world all the time. (I use attack because that is what those in allegiance to an institution call “disagreement” or “questioning”) . And am despised for it and paid a price for it. The real danger is when one defends, rationalizes or excuses away anything and everything because one has allegiance to it.

Lydia, I’m not trying to convince anyone here about Catholic or papal claims. I’m simply trying to explain what Catholics *actually* believe, as opposed to what people *think* we believe. Per one of Mercy’s comments, she is apparently under the impression that Catholics must believe the pope is infallible every time he opens his mouth and says *anything.* This is flat-out wrong. It is a misconception. I was simply trying to correct this misconception. That’s all. Nothing more.

I do not ask anyone to *agree with* my Church’s teaching. I merely ask that people stop *misrepresenting* it. To that end, I am trying to clarify it. I believe that, if people are going to attack someone else’s beliefs, they should at least have Clue One what they are talking about. Know what I mean? 😉 This is why I try to ‘splain and clarify…so that the bashers will at least have a better idea what they’re bashing. 😀

Obviously it’s very difficult to explain all this stuff within the limitations of a combox. That’s one of the pitfalls of Internet discussion.

One final word: I do think it may be both unfair and uncharitable to impugn someone’s motives in a case like this…much less to presume to read that person’s “heart and soul” and suggest that she’s in “real trouble.” 😉

okrapod wrote:

Lydia wrote:

. That’s really something. Does the Holy Spirit never do this with others and if yes the HS does, what’s the point?

Two things:

First: google ‘extraordinary magisterium’. This will lead you to two other links in google concerning magisterium and infallibility.

Second: understand the use of the terms ‘ordinary’ and extraordinary’ and ‘magisterium’ in ecclesial vocabulary.

I am neither defending nor condemning these concepts. We use the terms ordinary and extraordinary also, and it may well be that other liturgical denominations also use those terms, I don’t know for sure.

And the point in application would be, in protestant terms I suppose, that it addresses the issue of who ya gonna believe. Are you going to listen to ever Tom, Dick and Harry theologian/ priest/ popular speaker/ political activist/ popular author/ dominant personality at church and miscellaneous other or are you going to listen to the magisterium which has some built-in protectives. Now one may say that the system is not perfect, and that seems to me to be quite true. But it does work toward establishing what they believe to be true and work toward eliminating what the do not think to be true.

From what you all are saying I take it that the mega pastors in evangelical world take on that position for themselves, and some commenters seem to be advocating that individuals take that position for themselves individually. I am not saying anything about this further other than that this is the point, and we all in one way or another address this issue of who ya gonna believe.

Thank you, Okrapod! As always, spot-on.

@ Catholic Gate-Crasher:
Sorry but this makes no logical sense to me.

“For the record, Catholics believe that papal infallibility applies to the office, not the man. As Karl Keating says, it is a negative protection, not a positive one. When the pope teaches *ex cathedra* re faith and morals, formally and officially, the Holy Spirit keeps him from teaching error — for the sake of the faithful. Moreover, what he teaches *ex cathedra* must be fully consonant with Scripture and Sacred Tradition. He cannot make things up. He is bound by 2000 years of Sacred Tradition.”

And it’s perfectly okay that it doesn’t make sense to me. I am a nobody just discussing this on a Blog.

Catholic Gate-Crasher wrote:

One final word: I do think it may be both unfair and uncharitable to impugn someone’s motives in a case like this…much less to presume to read that person’s “heart and soul” and suggest that she’s in “real trouble.”

I am confused where I said this. Well I don’t think we should make judgments on salvation we are certainly told to judge fruit. 🙂

Lydia wrote:

@ Catholic Gate-Crasher:
I think the problem has been that you are so over early defensive when Catholicism is brought up here it sends the opposite message of your intent? I just don’t think any group is off limits.

No group is off limits. But again, it helps if you know what a particular group actually believes. If you attack beliefs that the group does NOT actually *hold,* then you are attacking a strawman.

Don’t you think it is perfectly legitimate for someone to set the record straight when her beliefs are being misrepresented — when falsehoods are being circulated? That is all I am doing: setting the record straight. And apparently not everyone here has received the “impression” you have WRT my motives, insecurities, or whatever.

For the record, I have candidly discussed problems within my Church on more than one occasion. I have mentioned cult-like groups like Regnum Christi. I have discussed my goddaughter’s horrible experiences with her spiritually abusive, predominantly Catholic “charismatic covenant community.” I have cited the Catholic sex abuse scandal. I have certainly never implied that Catholics can do no wrong. Au contraire. I have explicitly said that we are a mess, just like everyone else.

So, again, implications that I am actuated by some sort of emotional “problem” are neither fair nor accurate.

@ Catholic Gate-Crasher:

“Per one of Mercy’s comments, she is apparently under the impression that Catholics must believe the pope is infallible every time he opens his mouth and says *anything.*”

You do know that Mercy never said that, don’t you? You keep making false claims and accusing folks of gaslighting. What you are doing is a prime example of what this site was created to expose.

Priscilla wrote:

Why don’t some of these people offer to help & revitalize an existing church rather than build an expensive new building and continue a facilities, fancy preaching and rock music arms race?

Great point! I’ve said the same myself. This would be much healthier!!

Catholic Gate-Crasher wrote:

So, again, implications that I am actuated by some sort of emotional “problem” are neither fair nor accurate.

I don’t think Lydia implied that you have an emotional problem.

Lydia’s quote: I think the problem has been that you are so over early defensive when Catholicism is brought up here it sends the opposite message of your intent?

I think her statement is self explanatory. The “problem” is how you are being perceived.

Ken P. wrote:

Catholic Gate-Crasher wrote:

So, again, implications that I am actuated by some sort of emotional “problem” are neither fair nor accurate.

I don’t think Lydia implied that you have an emotional problem.

Lydia’s quote: I think the problem has been that you are so over early defensive when Catholicism is brought up here it sends the opposite message of your intent?

I think her statement is self explanatory. The “problem” is how you are being perceived.

Perceived by whom? By Muff? By HUG? By KenF? By the Deebs?

Or by a very small, vocal coterie of people who harbor very predictable anti-Catholic sentiments?

This is a common ploy among Internet Bullies: “We all see you this way! This is how you are being perceived.” Nonsense. A few people apparently “perceive” me this way. Others most emphatically do not. Several have come to my defense. Do their perceptions count? Or do you presume to claim that you speak for everyone on this forum?

And BTW, how do you suppose some other people hereabouts perceive you? Do you really want to know? That Internet Bully Mind Game works both ways.

Priscilla wrote:

Why don’t some of these people offer to help & revitalize an existing church

In the SBC, they call them “Re-Plants” when a young Calvinist and his band of new reformers takeover an existing non-Calvinist church. Through stealth and deception, they target these churches to plant reformed theology. They have no interest in helping and revitalizing a struggling church and often split it rather than build it.

Ken P. wrote:

Catholic Gate-Crasher wrote:

Perceived by whom? By Muff? By HUG? By KenF? By the Deebs?
Or by a very small, vocal coterie of people who harbor very predictable anti-Catholic sentiments?
This is a common ploy among Internet Bullies: “We all see you this way! This is how you are being perceived.” Nonsense. A few people apparently “perceive” me this way. Others most emphatically do not. Several have come to my defense. Do their perceptions count? Or do you presume to claim that you speak for everyone on this forum?
And BTW, how do you suppose some other people hereabouts perceive you? Do you really want to know? That Internet Bully Mind Game works both ways.

Gee, I didn’t say anything nasty and you play the “anti-Catholic” card. SHEESH!!!

I’m sorry you feel so victimized, it must be hard to be an oppressed minority.

And BTW, I do not give a rip what others in this forum think of me. I write here at the pleasure of the Deebs. If they believe I have crossed a line, they can ban me or put me in slow moderation.

Please go bother someone else. Please. I don’t know you from Adam. I don’t *want* to know you from Adam. I am not lobbing insult spitballs at you. Or at anyone else. You and a VERY few other people are the ones who are making it personal. Not moi.

Kindly find someone else to demonstrate your superior Relationship With Jesus and Christian Charity toward. I’ve had about enough. Goodbye and best wishes.

Muff Potter wrote:

This clause from the Nicene Creed:

…For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate…

The words “for our sake” have been construed through allusion by some as an affirmation of PSA.

That’s very interesting. I have read quite a lot about PSA and I don’t recall anyone making that argument. But I could see how one could. The way I understand it is he had to die in order to enter into the worst of humanity in order to rescue it. This is a pretty decent explanation of what he did for our sake: https://www.perichoresis.org/on-the-death-of-our-blessed-lord-jesus-christ-2/.

Catholic Gate-Crasher wrote:

Goodbye and best wishes.

I hope you don’t leave because you bring a lot to this site. I’m having a hard time understanding how conversations about Roman Catholicism tend to go off the rails so often here. Of all sites, TWW should be a place where respectful disagreement can flourish. But for some reason this topic seems cursed.

I do think at times you come across as overly sensitive to criticism of Roman Catholicism, and your replies can come across as more pointed than I think you mean them. But I’ve also seen quite a lot of unfair comments directed to Roman Catholicism in general, and to you in particular. I suspect that if all parties involved could discuss this over some drinks it would be a very different conversation. Or maybe everyone needs to eat a Snickers bar or something. Or take a few deep breaths before typing a reply.

Your factual descriptions of official Roman Catholic beliefs seem sound and are consistent with the little I’ve learned of them. You provide a lot of solid input that helps to correct Protestant assumptions and beliefs that are not always grounded in fact. And you also provide a lot of very good historical background. Even if we Protestants don’t like what history reveals, we need exposure to it.

I am not pro-Catholic or anti-Catholic. I have Catholic friends and family members, and I’ve had some great conversations with very learned Catholics. There are some things about Roman Catholic theology that bother me enough that I don’t think I could become Roman Catholic, but not to the point that I would ever claim that Roman Catholics are not Christians. If my only choices were Roman Catholicism or Calvinism, I would choose the former without hesitation because, for whatever baggage I personally believe it brings, it also brings a wealth of very solid and ancient theology.

I hope this helps.

Oops, I meant goodbye to that particular person, not to this blog, LOL! I just wanted him to leave me alone.

Sorry for the confusion. And thanks so much​ for the kind, healing words!