Results 1 - 6 of 6
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Visit other churches? | Rom 16:16 | Reformer Joe | 34234 | ||
I noticed the comments you had made. Without a doubt see the "shopping-mall" mentality of American evangelicals, with some even having a short list of churches that they choose from each week depending on their whims. While I do not deny that their are Christian churches that vary in their approach to liturgy and style, one should not be in the "what's-in-it-for-me" modewhen choosing where to worship, but rather asking the important questions of "Where is God's Word preached?" and "where can I best serve?" Self-centered religion is the hallmark of the American evangelical scene in the early 21st century. I do not see as much of the "denominational myopia" that you appear to see. Of course, members of denominations have loyalty to those denominations, but I don't know if that translates to excluding other evangelicals from any fellowship whatsoever. In fact, having grown up in non-denominational churches, I have seen my share of anti-denominational bias as well. As for the denomination of which I am now a part, I wouldn't be attending it if I did not agree with most of its understanding of Scripture. As people who have read at least three of my posts can readily tell you, I adhere to a Reformed understanding of salvation. And, granted, it may be that there are some in my church that "look down their noses" at Arminians; however, it is possible to consider another communion/denomination to be wrong in some very important areas without using those non-essential points of doctrine to withhold the hand of fellowship. While this problem may exist, I consider the other side of the "bipolar" assessment to be a far more pervasive problem in our churches today. --Joe! |
||||||
2 | Visit other churches? | Rom 16:16 | charis | 34242 | ||
Dear Joe! Greetings in the name of the Lord Jesus! My friend, with all due respect (truly! a GREAT amount of resect!) could the bias in your last statement be linked to your 'personal style,' and not solely to truth as perceived by Jesus? Honestly, Joe!, I do see (very clearly!) the extreme of anti-denominationalism, and admit that my own roots could influence my 'sight' in this issue. But I also see a 'we-are-righteous, they-are-not' attitude on BOTH sides, and frankly, just about equally! In my humble opinion (well, may not always! :-)), the main difference between the two poles seems only to be in where they found their arrogance. The denominational (traditional, conservative, mainline, etc.) place their focus on the Word, and their (supposed) inerrant understanding of It. The (non-, anti-, or non-mainline-) denominational, which would tend to be considered the Charismatic/Pentacostal camp, place their focus on the Spirit, and their (supposed) inerrant understanding of Him. (I'm sorry for the generalities, but I AM speaking of trends, so...) Is one *right* and the other *wrong?* I have my doubts! If one is *right* and the other *wrong,* it could very well be a salvific issue! I cannot see that either *other side* is not saved because of their focus or bias. Both sides (equally) have their extremists and bigots. Both sides (equally) claim superior understanding of God. Joe!, I see your 'pet peeve.' But I can just as clearly see 'theirs.' :-) In fact, I think that this forum is proof of my theory! Overall, I lean toward the 'orderly' side of things, but having fellowship with 'less-orderly' saints has allowed me to see their faith in the Lord Jesus. This is why I was asking about visiting other churches, perhaps even very different churches from our norm. Of course, I may just be 'another liberal, un-Biblical nut!' :-) Thank you for your reply, my friend! In Christ Jesus, charis |
||||||
3 | Visit other churches? | Rom 16:16 | Reformer Joe | 34264 | ||
Charis: Actually, the non-denominational background that I was raised in is quite non-charismatic. They are just very congregational in their form of church government and steeped in the dispensationalism that flows forth like water from my neck of the woods. They are most definitely cessationists in regards to the more sensational gifts. Therefore, non-denominational does not mean Pentecostal in all circumstances. I am not suggesting that there is NO denominational bias out there, by the way. However, I do not come across a great number of individuals claiming inerrancy in their interpretations of Scripture (despite the fact that I certainly come across quite a few on here, where am modem gives one all authority in all things). I certainly hold that I very well could be wrong in aspects of my theology (and probably am), but it certainly is going to take a lot more than someone merely asserting that I am wrong to convince me of my error(s). My own mother-in-law would probably fall into the camp of the "less-orderly" saints, and I certainly see her faith in Jesus. That doesn't prevent theological disagreement in certain areas, however, that probably would not make us comfortable attending the same congregations. As far as whether the focus is on the Word or the Spirit, the two are in conjunction. While I hold that no one's interpretation of Scripture is free from error of any kind, I also do not hold the understanding of God's Word to be some up-in-the-air guessing game. I would say that I place my focus on the Spirit as revealed in the Word. After all, how do we know what is truly a work of the Spirit unless we gauge it by the other gift of God to the church, the Bible? Actually, about five years ago we did visit one of those "less-orderly" churches, where there was a praise-and-worship band with the drums and guitar and all of that dynamic stuff (not bad in itself, just setting the scene). The congragation was quite excited about it all. Then the pastor came out in his mustard-yellow jacket and began to display his Bible, alternately lifting it up in the air and clutching it to his chest, and yet never quite managing to open it. He did speak, however, about all the great things that God was planning on doing in the church, how God was really moving and shaking things. The service ended with the congregation taking money out of their wallets and rushing to place it in a huge, mountainous pile on the altar as the whole escapade was accompanied by the band. I know that this is a rather extreme example, but every one of the people who regularly attend that church were completely convinced of "the Spirit working" that Sunday morning. That is the problem when we forget the fact that the Holy Spirit primarily works through the proclamation of the message of Scripture. Divorce the Word from the service and there IS no service. The issue I have with such churches is whether my interpretation is inerrant or not, but whether or not the teachers of the church participate in the hiding of God's own message from the congregation. --Joe! |
||||||
4 | Visit other churches? | Rom 16:16 | charis | 34418 | ||
Dear Joe! Greetings in the name of Jesus! Friend, I must say that just about everything you wrote supports, yea exemplifies, my anthropological hypothesy. :-) Not every Type 2 (I'll use this for brevity) pastor wears a mustard-yellow jacket! I, for instance, sometimes wear a rather subdued Salmon jacket from Penney's Stafford Collection! (VERY appropriate!) :-) In addition, wearing a 'less conservative' jacket does not make one Type 2. This is exactly the kind of bias (bigotry) that encourages the centrifugal trend I am theorizing. Type 1s are becoming more entrenched in their Type 1-ness, and Type 2s are doing likewise. The Type 2 camp may have the more 'outrageous' examples of extremism, like the tomfoolery you spoke of, but the Type 1 camp has their fair share of 'anti-Type 2' propaganda! My point is that, overall, the Type 1 pole is just as far from the center as the Type 2 pole. One thing is certain; both claim to BE the center, with the other the 'fringe.' Truly, Joe!, the Word and the Spirit SHOULD be in conjunction. This ideal is clearly written in the Bible, and the Spirit certainly speaks to my heart that this should be so! But the church is not bearing this out, which is exactly my concern. I see that one side claims the Spirit in the Word, and the other claims the Word in the Spirit. But I do not see either with a monopoly on truth. Friend, I am not trying to convince you, or tell you your error. I am speaking of trends, and you DO kind of fit in! :-) One of the reasons I visit other churches is to corroborate or refute the (biased) claims I have heard over the years. One of them is, "Type 2 preachers do not know the Word, and do not preach the Bible." Thought there might be a certain amount of truth in this (like Cretans!) it is not any more true that to say that Type 1 churches are full of intelligent, orderly people. Certainly Type 2 ministers do not own greed and lust, with Type 1 ministers free from such sin! Some amount of 'cross-fellowship' may actually be productive, though 'uncomfortable.' :-) Anyway, my good friend, and worthy colleague, I will rest may case with this. Much more, and 'centrifugal force' might strain our fellowship! :-) In Christ Jesus, charis |
||||||
5 | Visit other churches? | Rom 16:16 | Reformer Joe | 34451 | ||
My anecdote was not to be a generalization, just an autobiographical sketch. And you must admit in certain circles certain individuals with certain leanings very often dress in a certain way to look a certain part. I have to wonder, Randy, why you had so little to say about what actually WENT ON during that service. Surely you do not find such practices to be truly of the Holy Spirit we see in Scripture. And, assuming that you do not, what is your standard for telling this pastor that he is in the wrong? :) I am happy with the "trend" I fit in. It is a trend which says that the God of the Bible must clearly be revealed as He is. I think it is an oversimplification to place me in one of two categories, for there are a number of ways that I see the whole counsel of God disguised rather than revealed from the pulpit. For example: 1. The category that I have already alluded to (the Bible-waving and getting people excited without actually saying ANYTHING accurate about God). 2. The preaching of the "warm and fuzzy" aspects of God's character and at the same time intentionally hiding those aspects and requirements which rightfully make us uncomfortable (e.g. His holiness and righteous wrath and demand for repentance). 3. Preaching a "gospel" of morality rather than the gospel of the Bible. 4. Preaching a "gospel" of social/political activism rather tham the Gospel of the Bible. 5. Replacing the proclamation of God's Word with adherance to extra-biblical (or even un-biblical) tradition. 6. Replacing the historical gospel of Jesus crucified and resurrected with a "let's all be nice to each other" message. 7. Painting Jesus to be a cosmic therapist to meet our every need (read: our every "want") rather than the Lord of all. So we can see that the misrepresentation of God and His Word crosses all kinds of churches and traditions. It is far too basic to lump Bible abuse into the categories of "orderly" and "free-spirited." I fully agree with you that there is not a tremendous amount of fellowship/dialogue across the "Pentecostal divide." Some are just stereotyping what they have not personally experienced or do not understand. From my own perspective, I can only say that my difficulties with some on the other side of the divide stems from my spiritual gift of discernment and the opposition of many (not ALL) in the other camp to the exercise of that gift (the whole "don't quench the Spirit" thing). You are right that neither has a monopoly on truth. However, it goes deeper than agreeing what the truth is; I perceive the root of the problem being epistemological. That is, how can we know truth? Do we lean heavily on our own subjective experience to assert what God's truth is, or is God's written revelation the ultimate authority in the matter? Neither camp will DENY the importance of God's Word, just as neither group will reject the importance of actually experiencing the Spirit at work in one's life. The tension arises, however, when some incident or experience arises which is attributed to the Spirit by some but argued to be contrary to Scripture by others. In cases like this, do we make the ultimate appeal to the Bible or to our sincere feeling that the situation was a "move of the Spirit"? --Joe! |
||||||
6 | Visit other churches? | Rom 16:16 | EdB | 34519 | ||
Joe Let me jump in with a few thoughts. First let me say I’m from the Pentecostal camp, but I do agree with you, discernment (read don’t quench the spirit) is highly discouraged within the ranks. You can just about get away with anything saying, your under the ‘spirit’ and have people cheering you on. There is one such example where the speaker many times does nothing but laugh, of course laughter is contagious and soon the whole church is laughing, the word is rarely spoken within context, yet people swear this man is mighty man of God. As for your list of disguising God I see all of them the same, ways to manipulate people into giving more and to come back next week. In other words build a building rather than equip the saints to do the work. Unfortunately in our society success is judged by most by size, if your church isn’t large and growing God simply can’t be there, or is withholding His blessings for some reason. However many of these methods are used by both camps. That said I agree with Charis there seems to be two types of church goers, one that is attending due to an allegiance to a religious entity. And the another type that doesn’t carry any such allegiance. Neither type is necessarily wrong but the first type has a tendency to become myopic and intolerant for anything other than their view of religion. The later has a tendency of often following every wind of doctrine. That said I also believe either group can be guilty of the problem you mentioned in your last paragraph. Many times the scriptures are abused to prove a point rather than used to seek an answer. There are intelligent, learned, dedicated, and honest men on both sides of today’s religious issues. To say one has a handle the other is missing is wrong. Instead both should seek and understand what it is, they evidently are not seeing in scripture that the other side is. Then once they have that understanding seek a solution that addresses both sides of the issue. Instead we sit back very confidently and assume the other is just wrong. Be blessed and be a blessing EdB |
||||||