Ex-CHC cell group leader quits CHC and tells all
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
Is the Bible really silent on tax? No. Jesus said to give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar. And Paul said that we must obey the govt, so long as obedience does not require us to go against God. Neither is the Bible silent on being faithful stewards or dealing honestly with each other. The Bible does not address every life circumstance but it provides moral guidance that can address every life circumstance.
Broinchrist: what are your thoughts on submission and covering theology? I follow your posts a bit and find your reasonings to be strong and well backed up with scripture. I have a bit of a hard time resolving certain issues about submission in regards to submission to church elders. (Hebrews 13:17)
The submission to civil authorities is pretty clear cut.
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
Is the Bible really silent on tax? No. Jesus said to give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar. And Paul said that we must obey the govt, so long as obedience does not require us to go against God. Neither is the Bible silent on being faithful stewards or dealing honestly with each other. The Bible does not address every life circumstance but it provides moral guidance that can address every life circumstance.
How much does the Bible say to give?
It sounds like we should give to Caesar as much as he wants (as long as Caesar does not blaspheme). This sounds more like a kingly concept to cow the masses into obedience.
Or have we got the power to decide what is excessive taxation?
-
Originally posted by Mr Milo:
Go against God?Muhahahahahahahahhahahahaha!
Religion and Government do not mix!
Religion has no right at all, even if what the government requests is against God
Religion and govt do not mix? Are all those in government positions atheists? Of course not. It is as absurd as saying that science and religion do not mix. Not all scientists are atheists.And who says religion has no right at all? The Singapore Constitution protects those rights. And should the govt make requests that goes against God or one's religious rights or convictions, there is always the avenue of civil disobedience, not to be confused with militant rebellion.
-
Originally posted by Joe 328:
Broinchrist: what are your thoughts on submission and covering theology? I follow your posts a bit and find your reasonings to be strong and well backed up with scripture. I have a bit of a hard time resolving certain issues about submission in regards to submission to church elders. (Hebrews 13:17)
The submission to civil authorities is pretty clear cut.
Hi, it is refreshing to hear such appreciative feedback, rare as they are.With regards to your question, in my view a lot of struggle in the church arises because of church structure. Most churches have a hierarchical-organisational corporation setup as opposed to the relational-organic functional model of the New Testament Church.
Submission to church leaders is never absolute and Scripture says that we are to submit to one another. We submit as unto the Lord, which means that we do not submit to anyone who teach contrary to the Word. Hebrews 13:7 has been much used as a proof-text to get believers to obey (rather uncritically it seems) their leaders, but I submit that this is a faulty or bad translation. The more literal and correct translation is along the lines of "Be persuaded by your leaders and yield" which is quite different from the ecclesiastical hierarchy heavy-sounding "Obey and submit".
The only covering I think the Bible speaks of is that of the covering for sin, not that of one believer over another. A book I recommend is "Who is Your Covering?" by Frank Viola. See also http://frankviola.org/2012/07/17/christianleadership/
-
Originally posted by alize:
How much does the Bible say to give?
It sounds like we should give to Caesar as much as he wants (as long as Caesar does not blaspheme). This sounds more like a kingly concept to cow the masses into obedience.
Or have we got the power to decide what is excessive taxation?
The amount of taxes you pay is determined by IRAS, not by God. -
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
Hi, it is refreshing to hear such appreciative feedback, rare as they are.With regards to your question, in my view a lot of struggle in the church arises because of church structure. Most churches have a hierarchical-organisational corporation setup as opposed to the relational-organic functional model of the New Testament Church.
Submission to church leaders is never absolute and Scripture says that we are to submit to one another. We submit as unto the Lord, which means that we do not submit to anyone who teach contrary to the Word. Hebrews 13:7 has been much used as a proof-text to get believers to obey (rather uncritically it seems) their leaders, but I submit that this is a faulty or bad translation. The more literal and correct translation is along the lines of "Be persuaded by your leaders and yield" which is quite different from the ecclesiastical hierarchy heavy-sounding "Obey and submit".
The only covering I think the Bible speaks of is that of the covering for sin, not that of one believer over another. A book I recommend is "Who is Your Covering?" by Frank Viola. See also http://frankviola.org/2012/07/17/christianleadership/
I just observe that it's very rare for Christians to possess great reasoning skills because there is a tendency to use scripture, even (!), to justify certain behavior as faith acts when they are clearly out of the realm of sound common sense.
The Bible is perfect, but our interpretation and our reading of it may not.
Church history has shown that some applications of the Word (or lack of understanding) create more problems than the good it intended. Despite good intentions, they fail. Good example? Alcohol and The Prohibition in the USA. It resulted in more bad than good.
You know... I suspect you are very much in the organic church movement, which I'll come back to, later.
I guess my question IS very much related to the thread at hand where a church like CHC definitely practice some sort of top-down authority structure where submission is a big deal. Nobody wants to report on a potentially boo-boo. And they can't, unless they are willing to be ridiculed in the open and risk losing the support group and friends you have made over a span of time.
I previously come from another megachurch, and I have a big problem with submission there. I never thought it was a problem, until I started serving and started being considered for leadership. In this church I was formerly in, there are 2 standards - 1 for the common congregation where there is abundant grace and no "legal" standards or any expectations are meted out on you. But when you become a leader and serving, everything changes.
It brought out the worst in me.
It was also a culture shock for me and it made me doubt everything about the church, because I couldn't accept an unconditional submission. Not only that, there were plenty of opportunities for abuse, mis-guidance and unaccountable things like running your life and hijacking your decision making-process in matters such as (career choice, which company to join, who to date in church, etc.). It was messy!
And so began my journey - with the current news about CHC, it made me think about this even more. While the verdict isn't out yet on KH and the others, controversy has a way of getting our attention and creating a situation where we need to ask questions what we previously took for granted.
I even attended an organic church, but instead I found that there might be some things about submission to authority that might be legit. I found out that despite having a lack of named authority structure in organic churches, there IS still an unspoken respect for the "cell leader"/"senior pastor" of that group. There are clear unspoken rules of conduct and a very distinct and clear recognition of the "leader of the group / "alpha male" of the "pack" / "captain of the ship". It was no different from the previous situation. It doesn't matter if there are titles or not, but the fact remains that the structure still exist in an organic church setting - hence, like certain unchangeable things explained in the Bible, I find by observation, that authority and structure do exist.
The issue of the "curse" from non-compliance to submission to elders in church and being outside the covering... Well, let's just say: I'm not doing too hot right now. but I wonder if it was a self-fulfilled prophecy arising from pre-programmed expectation/conditioning of my sub-conscious to self-sabotage. I find it VERY difficult to reconcile it all.
At the moment, I am at another church, trying to get a second opinion. But I am PRETTY SURE that this church also practices submission one way or another just by observation. So, as an added precaution, I am avoiding close contact with the leaders there and only mixing around with 1 or 2 folks who aren't too "on fire" with God. If I'm not serving or too involved in a group, I cannot have any chance of trangressing "submission". It's the safest option.
As you can see, it didn't produce the right fruit of Christian Submission in its true spirit. I'm just messing around with the legal loopholes (if I'm not serving or fully involvde in a small group, I'm not legally obliged to submit; and there are PLENTY of "lukewarm" church goers. If I should be penalized, they shall also be penalized and I doubt any leader will come out and make a sweeping expectation on them to "submit". They can only "encourage" participation and "encourage" certain behavior, but NOT ENFORCE it.)
And with a thing like submission - it gives a person tremendous power - and so the opportunity for power struggles, envy and jealousy. (am reminded of the arugment of "who is the greatest?" among the disciples in the Gospels. Servant-leadership preached by churches are only a theory rarely an application I observed. Only on the lower rungs of the church ladder or some leader in some obscure ministry within the church who is truly free from encumbrances of self-congratulatory servanthood.)
It sucks, because it seems like any little thing is liable for other to be rubbed the wrong way and cause one to be cast out and isolated in a small group. There's always a few who dominate and I let them do it. It's simply too risky to come out and participate in the things of God in a deeper way, because there is always a political fight in the end - happens both in a grace based church or non-grace based church, it doesn't matter. At least this is my experience.
What are your thoughts? And what do you think the wise thing to do for a person in my current situation.
I know you have a high capacity for intelligent discussion, so I am very interested to hear your opinion, because I lose most people halfway with this topic.
-
-
Life ish surreal.
-
Originally posted by Joe 328:
I just observe that it's very rare for Christians to possess great reasoning skills because there is a tendency to use scripture, even (!), to justify certain behavior as faith acts when they are clearly out of the realm of sound common sense.
The Bible is perfect, but our interpretation and our reading of it may not.
Church history has shown that some applications of the Word (or lack of understanding) create more problems than the good it intended. Despite good intentions, they fail. Good example? Alcohol and The Prohibition in the USA. It resulted in more bad than good.
You know... I suspect you are very much in the organic church movement, which I'll come back to, later.
I guess my question IS very much related to the thread at hand where a church like CHC definitely practice some sort of top-down authority structure where submission is a big deal. Nobody wants to report on a potentially boo-boo. And they can't, unless they are willing to be ridiculed in the open and risk losing the support group and friends you have made over a span of time.
I previously come from another megachurch, and I have a big problem with submission there. I never thought it was a problem, until I started serving and started being considered for leadership. In this church I was formerly in, there are 2 standards - 1 for the common congregation where there is abundant grace and no "legal" standards or any expectations are meted out on you. But when you become a leader and serving, everything changes.
It brought out the worst in me.
It was also a culture shock for me and it made me doubt everything about the church, because I couldn't accept an unconditional submission. Not only that, there were plenty of opportunities for abuse, mis-guidance and unaccountable things like running your life and hijacking your decision making-process in matters such as (career choice, which company to join, who to date in church, etc.). It was messy!
And so began my journey - with the current news about CHC, it made me think about this even more. While the verdict isn't out yet on KH and the others, controversy has a way of getting our attention and creating a situation where we need to ask questions what we previously took for granted.
I even attended an organic church, but instead I found that there might be some things about submission to authority that might be legit. I found out that despite having a lack of named authority structure in organic churches, there IS still an unspoken respect for the "cell leader"/"senior pastor" of that group. There are clear unspoken rules of conduct and a very distinct and clear recognition of the "leader of the group / "alpha male" of the "pack" / "captain of the ship". It was no different from the previous situation. It doesn't matter if there are titles or not, but the fact remains that the structure still exist in an organic church setting - hence, like certain unchangeable things explained in the Bible, I find by observation, that authority and structure do exist.
The issue of the "curse" from non-compliance to submission to elders in church and being outside the covering... Well, let's just say: I'm not doing too hot right now. but I wonder if it was a self-fulfilled prophecy arising from pre-programmed expectation/conditioning of my sub-conscious to self-sabotage. I find it VERY difficult to reconcile it all.
At the moment, I am at another church, trying to get a second opinion. But I am PRETTY SURE that this church also practices submission one way or another just by observation. So, as an added precaution, I am avoiding close contact with the leaders there and only mixing around with 1 or 2 folks who aren't too "on fire" with God. If I'm not serving or too involved in a group, I cannot have any chance of trangressing "submission". It's the safest option.
As you can see, it didn't produce the right fruit of Christian Submission in its true spirit. I'm just messing around with the legal loopholes (if I'm not serving or fully involvde in a small group, I'm not legally obliged to submit; and there are PLENTY of "lukewarm" church goers. If I should be penalized, they shall also be penalized and I doubt any leader will come out and make a sweeping expectation on them to "submit". They can only "encourage" participation and "encourage" certain behavior, but NOT ENFORCE it.)
And with a thing like submission - it gives a person tremendous power - and so the opportunity for power struggles, envy and jealousy. (am reminded of the arugment of "who is the greatest?" among the disciples in the Gospels. Servant-leadership preached by churches are only a theory rarely an application I observed. Only on the lower rungs of the church ladder or some leader in some obscure ministry within the church who is truly free from encumbrances of self-congratulatory servanthood.)
It sucks, because it seems like any little thing is liable for other to be rubbed the wrong way and cause one to be cast out and isolated in a small group. There's always a few who dominate and I let them do it. It's simply too risky to come out and participate in the things of God in a deeper way, because there is always a political fight in the end - happens both in a grace based church or non-grace based church, it doesn't matter. At least this is my experience.
What are your thoughts? And what do you think the wise thing to do for a person in my current situation.
I know you have a high capacity for intelligent discussion, so I am very interested to hear your opinion, because I lose most people halfway with this topic.
Thank you for sharing so much so freely.
I agree with you that once you are in leadership position, things can be very different. We can see things that we know should not be so. Somehow the pecking order so accepted in the corporate world does not seem to fit into the church, but nevertheless many are of the view that there is simply no other way to do things, since the church today is very much modeled after the corporate world.
Unconditional submission to church leaders is certainly foreign to the teaching of the New Testament. Many feel uncomfortable with it yet they somehow lack the information to counter proof texts like Heb 13:7 which are often used to silence any internal critic. Of course there is the much touted "Who is your covering?" that has guilt-tripped many believers into thinking that if they do not have a leader lording over them then they are fodder for the devil's minions and out of protection and favour with God.
Whether one is in an institutional church or an organic church, authority, submission, leadership and structure are terms that one will come into contact, but I submit that the concepts can be rather different. The point is to recapture the NT meaning of these words and flesh them out in our church life, something perhaps easier said then done. Leaders exist in the organic churches but they are, and should be, functional, not positional. One leads by example and maturity and faithfulness to the teaching of the Word. The "structure" that exists in an organic church is likened after the human body, and not that of the business corporation. But so long as you find yourself in an institutional church setting, the corporate idea of bottom-up submission along the chain of command is inevitable, and uncomfortable. I am of the view that when one tries to follow the Scripture and encounters problems, there are Scriptural solutions to Scriptural "problems". But it is difficult to solve modern church problems caused by adherence to a corporate model using the solutions in the Scripture, simply because church in the NT was never intended to be institutional and patterned after the corporate world.
What should you do then? But if I may suggest this, that you take time to "rethink the wineskin" and form Biblical convictions about what church is. This would involve much reading (and I suspect you are already doing that) and reflection. And let the Holy Spirit guide your thoughts from there.
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
Thank you for sharing so much so freely.
I agree with you that once you are in leadership position, things can be very different. We can see things that we know should not be so. Somehow the pecking order so accepted in the corporate world does not seem to fit into the church, but nevertheless many are of the view that there is simply no other way to do things, since the church today is very much modeled after the corporate world.
Unconditional submission to church leaders is certainly foreign to the teaching of the New Testament. Many feel uncomfortable with it yet they somehow lack the information to counter proof texts like Heb 13:7 which are often used to silence any internal critic. Of course there is the much touted "Who is your covering?" that has guilt-tripped many believers into thinking that if they do not have a leader lording over them then they are fodder for the devil's minions and out of protection and favour with God.
Whether one is in an institutional church or an organic church, authority, submission, leadership and structure are terms that one will come into contact, but I submit that the concepts can be rather different. The point is to recapture the NT meaning of these words and flesh them out in our church life, something perhaps easier said then done. Leaders exist in the organic churches but they are, and should be, functional, not positional. One leads by example and maturity and faithfulness to the teaching of the Word. The "structure" that exists in an organic church is likened after the human body, and not that of the business corporation. But so long as you find yourself in an institutional church setting, the corporate idea of bottom-up submission along the chain of command is inevitable, and uncomfortable. I am of the view that when one tries to follow the Scripture and encounters problems, there are Scriptural solutions to Scriptural "problems". But it is difficult to solve modern church problems caused by adherence to a corporate model using the solutions in the Scripture, simply because church in the NT was never intended to be institutional and patterned after the corporate world.
What should you do then? But if I may suggest this, that you take time to "rethink the wineskin" and form Biblical convictions about what church is. This would involve much reading (and I suspect you are already doing that) and reflection. And let the Holy Spirit guide your thoughts from there.
What's even worse is when church like these are not only content to have spiritual/religious authority, but aspire to gain civil/political influence in national politics and governance.
In America, it's very obvious. In Singapore, such intentions are more subtly suggested.
If you look around us, we aren't that much different from the Middle Ages (aka the Dark Ages). The only mainstream form of Christianity available at that time were also very much into making a big prosperity statement with large buildings and gold-foiled sculptures/art. Wars in the name of God were made - the "greater good" the "net gain" was justified. There were big frienships/alliances with governments (kings, monarchs and nobles rather) so much that only oppression, tyranny and serfdom were the result.
I do think we are not that much different from those times considering the structure and organization of religious group and society in general.
And if Solomon's words "That which has been, is that which will be" is anything to go by, there is a VERY big chance that Islam will rise again - a "new Ottomon" empire so to speak. In my personal opinion, it isn't necessarily a bad thing, since in the OT that was God's way of calling leaders into accountability who failed to lead people well, but pursued their own agenda instead.
And in history, only after the Ottomon's rise and fall, would a new Renaissance and a new Reformation happen, where someone like Luther would radically preach that submission to the clergy is unnecessary in a relationship to God (particularly Salvation, in Luther's context - "the just by faith shall live").
-
Originally posted by Joe 328:
What's even worse is when church like these are not only content to have spiritual/religious authority, but aspire to gain civil/political influence in national politics and governance.
In America, it's very obvious. In Singapore, such intentions are more subtly suggested.
If you look around us, we aren't that much different from the Middle Ages (aka the Dark Ages). The only mainstream form of Christianity available at that time were also very much into making a big prosperity statement with large buildings and gold-foiled sculptures/art. Wars in the name of God were made - the "greater good" the "net gain" was justified. There were big frienships/alliances with governments (kings, monarchs and nobles rather) so much that only oppression, tyranny and serfdom were the result.
I do think we are not that much different from those times considering the structure and organization of religious group and society in general.
And if Solomon's words "That which has been, is that which will be" is anything to go by, there is a VERY big chance that Islam will rise again - a "new Ottomon" empire so to speak. In my personal opinion, it isn't necessarily a bad thing, since in the OT that was God's way of calling leaders into accountability who failed to lead people well, but pursued their own agenda instead.
And in history, only after the Ottomon's rise and fall, would a new Renaissance and a new Reformation happen, where someone like Luther would radically preach that submission to the clergy is unnecessary in a relationship to God (particularly Salvation, in Luther's context - "the just by faith shall live").
Actually I think it is Biblical to influence society wherever God has placed us, be it in politics or not. I think that is part of being salt and light. But this is not the same as setting up a Christian government and using the Bible as a basis for the country's law. Paul exhorted the believers to obey the government, not be the government. America's beginnings are closely intertwined with the Christian faith and was founded on Christian principles. However, it was under those very Christian principles that freedom of belief was provided for, that there is freedom of religion which unfortunately is now confused with freedom from religion.
Coming back to the life and practice of the church, there is already a revolution going on, George Barna has written about it as well. But still that is the road less travelled and not without its challenges, not least because by and large we are very much used to being in control of things and letting the Holy Spirit take charge of running the church is just too uncertain for many, especially those in positions of leadership.
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
Thank you for sharing so much so freely.
I agree with you that once you are in leadership position, things can be very different. We can see things that we know should not be so. Somehow the pecking order so accepted in the corporate world does not seem to fit into the church, but nevertheless many are of the view that there is simply no other way to do things, since the church today is very much modeled after the corporate world.
Unconditional submission to church leaders is certainly foreign to the teaching of the New Testament. Many feel uncomfortable with it yet they somehow lack the information to counter proof texts like Heb 13:7 which are often used to silence any internal critic. Of course there is the much touted "Who is your covering?" that has guilt-tripped many believers into thinking that if they do not have a leader lording over them then they are fodder for the devil's minions and out of protection and favour with God.
Whether one is in an institutional church or an organic church, authority, submission, leadership and structure are terms that one will come into contact, but I submit that the concepts can be rather different. The point is to recapture the NT meaning of these words and flesh them out in our church life, something perhaps easier said then done. Leaders exist in the organic churches but they are, and should be, functional, not positional. One leads by example and maturity and faithfulness to the teaching of the Word. The "structure" that exists in an organic church is likened after the human body, and not that of the business corporation. But so long as you find yourself in an institutional church setting, the corporate idea of bottom-up submission along the chain of command is inevitable, and uncomfortable. I am of the view that when one tries to follow the Scripture and encounters problems, there are Scriptural solutions to Scriptural "problems". But it is difficult to solve modern church problems caused by adherence to a corporate model using the solutions in the Scripture, simply because church in the NT was never intended to be institutional and patterned after the corporate world.
What should you do then? But if I may suggest this, that you take time to "rethink the wineskin" and form Biblical convictions about what church is. This would involve much reading (and I suspect you are already doing that) and reflection. And let the Holy Spirit guide your thoughts from there.
"church in the NT was never intended to be institutional and patterned after the corporate world."
This is the most important fact that many church leaders, pastors, bishops...fail to realize....
-
Originally posted by sgdiehard:
"church in the NT was never intended to be institutional and patterned after the corporate world."
This is the most important fact that many church leaders, pastors, bishops...fail to realize....
And I think that many who do realise that will rationalise the continuity of the institutional church under the notion of progress and that the church back then was primitive and persecuted etc etc. Actually I think the worst kind of rationalisation is the kind that says "The Bible is silent on how the church should be like."
Really?
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
Actually I think it is Biblical to influence society wherever God has placed us, be it in politics or not. I think that is part of being salt and light. But this is not the same as setting up a Christian government and using the Bible as a basis for the country's law. Paul exhorted the believers to obey the government, not be the government. America's beginnings are closely intertwined with the Christian faith and was founded on Christian principles. However, it was under those very Christian principles that freedom of belief was provided for, that there is freedom of religion which unfortunately is now confused with freedom from religion.
Coming back to the life and practice of the church, there is already a revolution going on, George Barna has written about it as well. But still that is the road less travelled and not without its challenges, not least because by and large we are very much used to being in control of things and letting the Holy Spirit take charge of running the church is just too uncertain for many, especially those in positions of leadership.
George Barna. I was thinking about his book... Based on the reviews and some synopsis found online, he seems to know something about the current phenomenon. The fact that many people think that those who leave church are "backsliders" could not be further from the truth. Many of them who leave are those who have been around (many served as leaders and pastors).
These days, I spend more time reading secular books on Political Science than anything.
The origins of America being founded on Christianity has 2 different opposing arguments. Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson weren't Christians at all. Many of these historical people have links to FreeMasonry - a cult and in my opinion something you run from as far as you can. (You can see Freemasonry symbols on American dollar bills in the form of the pyramid and "the all seeing eye") George Washington's faith is still a matter of debate. Only Abe Lincoln was a Christian (only after his son had died) and even then his views are opposed to the mainstream church *in his time* - e.g. slavery. As Lincoln fought against the Confederate Army - the Confederates claimed God's will were on their side, while the Union did too also.
In my opinion, America being founded on Christian principles happened NOT in the way most people thought how (or the way most preachers said how). It happened precisely in the conditions as I described in my previous post where Serfdom was rife in medieval Europe.
Because of the monopolising of lands and privileges occured only within the monarchs and religious authorities (and these 2 were pretty much "friends" - the church and the king was one big gentleman's club), the ONLY way a person, ANY person, can break out of the poverty cycle was to be "free". Free in the sense, he was free buy and own land and run a business without having to lobby and be friends with the nobles/monarchs and the religious elite. He was free to innovate and be inventive and eat off the fruits of his labor without having new laws being arbitrary meted out to cancel his economic advantage due to his enterprising spirit.
Because the idea that all men are created equal under the eyes of God in Reformation Theology, they are liberated (not just from the 10 commandment and the OT, but also liberated from hierarchical systems where a human mediator is needed - none of those things matter. Jesus is the Mediator and the whole notion of the "Mandate of Heaven" being given to a ruling class is nullified), these new Reformed believers went to America and started a new life, AWAY from the previous system.
Hence, the whole idea of the free market system. A (true) capitalist society was born, where each man was free to do trade and exchange as equals (rather than needing the privilege of a social standing to do so); and if any man was not happy with the price, he could well choose an alternative, thereby allowing the the free market economic equilibrium to work its magic. I.e. Prices correct itself without any intervention.
The Constitution of America provided such an environment where each man is no longer viewed and given privileges because of his social class and family background, but is free to pursue his "own happiness" - i.e. to pursue a trade or a business and be responsible for all the risks in his undertaking that he chooses. Because of this, if a man was inventive and made scientific discoveries he could very well make money and prosper without the fear that the rich and powerful is going to come and take it unfairly from him.
Contrast that to Medieval Europe, you could not do that. People were afraid to be inventive and independent, they were afraid to have contrarian views (for invention and discoveries are all about having a different view of the status quo - Gallileo couldn't openly publish his views since the church told him to shut up). Hence the idea of "freedom" and "libery" are big champions of American prosperity, and to say it caused America's initial prosperity is correct. In those days "freedom" didn't really mean "I could mouth off someone's mother because it is my 'freedom'".
Given the econo-political context, freedom was a different idea then compared to today. It was a big idea.. It was also a Christian one. " Whom the Son sets free, is free indeed" - John 8:36, "Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty" - 2 Corinthians 3:17
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
And I think that many who do realise that will rationalise the continuity of the institutional church under the notion of progress and that the church back then was primitive and persecuted etc etc. Actually I think the worst kind of rationalisation is the kind that says "The Bible is silent on how the church should be like."
Really?
My previous megachurch pastor argued with the "Paul got smart" argument (Paul later used the "I am a Roman citizen" privilege escape persecution and lived to spread the Word).
He argues that just because the early church was persecuted and the early church was very simple, it didn't mean that the contemporary church had to be. The church (like Paul) as it "progressed" got smart. We used certain privileges to "escape". For Paul, it was Roman Citizenship, for the contemporary church - being big and prosperous and having a lot of supporting amenities that isn't too far from secular life - No ascetism.
For me, my idea of church is much simpler and it's based mainly on 2 scriptures.
1. "Where 2 or more are gathered IN MY NAME, there I am in the midst of them"
2. "Jacob called that place Bethel"
Jacob encountered God's presence and called the place Bethel , which means House of God. 2 things must be present - 1. God's presence and 2. Two believers coming together in love and *consciously* acknowledging/seeking God is already a church - Building or no building. (Two believers coming together to socialize to talk about movies doesn't count. Two believers coming to church but can't wait for the service to be over and have a can't be bothered attitude about the things of God, also doesn't count).
-
Originally posted by Joe 328:
George Barna. I was thinking about his book... Based on the reviews and some synopsis found online, he seems to know something about the current phenomenon. The fact that many people think that those who leave church are "backsliders" could not be further from the truth. Many of them who leave are those who have been around (many served as leaders and pastors).
These days, I spend more time reading secular books on Political Science than anything.
The origins of America being founded on Christianity has 2 different opposing arguments. Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson weren't Christians at all. Many of these historical people have links to FreeMasonry - a cult and in my opinion something you run from as far as you can. (You can see Freemasonry symbols on American dollar bills in the form of the pyramid and "the all seeing eye") George Washington's faith is still a matter of debate. Only Abe Lincoln was a Christian (only after his son had died) and even then his views are opposed to the mainstream church *in his time* - e.g. slavery. As Lincoln fought against the Confederate Army - the Confederates claimed God's will were on their side, while the Union did too also.
In my opinion, America being founded on Christian principles happened NOT in the way most people thought how (or the way most preachers said how). It happened precisely in the conditions as I described in my previous post where Serfdom was rife in medieval Europe.
Because of the monopolising of lands and privileges occured only within the monarchs and religious authorities (and these 2 were pretty much "friends" - the church and the king was one big gentleman's club), the ONLY way a person, ANY person, can break out of the poverty cycle was to be "free". Free in the sense, he was free buy and own land and run a business without having to lobby and be friends with the nobles/monarchs and the religious elite. He was free to innovate and be inventive and eat off the fruits of his labor without having new laws being arbitrary meted out to cancel his economic advantage due to his enterprising spirit.
Because the idea that all men are created equal under the eyes of God in Reformation Theology, they are liberated (not just from the 10 commandment and the OT, but also liberated from hierarchical systems where a human mediator is needed - none of those things matter. Jesus is the Mediator and the whole notion of the "Mandate of Heaven" being given to a ruling class is nullified), these new Reformed believers went to America and started a new life, AWAY from the previous system.
Hence, the whole idea of the free market system. A (true) capitalist society was born, where each man was free to do trade and exchange as equals (rather than needing the privilege of a social standing to do so); and if any man was not happy with the price, he could well choose an alternative, thereby allowing the the free market economic equilibrium to work its magic. I.e. Prices correct itself without any intervention.
The Constitution of America provided such an environment where each man is no longer viewed and given privileges because of his social class and family background, but is free to pursue his "own happiness" - i.e. to pursue a trade or a business and be responsible for all the risks in his undertaking that he chooses. Because of this, if a man was inventive and made scientific discoveries he could very well make money and prosper without the fear that the rich and powerful is going to come and take it unfairly from him.
Contrast that to Medieval Europe, you could not do that. People were afraid to be inventive and independent, they were afraid to have contrarian views (for invention and discoveries are all about having a different view of the status quo - Gallileo couldn't openly publish his views since the church told him to shut up). Hence the idea of "freedom" and "libery" are big champions of American prosperity, and to say it caused America's initial prosperity is correct. In those days "freedom" didn't really mean "I could mouth off someone's mother because it is my 'freedom'".
Given the econo-political context, freedom was a different idea then compared to today. It was a big idea.. It was also a Christian one. " Whom the Son sets free, is free indeed" - John 8:36, "Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty" - 2 Corinthians 3:17
Considering that in the past he was very much a mainstream church person writing about mainstream churches, George's book "Pagan Christianity" co-authored with Frank Viola caused not a few people to raised some eyebrows.
I don't read much about political science so can't say much. But a book I enjoyed reading a couple of years back was reviewed here http://creation.com/world-upside-down and you can actually borrow it from the National Library.
Regarding America's founding fathers, while not all were Christians, I think you would agree that the evidence points to America being founded clearly on Christian values or principles. One can argue if America was founded as a Christian nation or a nation with many Christians, and I am inclined towards the former. But I suppose this is a topic for another forum.
-
Originally posted by Joe 328:
My previous megachurch pastor argued with the "Paul got smart" argument (Paul later used the "I am a Roman citizen" privilege escape persecution and lived to spread the Word).
He argues that just because the early church was persecuted and the early church was very simple, it didn't mean that the contemporary church had to be. The church (like Paul) as it "progressed" got smart. We used certain privileges to "escape". For Paul, it was Roman Citizenship, for the contemporary church - being big and prosperous and having a lot of supporting amenities that isn't too far from secular life - No ascetism.
For me, my idea of church is much simpler and it's based mainly on 2 scriptures.
1. "Where 2 or more are gathered IN MY NAME, there I am in the midst of them"
2. "Jacob called that place Bethel"
Jacob encountered God's presence and called the place Bethel , which means House of God. 2 things must be present - 1. God's presence and 2. Two believers coming together in love and *consciously* acknowledging/seeking God is already a church - Building or no building. (Two believers coming together to socialize to talk about movies doesn't count. Two believers coming to church but can't wait for the service to be over and have a can't be bothered attitude about the things of God, also doesn't count).
Persecution in the early church was largely sporadic and localised and due mainly to Jewish leaders' instigation but one must noticed that even before severe imperial persecution arose many decades later the church was already "organised" as simple functioning house churches for at least the first 300 years. And neither was there any hint that they were functioning as such because of persecution and that the ideal would be anything akin to an institutional church like what we have today.
Exegetically speaking, I am of the view that the passage about 2 or 3 gathered in Jesus' name wasn't in the context of defining the church. The context of Matt 18 was church discipline. I see a distinction between a church and the church meeting. Believers coming together are still considered the church, since by definition the church is a body of believers. But their coming together may not constitute a church meeting as reflected in the NT which has as their primary purpose the breaking of bread and mutual edification.
-
Let's see what the LAW will do with the shameless couple on 25 Jul 2012
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
Considering that in the past he was very much a mainstream church person writing about mainstream churches, George's book "Pagan Christianity" co-authored with Frank Viola caused not a few people to raised some eyebrows.
I don't read much about political science so can't say much. But a book I enjoyed reading a couple of years back was reviewed here http://creation.com/world-upside-down and you can actually borrow it from the National Library.
Regarding America's founding fathers, while not all were Christians, I think you would agree that the evidence points to America being founded clearly on Christian values or principles. One can argue if America was founded as a Christian nation or a nation with many Christians, and I am inclined towards the former. But I suppose this is a topic for another forum.
America founded as Christian nation or nation with many Christians? I don't think they are different arguments at all nor mutually exclusive from one another in the discussion. I think they are one and the same. IMO anyway.
Originally posted by BroInChrist:Persecution in the early church was largely sporadic and localised and due mainly to Jewish leaders' instigation but one must noticed that even before severe imperial persecution arose many decades later the church was already "organised" as simple functioning house churches for at least the first 300 years. And neither was there any hint that they were functioning as such because of persecution and that the ideal would be anything akin to an institutional church like what we have today.
Exegetically speaking, I am of the view that the passage about 2 or 3 gathered in Jesus' name wasn't in the context of defining the church. The context of Matt 18 was church discipline. I see a distinction between a church and the church meeting. Believers coming together are still considered the church, since by definition the church is a body of believers. But their coming together may not constitute a church meeting as reflected in the NT which has as their primary purpose the breaking of bread and mutual edification.
I interpret and read that line broadly; so gathering "in His name" also means gathering *for the purpose* of worshipping Jesus and anything that exalts, acknowledges, or seeks, His face/presence, His name, His mind/wisdom, etc.
"Worship" as defined in spirit and in truth - so it can be exposition of scriptures, worship, breaking of bread, praying for one another, etc.
So you are right, coming together alone doesn't make a church.
-
Originally posted by Joe 328:
America founded as Christian nation or nation with many Christians? I don't think they are different arguments at all nor mutually exclusive from one another in the discussion. I think they are one and the same. IMO anyway.
I interpret and read that line broadly; so gathering "in His name" also means gathering *for the purpose* of worshipping Jesus and anything that exalts, acknowledges, or seeks, His face/presence, His name, His mind/wisdom, etc.
"Worship" as defined in spirit and in truth - so it can be exposition of scriptures, worship, breaking of bread, praying for one another, etc.
So you are right, coming together alone doesn't make a church.
Actually my point is that there is a distinction between the church and the church meeting. The church (i.e. a group of believers) can be gathered and yet not be a church meeting. IMO a church meeting is characterised by the expressed purpose of saints intentionally and regularly gathering for mutual edification and the building up of the body and partaking of the Lord's Supper. So believers meeting to play golf, watch movies etc does not count as having a church meeting, even though the church is meeting.
Just to clarify, I am not saying that 2 or 3 saints gathered together is not a church nor cannot be having a church meeting, I'm just saying that Matt 18:20 is not about defining what a church is.
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
Actually my point is that there is a distinction between the church and the church meeting. The church (i.e. a group of believers) can be gathered and yet not be a church meeting. IMO a church meeting is characterised by the expressed purpose of saints intentionally and regularly gathering for mutual edification and the building up of the body and partaking of the Lord's Supper. So believers meeting to play golf, watch movies etc does not count as having a church meeting, even though the church is meeting.
Just to clarify, I am not saying that 2 or 3 saints gathered together is not a church nor cannot be having a church meeting, I'm just saying that Matt 18:20 is not about defining what a church is.
Okay. I get what you are saying - Church with a capital 'C'. The collective Church as the entire body of Christ. All Christians are part of THE CHURCH but not all Christians go to church.
I thought we were talking about how would one define a House of God. (i.e. the question of whether CHC is a legit "church", a legit House of God, despite how it is run and how it is structured and what activities are conducted.)
IMO, I think CHC is a legit house of God, despite all the controversy.
-
Originally posted by Joe 328:
Okay. I get what you are saying - Church with a capital 'C'. The collective Church as the entire body of Christ.
BTW, the word "church" is used in various contexts. Sometimes it is spoken of as the collective Church, sometimes it is meant as "the church that meets in so-and-so's house", sometimes it is meant as the church in a locality, e.g Corinth. So the context determines the usage.
-
Originally posted by Joe 328:
Okay. I get what you are saying - Church with a capital 'C'. The collective Church as the entire body of Christ. All Christians are part of THE CHURCH but not all Christians go to church.
I thought we were talking about how would one define a House of God. (i.e. the question of whether CHC is a legit "church", a legit House of God, despite how it is run and how it is structured and what activities are conducted.)
IMO, I think CHC is a legit house of God, despite all the controversy.
Personally I avoid using the label "House of God" for a church. Problem is that it conveys the idea that the church is a place, a venue, a building. Such a notion is foreign to the NT even though the NT teaches that the church is a living temple (or spiritual house) made up of living stones. I also avoid using the phrase "go to church" for the same reason.
-
The IB is back.
-
IB?