Dear Church, Here’s Why People Are REALLY Leaving You

[Dcopymope]

Dcopymope,

I'm somewhat confused by some of your emphases here:

1. Do you attend a church that believes in supernatural ministry through prayer? I'm thinking of your comment about not finding people who can pray for healing and casting out demons.
2. Does your church not have a corporate prayer meeting for anyone to attend?
3. How do you know people can't read a chapter in the Bible for themselves? Are they telling you this?
4. Have you tried asking them about Abraham and this has led you to this conclusion about their ignorance of Abraham?
5. Are you really questioning whether 'the body of Christ' exists on earth today? How do you deal with this Scripture? 'Now I say to you that you are Peter (which means 'rock'), and upon this rock I will build my church, and all the powers of hell will not conquer it' (Matt 16:18 NLT).

You seem to be having a negative experience with the church. Do you mind sharing where in the world you live and with which church you are associated so that I can gain a better grasp on what is happening to the church in your region?

Blessings,
Oz

1. Well yes, I do attend a church that believes 100% in what the Bible says, we're non-denominational. Its a family church that's seen much healing and turmoil. But like most members of any church, they don't read the Bible like they should and most importantly, they do not come to Sunday school or Bible study to actually know how the hell to even pray correctly for themselves to begin with.

2. Not anymore, but we do have a moment of corporate prayer during church service.

3. No, its self-evident, some of them couldn't even tell you who Adam or David was, or at least they didn't have the confidence to open their mouths and tell us.

4. Read number 3.

5. If it does exist, it certainly don't exist as Jesus Christ originally intended. The so called 'body of Christ' don't even have a backbone anymore, a bunch of pansies for Christs sake. And really, this is good, because if it did exist as intended, then the end times cannot come.

I live in America, Detroit Michigan. There are lots of Churches in Detroit, but like any other product, quantity does not equal quality.

 

[OzSpen]

1. Well yes, I do attend a church that believes 100% in what the Bible says, we're non-denominational. Its a family church that's seen much healing and turmoil. But like most members of any church, they don't read the Bible like they should and most importantly, they do not come to Sunday school or Bible study to actually know how the hell to even pray correctly for themselves to begin with.

2. Not anymore, but we do have a moment of corporate prayer during church service.

3. No, its self-evident, some of them couldn't even tell you who Adam or David was, or at least they didn't have the confidence to open their mouths and tell us.

4. Read number 3.

5. If it does exist, it certainly don't exist as Jesus Christ originally intended. The so called 'body of Christ' don't even have a backbone anymore, a bunch of pansies for Christs sake. And really, this is good, because if it did exist as intended, then the end times cannot come.

I live in America, Detroit Michigan. There are lots of Churches in Detroit, but like any other product, quantity does not equal quality.

Dcopy,

Now to your responses:

1. I'm sure you realise that the church of the first few centuries did not have a Bible to read. Many of them were illiterate so even if they had a Bible, most would not be able to read and understand it. I've lived in the USA and Canada for 7 years, so I'm familiar with your Sunday School and Bible study routine. However, Sunday School doth not maketh a Bible believing church. My church doesn't even have a Sunday School for adults to attend. As for Bible study, in my church it is held at night time during the week and that is not suitable for many families with younger children to attend. Many older folks will not drive a night-time. There are many practical reasons for people not attending Sunday School and Bible study. Are you getting sound Bible teaching from the pulpit?

2. Corporate prayer in the service is at least a beginner. In my church, there are far too many extra-curricular activities for people to come to too many night-time church meetings, including prayer meeting. At the moment our Thursday night prayer meeting attracts 4-6 people from a congregation of about 60 people (adults and children).

3. Seems as though there could be other issues involved. People who are introverts take a good while to be drawn into conversation.

4. The fact is that the body of Christ DOES exist around the world, in Detroit and Brisbane, but it does seem you are somewhat disappointed with what is happening in your church. It is Jesus who builds his church (Matt 16:18 NLT). We don't.

Blessings,
Oz

 

[Dcopymope]

Dcopy,

Now to your responses:

1. I'm sure you realise that the church of the first few centuries did not have a Bible to read. Many of them were illiterate so even if they had a Bible, most would not be able to read and understand it. I've lived in the USA and Canada for 7 years, so I'm familiar with your Sunday School and Bible study routine. However, Sunday School doth not maketh a Bible believing church. My church doesn't even have a Sunday School for adults to attend. As for Bible study, in my church it is held at night time during the week and that is not suitable for many families with younger children to attend. Many older folks will not drive a night-time. There are many practical reasons for people not attending Sunday School and Bible study. Are you getting sound Bible teaching from the pulpit?

2. Corporate prayer in the service is at least a beginner. In my church, there are far too many extra-curricular activities for people to come to too many night-time church meetings, including prayer meeting. At the moment our Thursday night prayer meeting attracts 4-6 people from a congregation of about 60 people (adults and children).

3. Seems as though there could be other issues involved. People who are introverts take a good while to be drawn into conversation.

4. The fact is that the body of Christ DOES exist around the world, in Detroit and Brisbane, but it does seem you are somewhat disappointed with what is happening in your church. It is Jesus who builds his church (Matt 16:18 NLT). We don't.

Blessings,
Oz

Sure, there may be a body of Christ, doesn't mean its worth the dirt we stand on, which it really isn't, and I'm speaking on America since that's where I am, its a joke. They are so divided about even basic doctrine that I cannot say with absolute confidence that the "body of Christ" truly is one body and not many different bodies pretending to be something they aren't, which is one body like its supposed to be. Hell, you'll rarely hear a preacher speak on modern issues as it pertains to scripture. You almost never heard a word from the "body of Christ" about the gay mafia's rampage against the nation. The church in America is about as luke warm as it gets, and God hates a luke warm church. Some of the biggest cowards you'll ever see in the history of the faith are those in America. The church is failing, so I say let it fail so we can get on with the end times as soon as possible. I don't want to be on this hell hole called earth any longer than I have to be.

 

[Wormwood]

Wormwood,

Regarding the content of your first paragraph. You are obviously writing as a person from the first world where there are lots of programs for the poor - provided by government. Try that perspective in Myanmar, the Philippines, India, the Central African Republic, Somalia or Peru. However, the passage I mentioned from Matt 25:31-46 demonstrates that this IS the role of the church. Of course the church MUST preach and teach the Gospel, but genuine faith without good words is useless and unfruitful (James 2).

What was insulting and ridiculous about my comments in this post? You stated: 'I can't believe how quick Christians are to slander and attack their own brothers and sisters who day and night serve, teach, encourage, visit and counsel the hurting and struggling'. I did NOT engage in slandering anyone. Don't you think your response to me is way over the top? That is an unfair judgment on what I wrote.

You claimed, 'Why would we attack such a thing?' I didn't. I simply spoke of a job description for pastor-teachers that I don't find in Scripture. Your hyperbole of a response is an unreasonable retort.

May you have a good day after your totally unnecessary attack on me.

Oz

So are you suggesting that a soup kitchen in Myanmar where food, but not the Gospel is presented, will lead people to Christ? Of course not. It doesnt matter the wealth of the culture, feeding the hungry and preaching the Gospel are complimentary, but certainly not synonymous. Again, I cant say it enough. I am not against caring for the poor. My point is simply that Jesus did not set up the church to be a social program to care for the poor. The church was set up to be "witnesses" to the risen Christ and proclaim the coming Kingdom of God. Yes, one of the ways we do that is by showing the love of that Kingdom. But a paid pastor and caring for the poor are not antithetical. In fact, staff-led churches do more outreach and benevolence work for the poor than any other program or institution in the world. My point is simply to say that paying a pastor does not prevent the local church from caring for the poor any more than paying an employee of the Salvation Army prevents that ministry from caring for the poor. Rather, the two are complimentary.

Oz, I was referring to the slander of the comments of other posters in this discussion. You inserted yourself in defense of their comments. I found your support for their attacks on the church and pastors as bewildering. So no, you didnt specifically "attack" the church or a pastor, but you inserted yourself in defense of those who were. I can only assume you were in agreement with their comments. Why else would you confront me in my response to their attacks?

I am not attacking you. I am attacking the mindset that our culture is perpetuating that it is okay to relentlessly critique and criticize pastors and imply that they are ungodly, money-grubbers that pervert the church and prevent resources from reaching the poor. It is simply not true. Most pastors I have met are very godly men of prayer who deeply love people and work diligently to care for the hurting and needy. They devote their time to facilitating and organizing church efforts to impact their communities. We would never defend the harsh criticism of a Christian baker, banker or florist that questions their motives and heart for God. Yet, why is it okay to defend those who make such attacks on pastors? Does their paycheck from the church eliminate Christ's command to gentleness, edification and not judging them...but to honor them brother's bought with His precious blood (and this isnt directed primarily at you, but all who seem so intent here to malign and question the integrity of Christians who serve as pastors in the local church)?

 

[OzSpen]

Wormwood,

I consider this to be an over-the-top, hyperbole of a response.

So are you suggesting that a soup kitchen in Myanmar where food, but not the Gospel is presented, will lead people to Christ? Of course not. It doesnt matter the wealth of the culture, feeding the hungry and preaching the Gospel are complimentary, but certainly not synonymous. Again, I cant say it enough. I am not against caring for the poor. My point is simply that Jesus did not set up the church to be a social program to care for the poor. The church was set up to be "witnesses" to the risen Christ and proclaim the coming Kingdom of God. Yes, one of the ways we do that is by showing the love of that Kingdom.

I find this to be a strange comment as it contradicts the criteria for judgment of believers that Jesus gave in Matt 25:31-40 (ESV):

31 “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne. 32 Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33 And he will place the sheep on his right, but the goats on the left. 34 Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, 36 I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.’ 37 Then the righteous will answer him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? 38 And when did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? 39 And when did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?’ 40 And the King will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.’

Those who inherit the kingdom will be those who feed the hungry, give drink to the thirsty, and clothe those who need extra clothing. Do you see that preaching the Gospel is not the only thing that believers are REQUIRED to do. Notice in this passage that we don't see a mention of rewards for Gospel proclamation, but we do see rewards for needed social services. This is in line with what is taught in James 2 (ESV).

Your claim is that 'Jesus did not set up the church to be a social program to care for the poor'. I beg to differ. Jesus DID set up the church with a primary ministry of caring for the poor. It is not the only ministry. Gospel proclamation and discipleship also are primary (see Matt 28:18-20 ESV). But social programs to care for the poor also are dominant in Jesus' requirement for the church of the 1st and 21st centuries.

But a paid pastor and caring for the poor are not antithetical. In fact, staff-led churches do more outreach and benevolence work for the poor than any other program or institution in the world. My point is simply to say that paying a pastor does not prevent the local church from caring for the poor any more than paying an employee of the Salvation Army prevents that ministry from caring for the poor. Rather, the two are complimentary.

I agree that they are not antithetical. But your comment about staff-led churches, outreach and benevolence came with not one point of documentation to support your comment. I'd love for you to make this kind of statement to William Carey, Amy Carmichael, Mother Teresa and others about your view of the need for staff-led churches to have effective outreach tot he poor. :wub: The Salvos in Australia do a magnificent job of marrying evangelism, pastoring and social ministry to the underprivileged. My wife was a Salvation Army lassie when I married her.

Oz, I was referring to the slander of the comments of other posters in this discussion. You inserted yourself in defense of their comments. I found your support for their attacks on the church and pastors as bewildering. So no, you didnt specifically "attack" the church or a pastor, but you inserted yourself in defense of those who were. I can only assume you were in agreement with their comments. Why else would you confront me in my response to their attacks?

Guilt by association is a logical fallacy involving fallacious reasoning. You have used it.

I am not attacking you. I am attacking the mindset that our culture is perpetuating that it is okay to relentlessly critique and criticize pastors and imply that they are ungodly, money-grubbers that pervert the church and prevent resources from reaching the poor. It is simply not true. Most pastors I have met are very godly men of prayer who deeply love people and work diligently to care for the hurting and needy. They devote their time to facilitating and organizing church efforts to impact their communities. We would never defend the harsh criticism of a Christian baker, banker or florist that questions their motives and heart for God. Yet, why is it okay to defend those who make such attacks on pastors? Does their paycheck from the church eliminate Christ's command to gentleness, edification and not judging them...but to honor them brother's bought with His precious blood (and this isnt directed primarily at you, but all who seem so intent here to malign and question the integrity of Christians who serve as pastors in the local church)?

This is an over the top response when you talk of a mindset of it being OK to 'relentlessly critique and criticize pastors' with implications that they are ungodly money-grabbers who pervert the church. I find this an extreme response because you take a few comments by some posters on CyB to arrive at a conclusion that people 'relentlessly critique'. Please give me a break. That's hardly a reasonable conclusion.

You ask: 'why is it okay to defend those who make such attacks on pastors'. I am not defending anyone who attacks pastors. If I see that they are making legitimate points, I'll support them. Surely that's OK on an open forum!

You say, 'this isnt directed primarily at you, but all who seem so intent here to malign and question the integrity of Christians who serve as pastors in the local church'. If it wasn't directed at me, you wouldn't be replying to me. Let's get something right. You WERE directing your comments at me.

There are enough things happening in the local church to cause some of us concern about doctrines taught from the pulpit and immorality practised by church leaders. A local Baptist church in my region has recently dismissed its pastor because of his long-term adulterous relationship. I've known this pastor for 20 years but he was so sly as to cover-up his illicit escapades in 2 churches he pastored. I was in a Bible study yesterday where one of the participants told of the pastor of his Baptist church preaching things antagonistic to Scripture (e.g. questioning the inspiration of Scripture; no bodily resurrection of Jesus). He has left the church because of its false doctrine and the elders have not taken action.

There are some serious issues happening in some local churches with paid pastors. However, most that I hear are faithful preachers - that's when they are preachers of the Word and have not fallen for Bible-lite, seeker-sensitive stuff.

Oz

 

[michaelvpardo]

I would say that I know, but for objectivities sake I'll say that I think that people are leaving the church because of false doctrine being taught in pulpits by shepherds that don't care for the sheep. They preach popular feel good doctrines with no personal accountability, and all to fill the seats and bring in more revenue to build larger churches, increase payrolls, increase their influence beyond the doors that house their congregations, greedy men imagining themselves to be kings already in Christ's economy, but failing to apply Christ's principles for the leadership of the congregation. They preach an end to prophesy to consolidate their power over the congregations and reject those in the body of Christ that have been called to be His prophets in the church (I have seen no evidence that there has ever been more prophets in the body than now.) They divide the body rather than build it. They devour the sheep rather than care for them. They speak loving words but despise rebuke and counsel. They make themselves enemies of God by tearing down what the Lord is building for the sake of their own possessions. They say "sheep are dumb animals" and so make themselves blind guides without a voice and when they do speak there is nothing but clanging brass and pleas for more money "to continue the work of the gospel" as though it was assigned only to them and not to all God's children. They say bring in the tithes to the store house while ignoring the fact that we are called to be a nation of kings and priests. Do kings tithe? Do Priests? Where is the secret place of the Lord and who is it that defiles it?
They say, "Do not prophesy to us right things; speak to us smooth things, prophesy deceits." How can there be unity in a body that rejects those given a mouth to speak the truth? I see wormwood and bitterness where there should be grace and peace. I see contention where there should be mutual submission. I see pride where I should see humility.
If the congregations fail, look to the leadership. I have seen it repeatedly in different congregations and I spoke as I was called to do, as many are called to do, but would they hear? No, they cite scripture and label us divisive while they destroy what Christ has built. They stop their ears while they preach error and foolishness and calls for repentance that they themselves will not respond to. They proclaim the gospel and call for a return to faith in the word all the while despising what the word says. Woe to the false shepherds who allow the sheep to be scattered, their recompense draws near. Are you indignant? How will you feel when the Lord's indignation has come? How will you feel when you look for the sheep assigned to your care and see that they are all gone? Judgment begins in the house of God and where do you think it starts?

 

[Chilehead]

Some of you may have read my thread about no church accepting me. This is still true. Christ is the head of the church, IMHO. Man has perverted it into a non-profit business-like institution with faculty and staff that financially profit from it's "members", and give a portion to charity-related deeds. It has become set of different religious social clubs, and people call it "Christian". How sad, and blatently hypocritical of the design that God intended. For me, the structure of the early church per the New Testament was meant for all time. Sure, modern day tech can be used, but one should never stray from the principles and instructions layed out in the bible. I feel like a man without a country: the bomb went off, and I was the lone survivor.

 

[Wormwood]

I consider this to be an over-the-top, hyperbole of a response.

I was just explaining my views.

Those who inherit the kingdom will be those who feed the hungry, give drink to the thirsty, and clothe those who need extra clothing. Do you see that preaching the Gospel is not the only thing that believers are REQUIRED to do. Notice in this passage that we don't see a mention of rewards for Gospel proclamation, but we do see rewards for needed social services. This is in line with what is taught in James 2 (ESV).

I never said it was the only thing. I said the two were complementary...more than once. My point is simply this: paid staff help facilitate both care to the poor and the preaching of the Gospel. Removing those ministers who preach, teach, counsel and facilitate these missions efforts are not a solution. These people do not prevent aid from going to the poor. They facilitate it...and make sure the Gospel presentation is infused with those benevolent acts. I hope that makes better sense. Firing paid staff and giving their salaries to the poor will not advance the purpose of the church. That has been my point all along.

Guilt by association is a logical fallacy involving fallacious reasoning. You have used it.

What exactly am I saying that you are in opposition to, Oz?

You ask: 'why is it okay to defend those who make such attacks on pastors'. I am not defending anyone who attacks pastors. If I see that they are making legitimate points, I'll support them. Surely that's OK on an open forum!

Here are some of the comments that people have been making against paid pastors and church gatherings on this thread that I feel are very sad. I have tried to provide support for the pastors who are being criticized. I dont see anything legitimate or Christian about grouping "churches" or "pastors" into such groups or making such comments about them. I find these comments to be incredibly judgmental and heart-breaking that any Christian would say anything like this to another brother...especially one who is a church leader.

• Wormwood, there is only one thing they need to do. Stop placing themselves on the throne and keep the King there.
• Many leaders of the church are more concerned with offending their congregation for fear they will lose monies and attendance. We need true men of God in our church's who have a healthy fear of God and not a fear if they will be liked or not.
• This is the problem with the church just as it was with the synagogues under the Levites. It's a business. The clerics are in a career not a calling.
• Money is king, not Yeshua.
• The truth is Jesus is calling all men to Himself, He has being doing that for years, as for the middleman, who needs Church when you have Jesus, God and teh Holy spirit, but than again if you dont have them i suppose you would need church.
• They serve "forbidden fruit" as a friendly pot luck. The mainstream Church in America is utterly ludicrous, a subset of the Republican Party. It is both heart-wrenching and ultimately sad. They are a flock not of sheep but Centurions.

And here are the specific comments I was addressing when you said my comments were too harsh.

• Open up the under utilized "church" buildings to the homeless persons, as a place of lodging, sanctuary and food...don't forget they should be fed the word of God as well..."man does not live by bread alone" as Jesus said....seems the "christian" movement would get lots of recruits...this would certainly weed out the church organizations which need money to cover their overhead and employee payrolls, and those that are legitimately trying to make a difference in the world.
• Pastors are succumbing to satanism just to keep their jobs / popularity. We must have popular preachers. Well respected and established by God. We must not have satan on the pulpit.

• That is an assumptiom, sometimes we need to ask, would you, Jesus is with everyone, even those who have turned their backs on Him, but He has no reason to be a part of mens religion.

• It's called "pouring oil on itching ears"...and it pays the bills. People come to hear what they want to hear, and go away feeling good about themselves...until one day they wake up and realize what a huge sack of bantha poo doo it all truly is.
• Problem is, I've actually talked to a few who have admitted exactly what I said in my post...they are preaching the party line, because it pays the mortgage and helps put the kids through school...

Maybe you are right. Maybe I am too harsh. But these comments sadden me. I know many pastors with great hearts who serve sacrifically and get a lot of grief from people for their efforts. I just wish we as Christians we more eager to defend our own rather than undermine them...especially when such broad generalizations are used. The churches of the NT had scores of problems, but Paul spoke to them as saints and encouraged them and lovingly challenged them. I think we should have the same approach. That is all I am asking for, and I dont think that has been the tone of most of this thread.

 

[OzSpen]

Wormwood,

You wrote:

I find these comments to be incredibly judgmental and heart-breaking that any Christian would say anything like this to another brother...especially one who is a church leader.

• Wormwood, there is only one thing they need to do. Stop placing themselves on the throne and keep the King there.
• Many leaders of the church are more concerned with offending their congregation for fear they will lose monies and attendance. We need true men of God in our church's who have a healthy fear of God and not a fear if they will be liked or not.
• This is the problem with the church just as it was with the synagogues under the Levites. It's a business. The clerics are in a career not a calling.
• Money is king, not Yeshua.
• The truth is Jesus is calling all men to Himself, He has being doing that for years, as for the middleman, who needs Church when you have Jesus, God and teh Holy spirit, but than again if you dont have them i suppose you would need church.
• They serve "forbidden fruit" as a friendly pot luck. The mainstream Church in America is utterly ludicrous, a subset of the Republican Party. It is both heart-wrenching and ultimately sad. They are a flock not of sheep but Centurions.

And here are the specific comments I was addressing when you said my comments were too harsh.

• Open up the under utilized "church" buildings to the homeless persons, as a place of lodging, sanctuary and food...don't forget they should be fed the word of God as well..."man does not live by bread alone" as Jesus said....seems the "christian" movement would get lots of recruits...this would certainly weed out the church organizations which need money to cover their overhead and employee payrolls, and those that are legitimately trying to make a difference in the world.
• Pastors are succumbing to satanism just to keep their jobs / popularity. We must have popular preachers. Well respected and established by God. We must not have satan on the pulpit.

• That is an assumptiom, sometimes we need to ask, would you, Jesus is with everyone, even those who have turned their backs on Him, but He has no reason to be a part of mens religion.

• It's called "pouring oil on itching ears"...and it pays the bills. People come to hear what they want to hear, and go away feeling good about themselves...until one day they wake up and realize what a huge sack of bantha poo doo it all truly is.
• Problem is, I've actually talked to a few who have admitted exactly what I said in my post...they are preaching the party line, because it pays the mortgage and helps put the kids through school...

Maybe you are right. Maybe I am too harsh. But these comments sadden me. I know many pastors with great hearts who serve sacrifically and get a lot of grief from people for their efforts.

I don't agree with all of these comments but some of them sure make sense in my part of the world as well as yours (I've lived for 7 years in North America).

Imagine what would happen if our church buildings that are vacant for a large chunk of the week, became a place for the homeless to sleep and eat - with church supervision, of course. That would put flesh on what Jesus said would happen at judgment (Matt 25:35-36 NLT):

For I was hungry, and you fed me. I was thirsty, and you gave me a drink. I was a stranger, and you invited me into your home. 36 I was naked, and you gave me clothing. I was sick, and you cared for me.

A few of the comments you gave here, also sadden me, but I agree with many of them as they seem to be hitting the mark, IMV.

Oz

 

[Wormwood]

I don't agree with all of these comments but some of them sure make sense in my part of the world as well as yours (I've lived for 7 years in North America).

I am not saying there are not some scenarios where these things are true. However, there are also Christian bankers, lawyers, teachers, etc. that are also corrupt, money hungry and hypocritical. I just dont think it is appropriate to label people with such broad strokes...especially the church and its leaders. Yes, the church has issues, but I think we should be about trying to defend and encourage the church, not run her down.

Imagine what would happen if our church buildings that are vacant for a large chunk of the week, became a place for the homeless to sleep and eat - with church supervision, of course. That would put flesh on what Jesus said would happen at judgment (Matt 25:35-36 NLT):

Well, I have a few thoughts about that...
First, sure...give the homeless a place to sleep. I have no problem with that. My issue was with the second part of that quote that insinuated that we need to get rid of churches that operate off overhead and a need to pay salaries.

Second, the poverty in most wealthy western cultures today is very different than that of the first century. In the first century, the handicapped, orphans and widows were truly destitute and survived only off the benevolence of others (if they had no immediate family to care for them). There were no social systems in place for such people except that which took place in the Temple. Today, many (not all) homeless people are poor because of issues such as drug addictions or are persistently and clinically mentally ill. So, in theory it would be great to fill our churches with the homeless Monday-Friday and give them a place to sleep. However, many of these people struggle with violent and criminal tendencies due to their addictions or mental illnesses. This could open up very difficult and dangerous situations for people of the church if our churches are turned into housing units for those with persistent clinical mental illnesses.

Third, the comments Jesus makes in Matthew 25 is most likely directed at caring for the sick and helpless in the church. It is not likely a command to care for the general populace. Jesus said, “And the King will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.’” (Matthew 25:40, ESV) The same is true in the James passage you referenced which says, “If a brother or sister is poorly clothed and lacking in daily food, and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, be warmed and filled,” without giving them the things needed for the body, what good is that? So also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.” (James 2:15–17, ESV) Moreover, Paul makes it clear that each person is to carry their own load and those who will not work should not eat. So, if the church is providing free meals and lodging for people who refuse to take responsibility for their lives and choose to steal and rob others for their next drug fix, are we really helping matters? Are these commands by Jesus truly a charge that all Christians have a moral responsibility to clothe, feed and house every mentally ill person who will not or cannot hold down a job or else lose their eternal salvation? I do not think this is what the teaching implies.

In my estimation, that is NOT what these verses are teaching. Now, please understand...I do believe Christians should be striving to do good to all people and show love and concern for all...no matter their struggles, addictions or illnesses. Please do not think I am saying we should not. I am just saying that this story of the sheep and goats is not teaching each Christian who passes by a strung out, petty thief heroine addict living on the street corner and does not put them up in their home is risking their eternal salvation.

Which brings me to my fourth and final point: Why is are the church buildings and pastors the target of these attacks? Most Christians I know have plenty of room in their homes to house people. Why should we demand our church buildings (which are usually vacant and have little food an no beds) be used for homeless shelters? Why not have Christians use their own homes and spare rooms for the homeless or kids in foster care? My guess is that most who attack the churches for not being used for housing or criticize pastors for their salaries are those who have plenty of room, food and savings in the bank to house multiple foster kids or homeless people themselves. Why attack the pastor who is eeking out a living paycheck to paycheck, but not the Christian business owner who has a 5-bedroom, 4,000 sq foot home with half a million in their retirement plan? We need to remind people on this board that they will be judged in the manner by which they judge others.

In sum, this is a convoluted issue. There are many challenges to working with the poor and it isnt as simple as cleaning out our churches and turning them into housing units for the homeless. For many, this would be merely perpetuating ungodly lifestyles, and for others it would not be really providing the kind of care that is really needed. Most of all, it would likely turn our churches into places that are very dangerous for kids and families to come and fellowship. The verses you cite are most likely referring to our responsibility to care for the needy in our fellowship of believers and is not an command to house, clothe and food the world's poor without exception upon pain of eternal separation from God. We should show love to all, but I think it is a good and healthy thing to have meeting places for Christians where they can fellowship, grow and learn how to be faithful and show love to their communities, both as a community of faith as well as individuals going throughout their day.

 

[Dcopymope]

I am not saying there are not some scenarios where these things are true. However, there are also Christian bankers, lawyers, teachers, etc. that are also corrupt, money hungry and hypocritical. I just dont think it is appropriate to label people with such broad strokes...especially the church and its leaders. Yes, the church has issues, but I think we should be about trying to defend and encourage the church, not run her down.


Well, I have a few thoughts about that...
First, sure...give the homeless a place to sleep. I have no problem with that. My issue was with the second part of that quote that insinuated that we need to get rid of churches that operate off overhead and a need to pay salaries.

Second, the poverty in most wealthy western cultures today is very different than that of the first century. In the first century, the handicapped, orphans and widows were truly destitute and survived only off the benevolence of others (if they had no immediate family to care for them). There were no social systems in place for such people except that which took place in the Temple. Today, many (not all) homeless people are poor because of issues such as drug addictions or are persistently and clinically mentally ill. So, in theory it would be great to fill our churches with the homeless Monday-Friday and give them a place to sleep. However, many of these people struggle with violent and criminal tendencies due to their addictions or mental illnesses. This could open up very difficult and dangerous situations for people of the church if our churches are turned into housing units for those with persistent clinical mental illnesses.

Third, the comments Jesus makes in Matthew 25 is most likely directed at caring for the sick and helpless in the church. It is not likely a command to care for the general populace. Jesus said, “And the King will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.’” (Matthew 25:40, ESV) The same is true in the James passage you referenced which says, “If a brother or sister is poorly clothed and lacking in daily food, and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, be warmed and filled,” without giving them the things needed for the body, what good is that? So also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.” (James 2:15–17, ESV) Moreover, Paul makes it clear that each person is to carry their own load and those who will not work should not eat. So, if the church is providing free meals and lodging for people who refuse to take responsibility for their lives and choose to steal and rob others for their next drug fix, are we really helping matters? Are these commands by Jesus truly a charge that all Christians have a moral responsibility to clothe, feed and house every mentally ill person who will not or cannot hold down a job or else lose their eternal salvation? I do not think this is what the teaching implies.

In my estimation, that is NOT what these verses are teaching. Now, please understand...I do believe Christians should be striving to do good to all people and show love and concern for all...no matter their struggles, addictions or illnesses. Please do not think I am saying we should not. I am just saying that this story of the sheep and goats is not teaching each Christian who passes by a strung out, petty thief heroine addict living on the street corner and does not put them up in their home is risking their eternal salvation.

Which brings me to my fourth and final point: Why is are the church buildings and pastors the target of these attacks? Most Christians I know have plenty of room in their homes to house people. Why should we demand our church buildings (which are usually vacant and have little food an no beds) be used for homeless shelters? Why not have Christians use their own homes and spare rooms for the homeless or kids in foster care? My guess is that most who attack the churches for not being used for housing or criticize pastors for their salaries are those who have plenty of room, food and savings in the bank to house multiple foster kids or homeless people themselves. Why attack the pastor who is eeking out a living paycheck to paycheck, but not the Christian business owner who has a 5-bedroom, 4,000 sq foot home with half a million in their retirement plan? We need to remind people on this board that they will be judged in the manner by which they judge others.

In sum, this is a convoluted issue. There are many challenges to working with the poor and it isnt as simple as cleaning out our churches and turning them into housing units for the homeless. For many, this would be merely perpetuating ungodly lifestyles, and for others it would not be really providing the kind of care that is really needed. Most of all, it would likely turn our churches into places that are very dangerous for kids and families to come and fellowship. The verses you cite are most likely referring to our responsibility to care for the needy in our fellowship of believers and is not an command to house, clothe and food the world's poor without exception upon pain of eternal separation from God. We should show love to all, but I think it is a good and healthy thing to have meeting places for Christians where they can fellowship, grow and learn how to be faithful and show love to their communities, both as a community of faith as well as individuals going throughout their day.

As I have worked in a Hospital for close to six years now, I know exactly what you are talking about concerning people with a mental illness, who pump themselves up with drugs. Should the church bring in the homeless? Sure, but let the right ones in. Speaking figuratively, don't let a vampire in, just so he can suck the blood of the church dry. This is not the bronze age, many of the homeless today are fakes, addicts and mentally ill. Would I ever let a total stranger off the streets in my house because I want to pretend to be some bleeding heart "godly"...um....you know what? Never, especially if I have children.

Why you may ask? Well, its obvious, isn`t it? The homeless and "less" fortunate of modern times are NOT like those from centuries past. People in general are not like the people of centuries past. It would be foolish to just let some guy in your house in todays society, where you can't even leave your damn car on the street anymore without worrying about it being there in one piece as you left it the next morning, if its still there at all. I'm not a very caring or passionate person, nor am I that outgoing. People cannot be trusted. I`ll trust a dog before I trust a human. So the most I`ll do for the less fortunate is, stop them right at door, with my rifle, give them some food, clothing, and money, and tell them to piss off. For me to do certain things, the holy spirit would have to descend upon me like a Dove telling me to do exactly that.

 

[ScaliaFan]

Great read!... ^_^

Dear Church, Here’s Why People Are REALLY Leaving You
By John Pavlovitz ~ Church Leaders

You think it’s because “the culture” is so lost, so perverse, so beyond help that they are all walking away.
You believe that they’ve turned a deaf ear to the voice of God; chasing money, and sex, and material things.
You think that the gays and the Muslims and the Atheists and the pop stars have so screwed up the morality of the world that everyone is abandoning faith in droves.

But those aren’t the reasons people are leaving you.

http://www.churchleaders.com/outreach-missions/outreach-missions-articles/244545-dear-church-heres-people-really-leaving.html

how about we paraphrase Ronald Reagan who said that he didn't leave the Dem party, the Dem party left him

I didn't leave the Church, the Church (humans therein) left me... bad priests... unchristian parishioners...

But i will not let humans (or their demons) cause me to leave Christ's True Church

They can go to ... uh.. some not so nice place... and maybe they will... but i love Jesus's Church. They are not His Church

 

[BjornFree]

I've only read the OP and the first 14 posts but I'll jump in with my 2 cents.
IMO the problem lays with the 'Reformation'.
It happened at the very beginning of the 'age of enlightenment' when literacy was such that many still could do no better than sign their names with an 'X'.
But a few were literate and, with the 'bible' suddenly becoming their newly available 'toy', (due to the invention of the printing press) the lure to at last become masters of theology was too much to resist.
So, one after the other they proudly spawned their new denominations and readily found followers amongst those who were only just beginning to sign their names with more than an 'X'.
IMO we need to ditch the 'Reformation' that happened at the beginning of the 'age of enlightenment' and start a brand new one, in full recognition of today's enlightened recognition of the fact that God created the entire universe, and not just the one that surrounded the Mediterranean.
And that when Christ came to exemplify God to mankind he completed his work by thereafter 'Coming again' directly into the hearts of men, and differently depending on their universal circumstances.
In other words we need a new reformation that goes back to the time immediately following Christ's 'Glorification'.
Would it be possible?
I doubt that it would other than if it were initiated outside of the realm of the Christendom of the first Reformation, which is now too indelibly etched to escape prejudice.
So, I guess we just have to accept the slow process of enlightened minds gradually leaving the 'church' in the continuing state of decline which the OP identifies.
Now, I bet that long after I've pressed the post button I will read this through and wonder what on earth I've been talking about (that's because there's no 'preview' option).

 

[ScaliaFan]

I've only read the OP and the first 14 posts but I'll jump in with my 2 cents.
IMO the problem lays with the 'Reformation'.
It happened at the very beginning of the 'age of enlightenment' when literacy was such that many still could do no better than sign their names with an 'X'.
But a few were literate and, with the 'bible' suddenly becoming their newly available 'toy', (due to the invention of the printing press) the lure to at last become masters of theology was too much to resist.
So, one after the other they proudly spawned their new denominations and readily found followers amongst those who were only just beginning to sign their names with more than an 'X'.
IMO we need to ditch the 'Reformation' that happened at the beginning of the 'age of enlightenment' and start a brand new one, in full recognition of today's enlightened recognition of the fact that God created the entire universe, and not just the one that surrounded the Mediterranean.
And that when Christ came to exemplify God to mankind he completed his work by thereafter 'Coming again' directly into the hearts of men, and differently depending on their universal circumstances.
In other words we need a new reformation that goes back to the time immediately following Christ's 'Glorification'.
Would it be possible?
I doubt that it would other than if it were initiated outside of the realm of the Christendom of the first Reformation, which is now too indelibly etched to escape prejudice.
So, I guess we just have to accept the slow process of enlightened minds gradually leaving the 'church' in the continuing state of decline which the OP identifies.
Now, I bet that long after I've pressed the post button I will read this through and wonder what on earth I've been talking about (that's because there's no 'preview' option).

Jesus established ONE Church and said that not even the very gates of Hell would prevail against it. (Mt 16:18)

The devil can and does prevail against individuals, but never Christ's Church, where Jesus's tangible Presence resides 24/7. this is the prominent distinction the Catholic Church has w/ noncatholic ones (and yet there are no other churches. There is only ONE, and the RC Church is it)

those who do not accept truth in this life.. no, wait, Truth... w/ capital T... will be forced to accept it in the next... whether in Heaven Hell or Purgatory (which purgative state eventually leads to Heaven, of course). I would rather accept Truth as soon as possible.. the more one delays, the older one gets... the harder it is to adjust... to truths one has not already accepted..


^_^

 

[OzSpen]

Jesus established ONE Church and said that not even the very gates of Hell would prevail against it. (Mt 16:18)

The devil can and does prevail against individuals, but never Christ's Church, where Jesus's tangible Presence resides 24/7. this is the prominent distinction the Catholic Church has w/ noncatholic ones (and yet there are no other churches. There is only ONE, and the RC Church is it)

those who do not accept truth in this life.. no, wait, Truth... w/ capital T... will be forced to accept it in the next... whether in Heaven Hell or Purgatory (which purgative state eventually leads to Heaven, of course). I would rather accept Truth as soon as possible.. the more one delays, the older one gets... the harder it is to adjust... to truths one has not already accepted..


^_^

Which Roman Catholic denomination are you promoting as the 'only ONE, and the RC Church is it'? Source.

 

[BjornFree]

Jesus established ONE Church and said that not even the very gates of Hell would prevail against it. (Mt 16:18)

The devil can and does prevail against individuals, but never Christ's Church, where Jesus's tangible Presence resides 24/7. this is the prominent distinction the Catholic Church has w/ noncatholic ones (and yet there are no other churches. There is only ONE, and the RC Church is it)

those who do not accept truth in this life.. no, wait, Truth... w/ capital T... will be forced to accept it in the next... whether in Heaven Hell or Purgatory (which purgative state eventually leads to Heaven, of course). I would rather accept Truth as soon as possible.. the more one delays, the older one gets... the harder it is to adjust... to truths one has not already accepted..


^_^

I agree to a degree, but don't want (and hope) for the RC Church to be that one and only original Church founded by Christ.
If that were so then I'm 'lost' since I could never join it.
My only 'hope' is for the RC church to be yet another 'denomination' and for its claim to have begun with Peter as its first Pope to have been a retrospective fabrication several centuries after 'Christ'.
If Matthew 13:2-52 be a true record of the words of Christ then, IMO, it foretells of imminent apostasy, with the 'True Church' indeed being the 'Kingdom of Heaven' which would prevail 'against heavy odds' ("even against the gates of Hades").
Matthew 13:31-32 sums up the denominational aspect perfectly clearly....the mustard seed being the original Church/Kingdom, its growth into a great tree being the domination of the RC/Orthodox denominations, and the nesting of the "Birds of the Air within its branches" being the denominational explosion of the 'Reformation'.
Such Reformation being within the branches of the RC/Orthodox church by virtue of its failure to denounce the RC extension of the OT Scriptures by the addition of a selection of the Apostolic writings in order to form a new, idolatrously regarded, Religious Text Book.
Indeed, IMO, the Reformation further endorsed, rather than denounced, that Idolatry, by making the principle of 'Sola Scriptura' the basis of 'authority' (as their alternative to that of the RC/Orthodox denominations).

 

[heretoeternity]

The RC church and religious system is mentioned in Revelation 17 and 18 of the Bible...it is the false religious system or counterfeit christianity...unfortunately the protestant churches seem to be the "harlot" daughters mentioned in those Chapters of revelation...guess the apple did not fall very far from the tree!

 

[michaelvpardo]

They serve "forbidden fruit" as a friendly pot luck. The mainstream Church in America is utterly ludicrous, a subset of the Republican Party. It is both heart-wrenching and ultimately sad. They are a flock not of sheep but Centurions.

Who exactly would you define as "the mainstream Church in America"? Biblical Christianity is in line with conservatism, as God's way is not found in rebellion to authority and the establishments of this world, but rather submits to them in hope of a good testimony before God. Jesus taught His disciples at a time when the world was under the domination of some of the cruelest men in history, but He never taught rebellion against them and neither did any of His Apostles. The republican party, on the other hand is far less conservative than the ideologues who promote their agenda on radio, television, and internet venues. The two party system is just a con, forcing voters to choose between horrible candidates who are all manipulated by the same powers in finance and business. My candidate (who is running as an independent) was able to secure a ballot slot in Florida, but then found opposition from the Trump supporting governor in an attempt to remove him from the ballot. The presidential debates are being scheduled to include only Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump as if there were no other candidates, because the debates are controlled by the two major parties and not representative of the electorate. The system has become rigged because of the finances required to be competitive in a world with mass media. Insufficient finance equates to insufficient name (or brand) recognition and we are being sold what we don't want through high pressure sales techniques by conscienceless manipulators of an undereducated electorate.

 

[TopherNelson]

The RC church and religious system is mentioned in Revelation 17 and 18 of the Bible...it is the false religious system or counterfeit christianity...unfortunately the protestant churches seem to be the "harlot" daughters mentioned in those Chapters of revelation...guess the apple did not fall very far from the tree!

Exactly!

 

[TopherNelson]

Who exactly would you define as "the mainstream Church in America"? Biblical Christianity is in line with conservatism, as God's way is not found in rebellion to authority and the establishments of this world, but rather submits to them in hope of a good testimony before God. Jesus taught His disciples at a time when the world was under the domination of some of the cruelest men in history, but He never taught rebellion against them and neither did any of His Apostles. The republican party, on the other hand is far less conservative than the ideologues who promote their agenda on radio, television, and internet venues. The two party system is just a con, forcing voters to choose between horrible candidates who are all manipulated by the same powers in finance and business. My candidate (who is running as an independent) was able to secure a ballot slot in Florida, but then found opposition from the Trump supporting governor in an attempt to remove him from the ballot. The presidential debates are being scheduled to include only Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump as if there were no other candidates, because the debates are controlled by the two major parties and not representative of the electorate. The system has become rigged because of the finances required to be competitive in a world with mass media. Insufficient finance equates to insufficient name (or brand) recognition and we are being sold what we don't want through high pressure sales techniques by conscienceless manipulators of an undereducated electorate.

Laodicea spoken in revelation is the type of church that resembles American churches. I had written a thread that discuss this fact.