What is wrong with the American Church today?

[Dodo_David]

...understand that God is Sovereign yet gives mankind free will ...

Want to cite a Bible verse which says that God gives Man unlimited free will?

How do you reconcile the above claim about free will with what Jesus says in John 6:44 and John 6:65?

John 6:44 (ESV): "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him..."

John 6:65 (ESV): "This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father."

 

[Wormwood]

"35,000 denominations, which are spoken against in scripture."

Yeah. So it doesn't prove they follow "men" whereas your group does not.

"Yes I know that is why when I was studying the New Testament Church I spoke to several denominational leaders and put several propositions to them. They all said they agree with me, but....then they defended non biblical denominational practice."

Spoken with all 35,000 of these followers of men have you? These blanket condemnations are very troubling to me. I find it to be very unbecoming of a Christian. Believe me, I love to champion the non-denominational cause. Lets not say they don't seek to follow Jesus as a whole. Finger pointing at 35,000 Christian groups as followers of men is ridiculous.


"And it is not to say they ARE following God. When a church relies on degrees, not the Holy Spirit it is obviously not following God and his word. "

All 35,000 groups rely on degrees or are you thinking of one in particular? However, another troubling accusation that they "rely" on degrees as if faith, love and discipleship are completely ignored for the sake of a degree.


"In most cases it does because they identify themselves as Lutheran, Wesleyan, RC, AOG etc. When I am asked what church I go to (I don't go to any church as I am the church) I say "His Church" and they ask "What church is that" and I reply "the one that Jesus said he would build.""

Yes, it must be nice to be in such an exclusive group. You know, if someone were on here saying that you were just following a man made American house church fad that started a few decades ago instead of being connected to an established tradition that stretches back for centuries... I'd defend you as well. I don't think we are in the position to make such judgments.

"George Barna Research Ministry"

Can u be any more specific?

"Again, you are making an assessment through third hand information."

So being part of a house church means I can accurately determine the evangelistic effectiveness and maturing capability of the movement across all of America? Come on now...

"Simple. The New Testament Church met in homes up to a maximum of 30 people. They met daily so they were on top of everyone needs as a result. With no building to finance, the money was used to help people. The central point of their meeting was the daily meal and that meant you did not invite people to church, you invited them into your home for a meal, which is one of the best forms of evangelism known. You had fellowship with people all evening, not just an hour and with the back of their heads. Everyone is a priest so all are invited to give and build up the body of Christ. This was easy because they did not have sermons they dialogued to name just a few. And they had no bible so they relied on the teaching that came via the Holy Spirit and prayer was a priority, not just something done once a week for an hour."

Well I've been involved with small churches of around 30 who have long since paid off their building and had fellowship meals weekly and everyone played a role in the gatherings. This did not make them more healthy than a church with a mortgage or more generous. Some of these small gatherings were some of the most unhealthy churches I've ever seen. I'm just saying that these things do not always equate a healthy gathering of believers. Nor does a mortgage equate an unhealthy gathering.


"And there are plenty of people who think otherwise hence the burgeoning house church movement. I prefer to keep away from "my estimation" in matters of this kind as that is just a personal opinion."

Yes I have noticed that most of your comments imply a divine perspective on the motives of millions. I try to distinguish my personal opinions from divine judgments and I think assessing denominations and house churches is a very subjective and opinion laden task. I'm comfortable saying both groups have those who are misguided and both have authentic and sincere Christ followers.

 

[lforrest]

Want to cite a Bible verse which says that God gives Man unlimited free will?

How do you reconcile the above claim about free will with what Jesus says in John 6:44 and John 6:65?

John 6:44 (ESV): "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him..."

John 6:65 (ESV): "This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father."

Matthew 20:16 "So the last shall be first, and the first last: for many be called, but few chosen."

Here is my reasoning regarding this verse:
The calling doesn't require free will, the answering of the call does. Those who answer the call are on the path of the chosen. Should those on the path persevere until the end they will find that they are the chosen spoken of in this verse.

 

[FHII]

Matthew 20:16 "So the last shall be first, and the first last: for many be called, but few chosen."

Here is my reasoning regarding this verse:
The calling doesn't require free will, the answering of the call does. Those who answer the call are on the path of the chosen. Should those on the path persevere until the end they will find that they are the chosen spoken of in this verse.

The problem with that is that God does the choosing, not us. We have to walk the path and persevere, but it's clear that God choses whom he will, and he said he did it before the foundation of the world.

 

[lforrest]

Rather than derail this topic I have posted in another concerning predestination.

 

[marksman]

Yes I have noticed that most of your comments imply a divine perspective on the motives of millions. I try to distinguish my personal opinions from divine judgments and I think assessing denominations and house churches is a very subjective and opinion laden task. I'm comfortable saying both groups have those who are misguided and both have authentic and sincere Christ followers.

I'll take this and the rest of your post as a comment to avoid acrimonious debate.

 

[This Vale Of Tears]

Word!

I think the question is what is the church doing right? It's easy to criticize but difficult to run an organized church that's always going to be too this and too that. People love to throw popcorn but are reticent to give compliments. This is out of balance to what Christ said to the churches in the opening chapters of Revelation where criticism and praise are given in equal proportion and all the churches were encouraged to do better, to seek the crown of life and persevere unto death.

What I find offensive is the notion that the Holy Spirit has gone stagnant; that the church overall is in a state of decline. What I see when I see the Christian church is a constant state of flux where some areas are growing stale and others being inspired with a fresh awakening of the Spirit. And if you think I'm off in equating atrophy in the Church to the Holy Spirit, I would readily disagree with you. God has always moved on the hearts of men, his eyes "searching to and fro throughout the earth" to find whose hearts are turned toward him. I just don't think it's possible to cite a decline in the Church without indicting God as well, for we are the bride of Christ.

 

[Wormwood]

I think the question is what is the church doing right? It's easy to criticize but difficult to run an organized church that's always going to be too this and too that. People love to throw popcorn but are reticent to give compliments. This is out of balance to what Christ said to the churches in the opening chapters of Revelation where criticism and praise are given in equal proportion and all the churches were encouraged to do better, to seek the crown of life and persevere unto death.

What I find offensive is the notion that the Holy Spirit has gone stagnant; that the church overall is in a state of decline. What I see when I see the Christian church is a constant state of flux where some areas are growing stale and others being inspired with a fresh awakening of the Spirit. And if you think I'm off in equating atrophy in the Church to the Holy Spirit, I would readily disagree with you. God has always moved on the hearts of men, his eyes "searching to and fro throughout the earth" to find whose hearts are turned toward him. I just don't think it's possible to cite a decline in the Church without indicting God as well, for we are the bride of Christ.

Vale,

I agree with you that we are often quick to point out problems and slow to give a helping hand. I have heard it said that a monkey with a sledgehammer can destroy more in three hours than a group of wise men can build in three months. I think there are a lot of monkeys with sledgehammers out there wanting to tear the church down and few wanting to build her up. That is one of the reasons I started this discussion because I feel much of the fault has to do with our cultural perceptions and not with the normal things people blame (church leadership, lack of godliness, lack of reliance on the Holy Spirit, too focused on buildings or too dogmatic).

Although I would disagree that pointing to decline in the church is an indictment on God. Paul regularly criticized churches in the NT and Jesus rebuked churches in Revelation. These rebukes and corrections were not indictments on God. Although the church is the body of Christ, she is distinct from Christ. I think it is important to recognize this distinction or we set up a view of the church that cannot be questioned, challenged, or refocused. I think historically we see that this approach leads to corruption in the church, just as it led to failure in Israel when they believed the presence of God's Temple made them above scrutiny. Yet our criticisms and concerns should always be laced with love and a desire to build the church, not just to blow out the churches candles to make ours look brighter.

 

[This Vale Of Tears]

Vale,

I agree with you that we are often quick to point out problems and slow to give a helping hand. I have heard it said that a monkey with a sledgehammer can destroy more in three hours than a group of wise men can build in three months. I think there are a lot of monkeys with sledgehammers out there wanting to tear the church down and few wanting to build her up. That is one of the reasons I started this discussion because I feel much of the fault has to do with our cultural perceptions and not with the normal things people blame (church leadership, lack of godliness, lack of reliance on the Holy Spirit, too focused on buildings or too dogmatic).

Although I would disagree that pointing to decline in the church is an indictment on God. Paul regularly criticized churches in the NT and Jesus rebuked churches in Revelation. These rebukes and corrections were not indictments on God. Although the church is the body of Christ, she is distinct from Christ. I think it is important to recognize this distinction or we set up a view of the church that cannot be questioned, challenged, or refocused. I think historically we see that this approach leads to corruption in the church, just as it led to failure in Israel when they believed the presence of God's Temple made them above scrutiny. Yet our criticisms and concerns should always be laced with love and a desire to build the church, not just to blow out the churches candles to make ours look brighter.

This is well stated.

 

[marksman]

What I find offensive is the notion that the Holy Spirit has gone stagnant; that the church overall is in a state of decline.

George Barna researched this issue and his findings were that only 1% of the churches in America were growing and this was often transfer growth, not new convert growth.

 

[bling]

Would it help or hurt the church and/or Christianity, if only committed Christian were to start calling themselves Christians?

 

[Wormwood]

George Barna researched this issue and his findings were that only 1% of the churches in America were growing and this was often transfer growth, not new convert growth.

Yes, but we need to be cautious about how we define success in the church. The Mormon church is growing at a pretty good rate, but obviously we would not associate that growth to the Holy Spirit. At the end of Paul's ministry there were very few who stood by his side. Numbers are a dangerous means of evaluating success, power and the Holy Spirit's activity. While we should be concerned about reaching the lost, we cannot always assume that a lack of response is the result of a unfaithful church or a poorly presented message.

 

[marksman]

Would it help or hurt the church and/or Christianity, if only committed Christian were to start calling themselves Christians?

Not a bad idea bling but unfortunately the wheat and the tares grow together in the same field.

Yes, but we need to be cautious about how we define success in the church.

Yes I agree. I would not have a bar of the largest church in Australia becuase their maturity is about three miles wide and 3 inches deep. I would get bored in that one very quickly as I don't do shallow.

 

[bling]

Not a bad idea bling but unfortunately the wheat and the tares grow together in the same field.

It might not be as hard as you think. Under sever persecution and even today in China only Christians would admit to being members of the underground church.

 

[marksman]

It might not be as hard as you think. Under sever persecution and even today in China only Christians would admit to being members of the underground church.

No argument with that one.

 

[This Vale Of Tears]

Would it help or hurt the church and/or Christianity, if only committed Christian were to start calling themselves Christians?

That's a very probing question and not easy to answer. Of Jesus it was prophesied that "the winnowing fan is in his hand" (Mt 3:12) and indeed we saw it come true during his ministry. A good example of this is when Jesus was followed by crowds of people all wanting to be his disciple. But then he said repeatedly that anyone unwilling to eat his flesh and drink his blood would have no eternal life. Every dilettante and other person of feint hearted abandoned him at that point, which is precisely what Jesus intended. Much like the armies of Gideon were whittled down to 300, the followers of Jesus were reduced to a core of strong believers.

A strong Biblical case is made for reductionism!

But at what point do we fail to reach out to our fellow man, to build walls so high as to keep out the people Jesus wants to reach? In my most recent thread http://www.christianityboard.com/topic/19244-a-moral-framework-for-same-sex-unions/ I question whether an all-or-nothing approach works. I heard a pastor say that we should have as many people "window shopping" Christianity as possible, peering in, seeing what we have, and comparing it to the emptiness in their own lives without Jesus. We don't want to be pushing them away, but rather beckoning them in. So really, what's the answer? Where's the balance?

 

[bling]

That's a very probing question and not easy to answer. Of Jesus it was prophesied that "the winnowing fan is in his hand" (Mt 3:12) and indeed we saw it come true during his ministry. A good example of this is when Jesus was followed by crowds of people all wanting to be his disciple. But then he said repeatedly that anyone unwilling to eat his flesh and drink his blood would have no eternal life. Every dilettante and other person of feint hearted abandoned him at that point, which is precisely what Jesus intended. Much like the armies of Gideon were whittled down to 300, the followers of Jesus were reduced to a core of strong believers.

A strong Biblical case is made for reductionism!

But at what point do we fail to reach out to our fellow man, to build walls so high as to keep out the people Jesus wants to reach? In my most recent thread http://www.christianityboard.com/topic/19244-a-moral-framework-for-same-sex-unions/ I question whether an all-or-nothing approach works. I heard a pastor say that we should have as many people "window shopping" Christianity as possible, peering in, seeing what we have, and comparing it to the emptiness in their own lives without Jesus. We don't want to be pushing them away, but rather beckoning them in. So really, what's the answer? Where's the balance?

[SIZE=medium]I am a little involved with the underground church in China. Up until 10 years ago it was thought Christianity had all but been eliminated in China (all the full time leaders had been dragged off to concentration camps not to be heard from again) outsiders only knew about the few “approved” groups that were “called” Christian meeting in China. Today there are estimated to be 100 million members of these nondenominational underground churches and they seem to be growing rapidly. The members only “advertise” their Christianity by their Love for others. One Doctor, my Western friend in China really loved as a person did not tell her (partly to protect her) he was Christian, for a year, but he always listen to her witness stories graciously and she felt he would become a believer. [/SIZE]