What is wrong with the American Church today?

[Wormwood]

I think everyone would agree that the Church is a long ways away of where she should be, especially in America. However, what we likely all disagree about is why the Church has so many problems. Certainly there is a lot of blame to go around, but many times I think the finger is being pointed in the wrong direction. Below are some of my reflections (although they are not all uniquely mine) on the present challenges the church in America is facing with the hope of opening up some dialogue and even debate on these assessments and the solution to our waning influence on the American culture.

The American church is shrinking. Some label America as a post-Christian culture. Statistics show that 3/4 college students graduate secular universities without their faith. Other statistics show that it takes 80 Christians to reach one unbeliever yearly. More and more claim to be agnostic or atheist. Those who are Christian are generally terribly biblically illiterate. Many who claim to be Christian also claim there are many ways to God and many paths to heaven. The culture continues to grow more and more materialistic and hedonistic. Many refuse to share their faith because they do not want to impose their beliefs on another.

What is the problem and why is the church losing such influence?

I believe that the primary issue of the church is that she has been duped by bad philosophy. Rather than opposing the philosophies of this world, the church has taken the bait and made herself irrelevant as a result. What I mean is that since the age of the Enlightenment, a philosophical understanding about the world and life has taken root. This understanding is that individuals are self-sustained and autonomous. Essentially, it is the gnostic notion that God had created us as autonomous beings and then separated himself from his creation. People view themselves as self-realized beings with their own ability to rationalize and determine truth and reality. The human mind became the primary tool for deciphering truth and reality, gifted by God of course. Well, it wasn't long before God became unnecessary. If we can determine truth and reality by scientific inquiry, what is the need for God anyway? God quickly becomes minimized and religion is seen as optional and unrelated to knowing truth or deciphering reality. It is, as it were, a secular space erupted between man and God. Man operated in this secular space and God and religion became a matter of personal preferences and tastes. Religions were viewed as something like a flavor of ice cream rather than an essential denominator for determining reality. Thus, religion has been stripped from educational programs and banned from schools. After all, one does not need religion to understand reality.

As a result, people, even Christians have bought into this idea of a secular space. We live our secular lives where we make money and do what is necessary to survive and enjoy ourselves. Religion is often viewed as something additional to put in our lives to give us a sense of purpose or hope for the future. But it is not seen as critical to daily existence. We have been duped by a philosophy that views us as atomized beings who are in conflict over limited resources with varying individualistic perceptions that need the State to step in and provide peace and harmony in this secular space we live in. Thus, the State has taken the place of God. We worship our flags and pay homage to our countries. We revere our fallen soldiers as though they are martyrs, sing songs of worship and pledge to our country and are willing to lay down our lives for an figment of our own imaginations. We send Christians to war against other Christians to kill each other over political issues and the interests of the nation. Somehow we have been duped into viewing the nation as what is real and necessary and religion and Christ as that which is otherworldly and "spiritual." We give our bodies to the State and our spirits to our religion as if the two can be so easily separated.

This is why "Christians" can so easily mistreat their wives or husbands but then join in the choir songs and take communion and see no real hypocrisy. This is why Christians can speak hateful words toward other believers over politics and see it as entirely justified. This is why believers are entirely uninterested in the Bible but consumed with their own personal opinions and experiences. The individual has been exalted as the determiner of all truth and nation has become the guardian of individuals. It has seeped into our hermeneutics, church structures and understanding of God's desires for us. I, the individual, am of primary importance.

The Bible imagines no such philosophy. Mankind does not live in a secular space where we are gifted capacities by an univocally ontological God. Rather, we find our being in His being and exist each moment only by his grace and empowerment. Intellect does not belong to us, but is a gift each moment from an omnipresent God. All we have each moment is continually being given by him and our existence is dependent upon his existence. As Scripture says, "In him we live and move and have our being." You cannot separate theology from reality or education from religion. Secularism IS a religion, pure and simple. It espouses certain facts about who we are and why we are here. The very idea that one can have knowledge without religion is a religious statement. But the church has been duped and is playing along. We even encourage this type of thinking by the way we play according to their rules and allow secularists to dictate the rules of our debates on reality. Christians engage in apologetics to defend the faith according to the secularist playbook. It is a losing battle and it is why we are without influence. Even if we win, we lose...because we have engaged the discussion according to their presuppositions: Knowledge is independent of God and individuals exist autonomously.

Christians need to wake up and realize they have been sold a bill of goods. The world is not what it has been made out to be. God is not out their to be discovered and defended by secularist type of rationality. He is rationality and he is truth. Sense can only be made of the world because of his order and his divine intelligence. We are gifted a portion of that intelligence to see him all around us and worship...not to separate him from his creation and remove him from learning. I fear that most are more passionate and willing to lay their lives down for their individual "rights" (as if such a thing exists) dictated by their nation than they are for the humility of being overshadowed by the foolishness and baseness of the cross.

 

[aspen]

so....what are Christians called to do? Refuse to acknowledge secularism? I think your idea is great if we lived in a homogeneous society, but our country has become a market place of ideas and religions. It is not like the 1950s when the people with the power to dictate culture were white, and mainline Protestant.

I tend to believe that churches are dying because we sell a 50-year-old, Modernist perspective - black and white thinking, reductionism, elitism, and prosperity. When people are longing for connection, love, and identity - we give them pop-religion or fundamentalism or emotionalism.

Morality does not transform hearts.

 

[HammerStone]

I think you're on to some things but I also think we get bogged down in symptomatology.

I think we must go all the way back to the garden and seek an understanding that synthesizes with the remainder of Scripture as well as what we see today. The enjoinder that Satan gave Eve still holds sway, it just may be worded a bit differently now than it was then:

Genesis 3:1-6 HCSB
Now the serpent was the most cunning of all the wild animals that the Lord God had made. He said to the woman, “Did God really say, ‘You can’t eat from any tree in the garden’?”

The woman said to the serpent, “We may eat the fruit from the trees in the garden. But about the fruit of the tree in the middle of the garden, God said, ‘You must not eat it or touch it, or you will die.’”

“No! You will not die,” the serpent said to the woman. “In fact, God knows that when you eat it your eyes will be opened and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” Then the woman saw that the tree was good for food and delightful to look at, and that it was desirable for obtaining wisdom.

The crux of it all is that it is done without God. Secularism is simply what form is working now. We've seen other forms, of which gnosticism and even Enlightenment era thinking are just other waves that carry the very same ultimate thesis that we can do it better than God.

I think what afflicts the church internally comes forth from the same idea. One of the things I really see ravaging Protestantism is that we've taken phrases like sola scriptura and run them to their end. Instead of taking the Bible alone as the authority, we twist the meaning just slightly to mean that we take our interpretation of the Bible as the lone authority. Although entirely unpopular to acknowledge it, you and I (or anyone else here) can read the same passage of the Bible and come away with very slight or very significant view differences.

There has to be a system for reconciling this, and simply claiming authority of the Spirit or whatever ends only in one-up manship like we so often view here at Christianity Board. One side cannot hear the other for their own cry and there is no willingness to reconcile. It is, of course, all hidden behind the very clever of guise of defending truth, but God's never really needed anyone to defend him, has he? We need to return to creeds and it may mean being a part of a church that you don't entirely agree with, but yet submit to them as the church because God's truths are ultimately taught there, though perhaps not perfectly.

The church also needs to go back to a Christianity in community. This means believers of all ages are together in communion, and this means doing away with the culture of partitioning off this group and that group. Young needs to see example in old, and old needs to look to and minister to young. At the end of the day, this is the method in which Jesus called us to expand the church.

Lastly, we really need to examine what parts of culture we've adopted. It's okay that songs sound a little different, but perhaps it's not okay that the lyrics no longer teach anything. We also need to stop looking at Christianity as self-help.

I'm coming closer and closer to the conclusion that we have taken a tremendously transcendent faith and made it about day-to-day life. I don't believe the original intent was malicious, but we've made Jesus a divine butler of sorts who responds to every bump in the road you may experience. Jesus has a way to help you handle that test or that bad day at work. Yet, we've disconnected from the mystery of a God who very specifically chose to die as fully God and fully man on a cross. He took pain and burdens that you and I don't even understand. He communicates and lives within us in ways that my mind cannot grasp. We no longer deal with this, but we stick to the "practical" and "relevant" stuff...

I realized this rambled, but maybe something workable is contained herein. I am learning my own failures in this now.

 

[aspen]

It is interesting to watch poor communities respond positively towards police departments that make the effort to connect at the street level - not to mention, community groups that are committed to cleaning up the inner cities - crime plummets, people start investing in their neighbors and neighborhoods.

The church will succeed every time a person is reached out to, rather than expected to 'give back' to a congregation, which is detached and aloof.

 

[Wormwood]

so....what are Christians called to do? Refuse to acknowledge secularism? I think your idea is great if we lived in a homogeneous society, but our country has become a market place of ideas and religions. It is not like the 1950s when the people with the power to dictate culture were white, and mainline Protestant.

I tend to believe that churches are dying because we sell a 50-year-old, Modernist perspective - black and white thinking, reductionism, elitism, and prosperity. When people are longing for connection, love, and identity - we give them pop-religion or fundamentalism or emotionalism.

Morality does not transform hearts.

aspen2-

Yes, I think to some degree this is what we must do. If you think about Israel's history, they were constantly being confronted with worldviews from outside cultures that sought to compromise their worship of God. This is especially true during the period of the Maccabees where the Greeks were attempting to Hellenize the Jewish people. The culture around them was attempting to force them to see the world according to their values and Israel refused. This led to a lot of persecution and was ultimately the reason why early Christians were persecuted. It wasn't so much about their belief in Jesus as it was their value system that undermined Roman authority. When the authority and values of the empire are questioned, people start to die. I wouldn't be surprised if we start seeing similar things happen in America. You can believe anything you want as long as you are a patriot and embrace "American values." Even when those values include same-sex marriage, killing the unborn, or going to war against "our enemies."

I disagree that "the congregation" is detached and aloof. I think the congregation should be even more detached. We should display an alternative community and value system rather than trying to blend in with the world and show how relevant we are. I agree that we can make a difference as we reach out, but we can also make a difference by the way we display a different way of existing together rather than adding a Christian moral gloss to a secular and materialistic social structure.

Hammerstone-

Thanks for the response. Nope, you make perfect sense. I would certainly agree that these "philosophies" are ultimately spiritual. No matter how sophisticated philosophies sound, ultimately they generally lead to self-glorification and the rejection of God as Lord. I agree that the fighting amongst individuals is unfortunate. I believe it is ultimately a fallout from the Cartesian method ("I think therefore I am"). Everything is to be questioned except the individual (the thinker). And in this postmodern era, even rationality is questioned to the point that all we are left with are individual perspectives. People have so embraced the philosophy of this world that they stamp "Spirit" over this propensity to glorify individualism. Any embrace of tradition or to lose self for the sake of the community of faith is viewed as weak, institutional and "unspiritual." I think it is quite the opposite. I agree with you that what is needed is a return to Christian community.

 

[HammerStone]

Agreed, if you look at the sentiments of the Reformers (Luther, Zwingli, Calvin) and those who followed them (Wesley, etc.) their understanding of sola scriptura involved a good bit more tradition than we allow. (In fact, Wesley is more in line with the Anglican [he was committed to that church.] notion of prima scriptura.) The change from the Roman Catholic method was that instead of Scripture and Tradition being co-equal, Scripture was weighted as the authority with tradition as more of a secondary guide. What this meant was that tradition was secondary, but that it would not easily be thrown out if an individual found disagreement. There would need to be much thought and devotion versus me simply saying "I will do it this way!" As Protestantism has evolved, and this certainly spans denominations, this has involved jettisoning essentially all tradition in favor of individual interpretations.

In my own tradition, the Baptist tradition, this is quite noticeable. There were quite a few confessions and cachesis in the early Particular/Calvinist Baptist churches. These days, those sorts of things are viewed as anathema in Baptist circles. Even the watered-down Baptist Faith & Message 2000 document is rejected or looked upon with suspicion in many churches. Such creeds aren't there to make us follow them in the reactionary sense, but they are there so that someone won't preach rank heresy (like the local Baptist preacher who announces Jesus was emptied of his divinity on the cross) and deceive the brothers and sisters because they think their interpretation sounds like a good idea.

I submit this is nothing new and nothing distinct from what Adam and Eve did in the Garden. I think your Cartesian analysis is on, but I think Cartesianism was anachronistically alive in Eden, because we want to actualize our thoughts - our knowing better than God.

Perhaps the larger issue is that this brand of individualism removes the idea that we are depraved and need God at all times versus when we just feel bad or are having a tough go at it. We are preached to, time and again, that we are special and God redeemed us specifically. We're then blessed by the establishment to go out and live a life of a certain style with honestly very little commitment. We are given a religion of the day to day life and aren't taught reverence and mystery for a God who transcends that level of life. Church begins to look a lot more like the self-help section.

American churches in particular have succeeded in developing an overly pragmatic religion. This is the paradigm that everyone goes seeking for when it comes to God; God should help us with needs. I shouldn't need to commit very much in terms of resources to God. God should let me express myself and he should not be oppressive in any way to offend my 21st century sensibilities. We all do this to an extent, and God knows this having formed us, but it's running rampant in the church.

If God is indeed God, then there is a point where the finite will be unable to grasp the infinite by definition. There will be mysteries as to why God does or doesn't do something because he's working in a plane beyond what we can even conceive. A large part of faith - of Christianity - is accepting this even when it doesn't quite make sense.

An understanding that reaches back through a diverse range of times and believers maintains a running train of thought. This thought - in the form of a creed or whatever - keeps a focus on this mystery that transcends all of our collective existence. When you take this element away, the Bible is interpreted only through the tradition of the person looking at it. It then becomes much, much easier to tribe off and find like minds. Creeds and other traditions are not to replace God, but they are in existence to help us understand God to the best of our abilities. They also often encapsulate the paradoxes within Christianity (dying to live, consuming bread in remembrance of a spiritual and physical death, etc.) and keep our focus on Him, not ourselves.

 

[Rocky Wiley]

Wormwood,

What you say is true and I will just try to add a bit more.

In the early 1900’s in America, there was a great outpouring of the Holy Ghost. My understanding it started at a Christian College where students were given a project to find the plan of salvation the Apostles taught. They noticed very soon that it involved baptism in water and the infilling of the Holy Ghost with the evidence of speaking in tongues. They also determined the Holy Ghost came by the laying on of hands.

This was all true and with this information several of the students in that class received the Holy Ghost w/tongues.

Later, but not much, the prophecy teachers came along and taught a false prophecy by taking what Peter had preached in his first sermon. In part he used a scripture from the book of Joel.
And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams: Act 2:17
It was the last days that Peter was talking about, but they were in those last days, not us. Irregardless the prophecy teachers went right on teaching it anyway.

Then came 1946 and the Jews were given the land their forefathers had been given by God. Now the prophecy teachers had a real strong case that they were in the generation spoken of in the bible.

Not so, and their prophecy passed away with the time coming and going without being fulfilled.

It is still going on with fewer and fewer people being converted. People did and still do laugh at anyone who try to tell them doom and gloom prophecy today. In my opinion they have a perfect right to do so. We are told in the Old Testament that if a so called prophet said he heard from God about a future event and it did not happen, he was assuredly a false prophet and no one who ever pay attention to him again.

The Churches have put a false prophets doctrine into their church doctrine so now we not only have false prophets we are over loaded with false churches. What good does a false church do for people? Very little.

I still think some churches are a great help for our children in the fact the are somewhat sheltered from the worldly things in that they socialize among themselves. But there is not enough truth being taught to keep them in church after they leave their family and friends and get out on their own.

One might say, “that is just prophecy, not how we come to God” that is partially true but when we change to word of God to fit us, it is still an untruth and God frowns on it and takes away His blessings.

If we want God’s approval we need to study the bible and quit taking man’s word. When we do that they will come.

Be blessed.

 

[Warrior]

Here is my view on everything:

The word "Fun", Is like a cuss word in the church nowadays, I think we should ease up, but at the same time stay alert always

The American church seems easy to decieve, coming from experience. I am american, and Me and many other people here have been caught up with so many false prophets, and some of them have been right in front of us and we couldnt see it because we didnt rely on God alone

The American church is thought of as fake by the other Countries because of the culture, the way we dress, and the music and television. We are trying people, We are not perfect

I Dont think Christmas trees are sinful, unless you idolize it..many people say America is fooled by Christmas and having a christmas tree is wrong or something. come on now, Its a tree we decorate with family, it looks nice. Why oh why is this wrong?

There is somewhat some laziness in the church, Not wanting to move foward in the Christian life, not being sanctified, just kind of hanging out with salvation (I do this, so I Know how it is)

The American church, along with others, uses too many big words and sentences when there are young people out there trying to be saved but they cant understand what they are saying because of these complicated words. It needs to be simplified for people

The Word "Secular" has been thrown around alot, Even to the point where anything man made is called wrong. this causes many young Christians to be discouraged and confused, later causing them to backslide because of pressure

Being a Christian shouldnt only be about wearing robes and speaking with big words, It should be about faith, honor, love, standing up for whats right, Not just staying away from everything a man makes

 

[Wormwood]

Hammerstone-

I agree. Luther never intended to break away from the RCC. His desire was to reform it. Since I am not Catholic, I do approve of the Protestant approach to church structure and function. However, I agree that Luther and others never intended to discard all the traditions of the RCC. Many of the Radical Reformers began to question everything in light of the Sola Scriptura principle. Because my church background has a bit of disdain for creeds and the like, I do see value in what many of the Radical Reformers were trying to accomplish. I think there were many traditions in the RCC that were unhealthy and unscriptural. Even some of which Luther and other Reformers embraced (transubstantiation, infant baptism, etc.). Personally, I believe that traditions and doctrines that establish some core orthodoxy are good, so long as they can be validated Scripturally. Questioning traditions that are not built out of NT precedents is valid in my opinion. This may have just opened up a can of worms, but just a little of my personal rambling .

However, I am in complete agreement that what needs to be established is a communal view of the Christian faith that is substantiated by a valid hermeneutical approach to Scripture. Of course we will never all agree on everything. Yet we must be able to teach and shape the thinking of Christians based on the concepts found in the Scriptures while confronting cultural trends and worldviews that conflict with those concepts. This is where we have fallen short in my estimation. We have allowed the philosophy of individualism and secularism to pervade our understanding of church, the Bible and our daily lives.

Rocky - We may have some different ideas theologically. But I agree that false prophecy and end times predictions have made Christians look foolish.

Inmate- I also agree that Christians can get a bit stuffy and can major in minors. Also, it can be easy for church leaders to talk in ways that confuse people or use terms or phrases that make people feel like outsiders. Personally, I don't think anything "man made" is wrong. I am reminded of the golden serpent the Israelites created that God used to heal them of the snake bites. It was a good thing. However, they took a good thing and made it evil because it became an idol and rather than pointing to God it began to be used as a substitute for God.

The problem is the way we distinguish between what is "of man" and what is "of God." People tend to tag their preferences as the latter and ideas they don't agree with as the former. In reality, I think all things are "of God" yet man creates ungodly concepts about the world around us that try to exclude or dismiss Him. I think Romans 1 pictures this. People choose not to glorify God with the things that express his glory. We may try to push God out of the picture, but that doesn't mean we are successful. Just because the atheist scientist claims that there is no God and all their achievements and intellectual powers have nothing to do with God or religion doesn't make it so. God sends the rain to the just and unjust and gives the gift of intelligence even to those who refuse to use that intelligence to acknowledge Him. There can be no rationality without a divine mind to establish such rationality. Secularism imagines a rationality that is grounded literally in nothing.

 

[bling]

[SIZE=medium]I look at what is happening in the underground church in China, what happened in the first two centuries after Christ was here on earth and thing severe persecution of Christians in the West might perch the hypocrites out and leave only the committed which might produce similar results to what we are seeing in China today? [/SIZE]

 

[Dodo_David]

If God is indeed God, then there is a point where the finite will be unable to grasp the infinite by definition. There will be mysteries as to why God does or doesn't do something because he's working in a plane beyond what we can even conceive. A large part of faith - of Christianity - is accepting this even when it doesn't quite make sense

With HammerStone's above-comment in mind, let us consider what Jesus says in John 6:44 and John 6:65.

"No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them . . . " (v. 44)
"This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled them." (v. 65)

We mere mortals have a bad habit of crediting churches for the reason that people are drawn to Jesus.
Yet, Jesus Himself says that it is God the Father who draws people to Jesus.

 

[aspen]

The Early Church was the honeymoon phase between God and His Bride. Trying to recreate it after a 2,000 year relationship is not appropriate - we are older and wiser. We are not routinely martyred; we do not Crusade or force conversion onto people - we have grown and times have changed. What we lack in passion, we have gained in other areas, like sanctification.

 

[Angelina]

Speaking in terms of an individual in Christ - we need to allow him govern our lives at salvation. He needs to be Lord of all at the beginning of our walk. This should naturally progress into a Godly desire for personal sanctification and ultimately, personal revival.
The bible says that we were bought with a price and that we are not our own. 1 Corinthians 6:19-20.

Imagine what the corporate body of Christ [the Church] would look like, function like, achieve, fulfill - if all believers took their personal walk with Christ more seriously. ^_^

Blessings!!!

 

[Robertson]

Wormwood,

What you say is true and I will just try to add a bit more.

In the early 1900’s in America, there was a great outpouring of the Holy Ghost. My understanding it started at a Christian College where students were given a project to find the plan of salvation the Apostles taught. They noticed very soon that it involved baptism in water and the infilling of the Holy Ghost with the evidence of speaking in tongues. They also determined the Holy Ghost came by the laying on of hands.

This was all true and with this information several of the students in that class received the Holy Ghost w/tongues.

Later, but not much, the prophecy teachers came along and taught a false prophecy by taking what Peter had preached in his first sermon. In part he used a scripture from the book of Joel.
And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams: Act 2:17
It was the last days that Peter was talking about, but they were in those last days, not us. Irregardless the prophecy teachers went right on teaching it anyway.

Then came 1946 and the Jews were given the land their forefathers had been given by God. Now the prophecy teachers had a real strong case that they were in the generation spoken of in the bible.

Not so, and their prophecy passed away with the time coming and going without being fulfilled.

It is still going on with fewer and fewer people being converted. People did and still do laugh at anyone who try to tell them doom and gloom prophecy today. In my opinion they have a perfect right to do so. We are told in the Old Testament that if a so called prophet said he heard from God about a future event and it did not happen, he was assuredly a false prophet and no one who ever pay attention to him again.

The Churches have put a false prophets doctrine into their church doctrine so now we not only have false prophets we are over loaded with false churches. What good does a false church do for people? Very little.

I still think some churches are a great help for our children in the fact the are somewhat sheltered from the worldly things in that they socialize among themselves. But there is not enough truth being taught to keep them in church after they leave their family and friends and get out on their own.

One might say, “that is just prophecy, not how we come to God” that is partially true but when we change to word of God to fit us, it is still an untruth and God frowns on it and takes away His blessings.

If we want God’s approval we need to study the bible and quit taking man’s word. When we do that they will come.

Be blessed.

Please remove the word "Irregardless", it doesnt exist as a real word! Thanks!

 

[marksman]

For me the clue is when Jesus said "I will build MY church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it."

When Jesus is the head of the church, the gates of hell are not prevailing against it. Where man is head of the church the gates of hell are prevailing against it. Most churches belonging to a denomination in western society, have men in charge. Churches that are not bogged down with denominational demands and creeds are often the ones satan cannot penetrate.

I know of one denomination that wanted to start its own bible college. They had obtained the services of a godly man to be Principal but it never went ahead because there was an argument between the State in which the college was going to operate from and the Federal Executive as to who should run it.

I read that up to 1 million believers a year are leaving the man controlled church in the USA for a more authentic experience in homes. That is good because the New Testament Church met in homes. If it was good enough for them, it is good enough for us.

There is a New Testament Church in India that meets in homes and has a membership of 100,000 at the last count. That means they have millions of rupees to spend on people which we spend on buildings which most of the time are only a "look at us" exercise.

The fact is Jesus did not say he would build our church and whilst we insist on building our church not his, he will not interfere as he has too much to do building his own church. Having a building with a cross on it and a sign outside and paying someone to run the organisation does not make us a church. It makes us an apostate church.

It is totally insane to think that we can be the church without the ministry and power of the Holy Spirit, but too many are convinced that they have got it all down pat so they don't need the Holy Spirit to drop by and do things his way. After all, we have all the degrees but the sad thing is that we are emptying the church by degrees.

 

[Wormwood]

Marksman,

I disagree strongly with your comments.

Most churches belonging to a denomination in western society, have men in charge

This is a straw man argument in my estimation. What do you mean they have "men" in charge? As opposed to what? Women? Ghosts? I'm being sarcastic of course but the point is that objecting Christian group with the rationale that they follow "men" rather than God is something you need to prove...not just claim. Every denomination would claim they are following God. While their doctrines may be heavily influenced by a particular person (Luther, Calvin, Mennon, Wesley, etc.) this is not to say they are not following God. Rather, they identify with the convictions of a particular person regarding God's desires for the church. This does NOT mean they follow a man. I am "non-denominational" in my church affiliation but its not because I believe various denominations are not seeking to follow Christ.

I read that up to 1 million believers a year are leaving the man controlled church in the USA for a more authentic experience in homes. That is good because the New Testament Church met in homes. If it was good enough for them, it is good enough for us.

Can you provide the link or resource for this stat? I know about a decade ago that house churches were the rage, but I think that has waned. A lot of the emergent models emphasized flat leadership structures meeting in house churches. However, this movement, from all I have read and seen, has not been overly effective in maturing believers or reaching the lost. How is meeting in a home more "authentic" than meeting in a church building? How do you define "authentic" Christianity? The early church had no church buildings to meet in and were generally dirt poor and persecuted. I don't think they did it because it was "good enough" but because it was their only option. I have no doubt that Paul would have loved to gather an entire city into one of the amphitheaters for worship if it would have been possible in his day.

The fact is Jesus did not say he would build our church and whilst we insist on building our church not his, he will not interfere as he has too much to do building his own church. Having a building with a cross on it and a sign outside and paying someone to run the organisation does not make us a church.

What does make a group of people a "church" in your ecclesiology? I would agree that a building doesn't, but neither does a living room or a Starbucks. The implication that people who are in denominations and meet in church buildings are fixed on men and are not part of Christ's church is serious and unfounded accusation. There are plenty of problems with the American church, but church buildings and convictions that are in agreement with a historical figure are not necessarily part of them in my estimation.

 

[HammerStone]

Personally, I believe that traditions and doctrines that establish some core orthodoxy are good, so long as they can be validated Scripturally. Questioning traditions that are not built out of NT precedents is valid in my opinion. This may have just opened up a can of worms, but just a little of my personal rambling .

Well, I think the crux of what you and I are saying is that we interpret sola scriptura more in the light of prima scriptura, which is closer to what the reformers meant when the elucidated the doctrine of sola scriptura. In our modernist and postmodernist lenses, we tend to place the emphasis on the "only" part of the declaration.

That statement alone will already get me in trouble in a couple camps, but I think it needs to be made. Unfortunately, the notion as Christ as the head of the church - we he absolutely is - has been taken out of context to mean that my personal version of Christ is head of the church. It goes back to the idea of couching authority in the notion that God is always directly guiding everything I do.

This all comes back to the doctrine of the perspicuity of Scripture, which is another one of those doctrines that has shifted in meaning. I'd be safe to say all in this thread would agree that many things in Scripture all self evident. We all disagree on this issue or that issue at some point, but someone can open the Bible for the first time and be able to basically understand the important things.

We also believe that the Holy Spirit is active when we are reading the Bible whether He is calling us to repentance or illuminating a passage of Holy Scripture for our understanding. I am fond of saying to my Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox brethren that we Protestants do a better job of participating in reading the Bible sacramentally. (That's just a way of saying God is active an participating in our reading.)

This is all well and good, but I can point to countless examples on this forum where John Doe opened up a passage of Revelation and determined that the plot line from a movie about zombies takes place across three verses. As Protestants, we often don't really have a good way of calling the bluff of this person's interpretation in a reasoned and systematic way without some form of voice.

This is where tradition should come in to critique this viewpoint. (I'll call it the zombie viewpoint for illustration and simple reference.) The zombie viewpoint is valid in the sense that it is a viewpoint and interpretation of Scripture, but it is invalid in that almost no one else agrees with this terrible interpretation. It flies in the face of how the entire church has understood the passage, even with all of the disagreement, for centuries.

How do we, as Protestants, call this bluff beyond simply saying that's your opinion, and you are wrong? (This is where we succumbed to the influence of postmodernism.) The individual's retort will always be the same: "God is my authority and he told me this."

With that said, I think the reformers were willing to throw things out that were creedal but did not survive the test of Scripture. That is a healthy viewpoint, and this is where the rub with Roman Catholicism truly comes into play, because their magisterium cannot be wrong - because they place Scripture and tradition on the same page. This is where the idea of semper reformanda (always reforming, the cry of the Reformation) comes into play. The church should constantly examine herself and be willing to discard not everything, but explicitly that which is Scriptural.

To return to John Doe, we have bastardized this idea and now John Doe says the Bible alone is my authority, and my interpretation of the Bible alone, personally, is the guide. Doctrine changes as we learn new things (does that storyline sound familiar, anyone!?) and then you have nothing to look back upon to see where the body - the thing we are supposed to be with in communion - is at.

 

[IanLC]

"Righteousness", "Sanctification", "Purity" and "Holiness" have become a byword among Christians in many and various persuasions and denominations. And in many traditional Holiness and Pentecostal denominations these words have become watered down and diluted. I firmly believe that if we profess Christ Jesus we must possess Jesus! We must also receive the full gospel which not only confronts sin but the sinner as well! Salvation is not a noun or state of arrival it is a verb and is constantly being worked within us and we be completed when Christ Jesus the perfect comes! Many view their faith as something to put on or off and only worn in religious or so called "Christian settings". When the faith Jesus founded in His blood came to change the inner and outward man! A faith that is the center and essence of the believers life! A Faith not only centered on intellectual contemplation, or emotional ecstasy or even in legalistic doctrine! But a Faith that couples intellect with emotion, Word with Spirit, knowledge with experience, faith with power and belief with behavior! The standard of love and holiness is still the same we must love all people and live holy unto God through Jesus Christ by His Word and His Spirit! Sanctification and the living what one says they believe is so essential to the state of this current Christian Church. Instead of the fighting between cessaitionist and continualists a mutual acknowledgement that the Holy Spirit is still working today saving souls, convicting sinners, empowering and sanctifying believers, or debating among calvanists and arminians and understand that God is Sovereign yet gives mankind free will to choose or not choose salvation and salvation must bear fruit, or between fundamentalists and liberals and understand that the Word is God's order and law or even between Catholics and Protestants and understand that the only true church is the one centered in men's hearts who believe and live out that belief in Christ Jesus the savior of all or even with women in ministry or not and understand that men and women work to spread the gospel and upbuild the church and kingdom of God! Get back to Jesus and living in His Way and by His example along with His Spirit founded in His Word! 1. Saved by Jesus 2. Sanctified by the Word of Jesus 3. Filled with the Spirit of Jesus!

 

[marksman]

1. Saved by Jesus 2. Sanctified by the Word of Jesus 3. Filled with the Spirit of Jesus!

That sounds like a very good doctrinal statement to me.

Marksman,

I disagree strongly with your comments.

[SIZE=10.5pt]Be my guest. The day everyone agrees with me is in the "sweet by and by" as the hymn goes.[/SIZE]


I'm being sarcastic of course but the point is that objecting Christian group with the rationale that they follow "men" rather than God is something you need to prove...not just claim.

[SIZE=10.5pt]35,000 denominations, which are spoken against in scripture. [/SIZE]

Every denomination would claim they are following God.

[SIZE=10.5pt]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. [/SIZE]


While their doctrines may be heavily influenced by a particular person (Luther, Calvin, Mennon, Wesley, etc.) this is not to say they are not following God.

[SIZE=10.5pt]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. [/SIZE]

Rather, they identify with the convictions of a particular person regarding God's desires for the church. This does NOT mean they follow a man.

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."

Can you provide the link or resource for this stat?

George Barna Research Ministry.

I know about a decade ago that house churches were the rage, but I think that has waned.

Then you think wrong I am sorry to say. I am associated with a home church ministry and they are adding new churches all the time.

A lot of the emergent models emphasized flat leadership structures meeting in house churches. However, this movement, from all I have read and seen, has not been overly effective in maturing believers or reaching the lost.

Again, you are making an assessment through third hand information. The essence of the home church movement is that they are not promoting themselves like most churches do. They quietly get on with the job without fanfare so who is to know what is happening other than the people involved and for your information two examples are the Chinese House Church which numbers in millions and is growing at a rates of knots and the church in India with 100,000 participants who meet in homes.

How is meeting in a home more "authentic" than meeting in a church building?

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.

How do you define "authentic" Christianity?

See comment above.

The early church had no church buildings to meet in and were generally dirt poor and persecuted.

Not true. I have a passion for church history and have read a considerable number of books about the life and times of Jesus and the first century church, and it is clear that there were many better off people in the church and their homes were utilised for meeting purposes as they had an upper room that could hold 30 people bearing in mind they didn't sit in rows in chairs, but reclined round a meal table and they didn't have buildings because they didn't need them and neither do we.

What does make a group of people a "church" in your ecclesiology?

See comments above.

I would agree that a building doesn't, but neither does a living room or a Starbucks. The implication that people who are in denominations and meet in church buildings are fixed on men and are not part of Christ's church is serious and unfounded accusation.

If you care to search and search and search as I have done, you will find that there are growing numbers out there who hold to the same belief. Blogs are appearing all over the place that are asking serious questions about the church and the fact that most of them are failing in the final command of Jesus. George Barna research shows that only 1% of American churches are growing.

There are plenty of problems with the American church, but church buildings and convictions that are in agreement with a historical figure are not necessarily part of them in my estimation.

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.

 

[Angelina]

...understand that God is Sovereign yet gives mankind free will to choose or not choose salvation and salvation must bear fruit, or between fundamentalists and liberals and understand that the Word is God's order and law or even between Catholics and Protestants and understand that the only true church is the one centered in men's hearts who believe and live out that belief in Christ Jesus the savior of all or even with women in ministry or not and understand that men and women work to spread the gospel and upbuild the church and kingdom of God! Get back to Jesus and living in His Way and by His example along with His Spirit founded in His Word! 1. Saved by Jesus 2. Sanctified by the Word of Jesus 3. Filled with the Spirit of Jesus!

Word!