Christianity Is Broken, but Can Be Fixed

Good point on the Anabaptists and Waldensians although pretty much all non-Catholics were labelled Anabaptists, and some Anabaptists went over the edge. "Oppression makes a wise man mad."I think if you look at the New Testament, you will see serious problems that arose even during that short span. People are people, and there are going to be problems and immorality at times in any church. I do think there are things that can help correct that, and undoubtedly only serious and real Christians remain so under persecution, and groups tend to reinforce each member.So during times of persecution, you are probably going to see a purer church, and the Christians will tend to have a higher standard of morality. When it's easy being a Christian in the sense of not facing as intense persecution (there is always spiritual persecution), it is more likely that even serious Christians won't live as purely as the corrupting influence of other Christians around them have an influence.If you join the church with the state, you will have a ton of corruption as people hungry for political power seek to use the church to gain power.So although I agree there needs to be basic improvements to today's Christianity, I don't think that it was always as pure and right in the past as some claim.

Hope this is OK to chime in. Agreed. Too often, believers are just following a pattern within their society, and sometimes that is all one can do outwardly, but the sense of leaving one's life behind and beginning a new life and continuing needs to be there, in heart, will, and action.At the same time, the easiest way for someone to enter into this new life is through the transformative power of realizing His love. The preaching of the gospel is not just an invitation, but taking captivity captives. When one realizes in his heart and mind what Jesus really did for him or her on the Cross, the natural response is to love the Lord back, and out of that love comes discipleship.Trying to make disciples just because we need people to be better disciples to redeem Christianity can be problematic, unless based out of a love response to Jesus' love for them. We love him because He first loved us. Yep, we are missing the doing of the sayings of Jesus and the preaching of the kingdom of God. Definitely, and in power, signs and wonders, as well as love and discipleship. That's true, but likewise many efforts at Christian community have failed and failed miserably. I think you have your community where you are with the believers you are friends with. Not that a separate community, daily meeting, praying, etc,....cannot be God, and does not happen, but it's not a strict pattern. Jesus had the disciples near him daily, and friends in Bethany too, that he did not select to travel with him as part of the ministry. That's true, but it's the grace that made the pattern more than the other way around, imho. It's true. The ministry leadership in the Church is in a lot of ways more competitive and ruthless than in business and other areas of life in that regard. It's a deplorable state.I believe with all my heart that one solution the Lord has, and this is something He immediately began to impart into me when He called me to salvation is the reestablishment of true apostles. The ministry of the true apostle is, among other things, to bring unity back to the Church. The foundation of the house, according to Paul, is the apostles and prophets with Jesus Christ as the chief cornerstone. That's not just talking about their writings, or some sort of temporal founding, meaning to just start things off, but is more a picture of a living community from a spiritual perspective empowered with the transferable anointings that come from apostles and prophets.But here is the kicker. They need to be properly aligned with the Cornerstone. Many of those that are called, or believe they are called, to "apostolic" ministry have a vision of the apostle as some sort of glorified spiritual bishop.They miss the boat entirely. Jesus said, and I am paraphrasing, that you know worldly authority, and it's position, that you are blessed by submitting to and enjoying the presence and protection of the leaders, the princes, etc,..., but that's not how it will be among you.In other words, look at the way athority is in the military, in government, in business,and the world. That's not spiritual authority. Some worldly leadershio skills may be useful for organizational authority, helping motivate people, get them together, etc,....but the spiritual authority Jesus was talking about is completely different. To rule over in the sense of having an authority within a spiritual dimension, which is what real apostles are called to, is not organizational leadership qualities.It makes on servant of all, and sometimes despised of men. It's no accident most of Paul's churches he founded rejected him. They were already going astray within his lifetime, and it's no accident most of Jesus' disciples deserted him either, not just at the Cross (for their lives), but prior. The apostles are "last of all."Christianity, or a version of it, will never be reformed totally without the restoration of this office and the abandonment of overesteeming worldly leadership principles.

That's not entirely true. Peter does not expound on the Atonement on the day of Pentecost, but he does preach how they crucified Jesus, and how they pricked in their heart over that. So the apostles preached Christ as Lord and Saviour. Paul writes: And: Both Paul and Peter greatly emphasized the power of God, healings, prophetic signs and wonders, and miracles. Both preached Christ crucified and resurrected, but when Paul talks of Christ and Him crucified, and the wisdom of God in that, it seems to me he is including the atonement in there.So there could be slightly different approaches among different people, but the same core message. I agree the Lordship of Christ is primary, but I think the conversion process, either initially or immediately thereafter, includes a strong sense of being beloved, of God's love, and how that was expressed through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. I beleive the Bible supports this view, moreover.

Look, I don't think we're far off, but you are greatly misreading me. Brother, I was not taught that by man, but by Jesus Christ, and I am relating how it worked for me. Sure, when I was aware of the holiness of God, I was in fear and trembling, but when I was illuminated to the meaning of the Cross and His great love for me, I could think of nothing but to follow Him. The decision was made because how could I refuse God after He did so much for me, stepped into my shoes so to speak. I recall that as I pondered this a week or so after deciding to follow Jesus, that it could all be a waste of time and I would go to hell anyway since I did not think I could quit certain habits. I did not have anyone to really explain things to me at that time and had some misconceptions.But my approacj was sink or swim, I'm going for it. To turn away from His love would have been unthinkable, and I have noted that when believers tend turn away, that sense of God's love and presence with them has already faded. As that is maintained, there is turning towards God, not away, "for the love of Christ contrains us."Now, that's not all there is, and certainly one needs to know the fear of God and many things really, but it is fundamental, and I doubt anyone stays a disciple for too long without knowing and receiving the love of God. It's not a recent message that cropped up as some fad. It's the Bible, and the truth, just as much as anything you are saying. That's largely because there are levels of awareness. Jesus said Himself that "they know not what they do" about the Pharissees, and he earlier upbraided them harshly as if they should have and did know, but they only partly know things, and people turn from God when that awareness is low. It's in the mind, but the heart is darkened deep down. Exactly, it comes from the love the disciples have for one another. Not many have stepped up to this level. At one time, we were in a group, and led a group really, that walked in this, and want to be at that level now, and are in some ways, the willingness to lay down one's lives, etc,....At the same time, I wouldn't say we're meeting daily together in different ways, as in the past, but part of that is moving somewhere different and having a large family and meeting daily with our kids and their responsibilities.Paul mentions that they came together once a week for fellowship. SO daily meetings are not always the norm, although when you live your life with friends that are disciples, there is a lot of informal exhortation and prayer. OK, I guess my previous paragraph was unnecessary. To be honest, I think right now in my own life the discipleship process of making disciples and being in a group making disciples rather than just a church is a little weak, but sometimes you need to hear the Lord's leading too, and let Him show you the next step. Maybe but false apostles make disciples too, and sometimes the disciples of true apostles turn away to false apostles as some of Paul's churches did. I think we need to focus on the sayings of Jesus, every message if you would, and do them, and one of them deals with the difference in worldly organizational authority and leadership versus spiritual authority and leadership, and we need to teach and preach it like anything else. Not saying everyone turned from him, but Paul does write that "all that be in Asia turned against him." He did have instances of whole groups of church leadership seeming to turn against him, or it seems that way, and the Corinthian church was already showing signs of being susceptible to super-apostles.Churches change sometimes. The Jerusalem church, by the way, seems filled with legalism, to a degree, by the end of Acts. I agree with that completely, and frankly am currently looking right now for something more. We were part of some things with these ideas awhile back, but there was some errors, and we also hosted a house church which actually was quite the move of God in many ways, but the Lord moved us to a different area, and we love the people in our church (a Vinyard church), but I just don't like the Seeker friendly approach. It's good for introducing people to Christ and Christianity, but it's like being on pablum or something when the deeper things of God and fellowship in those things calls.My wife loves the church, but I feel the need to stretch out for something new. We have prayer meetings and so forth among friends, and good, committed, serious Christians, but I'd like to be part of a more participatory flow every week with beleivers all free to move in the power of the Lord, and not so pent up within a traditional church structure, if you can call the Vineyard traditional. I am in business and believe that's where God wants me, but was for a long time working full-time in the ministry. A friend of mine wants me to move to help something like you are describing develop in Savannah, but I am not sure it's the Lord for me to move. I guess I am sort of in limbo, but we're raising a family and still in an early stage for business so I think not rushing the timing is probably right.Rose Creek? Where is it?

Could get in trouble. I looked up Rose Creek Village and have read some about it, good and bad. Maybe I can come visit this summer?Personally, it does not sound like the place for me since I gather it's not really as open to certain spiritual gifts, but the community aspect is something interesting. I have been part of something somewhat like that twice. Most of the time those sorts of things don't thrive as well as they could because it's based more on the headship of the leader rather than the headship of Christ (the head of every man), but maybe you guys are working it out.

Faith, I didn't know you read or listen to Steve Schlissel. I think he's great, but he holds to Dominion Theology and is a post-millenialist, all fine by me, though I am not a post-millenialist myself. I think his theology overall is great and solid thinking, but he's the sort of guy that gets bashed by those "discernment ministries."This message has been edited by randman, 12-10-2005 03:24 PM

Well, I think you're onto something about how to preach the message. Preach the Person as the message, not just the facts.

I think you and I agree in our beliefs on the Second coming.Dominion theology is pretty much Reformed theology, although among Reformed folks, there's always some that are more Reformed than others.I used to read Schlissel in Rushdoony's monthly publication called The Chalcedon Report. Chalcedon would argue, for example, for all 5 points of Calvinism (though not sure Steve does), and for a type of theonomy, although their critics severely mischaracterized them.Dominion theology is what Calvin and Reformed theologians taught in regard to how we should live in the world, namely that we should try make disciples of the nations in every area of life, bringing Christ's influence and obedience to Christ into every area.Calvin and some of his followers, of course, took this too far politically and had heretics killed, and so lots of people accuse dominionists of wanting to do the same thing, but that's not really true. They do believe in applying the Old Testament, but as a matter of principles, not that we stone people or things like that.I don't agree with them on everything, but I think they are correct on many areas. I even think the Old Testament law does have some applications for today's law, as they think. They teach, for example, that an eye for an eye was not some sort of barbarism, but was an improvement because the law was used in that time to punish lawbreakers far more severely than the law warranted. The law was used as a form of social control, and punishment reflected policy of rulers more than an absolute concept of justice.Well, as we have moved further away from God in the law in the sense of recognizing rights, truth, and justice stem from the Creator, we tend to do the same thing. We let murderers go, say get out after a few years, and then hand out absurd penalties for smaller offenses depending on the policy of the rulers. There is not an even-handedness in administering justice.So they get a lot of flak for it, but I believe there ideas of dominionism, even in the area of theonomy, are correct, sound and biblical, for the most part. I do think there is a stronger libertarian streak in the New Testament, and that their bashing of Anabaptism is completely wrong.

He was harsh on the religionists of his times....guess you have to consider who the mythmakers of our generation are.

Oh, the ole Klan argument. I know a guy personally that is the type that would have been in the Klan. He believes God told him blacks evolved from the apes which came from the land and whites from a bears and seals or some such, from the water; has a very bad attitude towards black folks; is a Confederate, etc,...Now, of course, he is a liberal democrat that hates Bush and Cheney's guts, swears they are using chemical weapons on the people of Venezuela and trying to bring down the courageous leader, Chavez, and has even been down there to verify, I think, some of this.So often people can hold to things that seem contradictory. In his case, I don't see the above so much as a contradiction except when he talks of Jesus as well as hooking up with women with the racist attitude.But it's clear that many people hold to the name of Jesus but are very far from the principles of Christ, and maybe we are all very far in some respects, but to argue that the Klan were following the teachings of Christ, to love their neighbor, when they went about terrorizing them, is well, an absurd argument.

I think evaluating people is not the best angle. The issue is what is the influence of Christ and his teachings. I think it's clear, for the most part, what Christ taught in references to love, forgiveness, etc,...So take the folks in the Klan. For all we know, had they not been influenced nominally by Christianity, they might have been even worse.In other words, the influences of Christ and His message are good, even if people take his name and do bad things.

My stance is the influence of Christ and His teachings are positive and good, and so it is moot point if the Klan were somehow real Christians in their eyes, your eyes, or anyone's eyes. The relavant point is the influence of Christ and His teachings.If you don't like the way I addressed the point, now for the 2nd time, that's your business, not mine.

Maybe you don't the followers of Jesus preach the gospel not the Law; you know, that's why the Bible has an Old Testament and a New Testament.

Ditto, on preacher Faith's word here.