Christianity Is Broken, but Can Be Fixed

Very interesting comparison between the gospel as we hear it and the way the apostles preached it. I've half-noticed something along these lines myself.This message has been edited by Faith, 12-10-2005 12:15 PM

I don't doubt it. It's one thing I hate about having only words and no face to look at. This is definitely true. I believe the Scripture that says that we love him because he first loved us. I also believe the one that says, "This is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins." Well, I didn't say daily meetings. One other problem is the "meeting mentality" that prevails today. It prevails, because Christians don't live their lives together, sharing as need dictates, the way the early disciples did.This daily life together was the norm. In AD 150, Justin, describing Christianity to the emperor, said, "We who formerly hated each other and could not bear to be with one another now live familiarly with one another." (That's from his First Apology.) Tertullian, fifty years later, in a similar letter, said--and I'm paraphrasing, but accurately--, "Perhaps that's the reason the Romans hate us so, because the same finances that cause strife among natural brothers causes love and sharing among us who live as brothers. We have everything in common except our wives." (That's from his Apology, and the last line is a direct quote.)Both those guys were trying to describe the life of Christians, not preach how they wish things were. The writer of Hebrews commanded his readers to exhort/encourage one another daily, while it is called today, because of the danger of hardening by the deceitfulness of sin. Is that a command we are free to ignore? I'd say experience proves we ignore it to our peril.Again, I am not saying you have to go off in the woods to start a community. I am saying that there needs to be daily interaction, that it's what the church had until Constantine brought everyone in and made it impossible, and that it's Scripturally commanded. I agree with this. I would encourage you not to give up, nor to be satisfied with little effort, nor to let yourself think it's not a problem that needs to be resolved. I agree with this. Right, and it is very dangerous to the disciples to live like this. If it's so important to have meetings for seekers, then why not do something like hold seekers meetings. That may not be the best answer, but it's worlds better than having nothing for the disciples.By the way, "the disciples" doesn't mean "the special and really committed Christians" to me. It is a term used pretty commonly in Acts to refer to Christians, just as "the saints" is. Rose Creek is in West Tennessee. Exactly where is easiest found at our web site (rosecreekvillage.com) than trying to describe our little town on a message board.That said, let me say this is not a plea to get you or anyone else to move to Rose Creek Village. I, and we, do encourage people to come and see what God is doing, because it can help give a picture to someone who's never seen what happens when disciples are together. (A history of the early Anabaptists during the time of Felix Manz, Conrad Grebel, and Georg Blaurock or the Quakers while George Fox was still alive would also give such a picture, but that's old.)In the end, what is important is that the will of God be done. There needs to be a family--not just a meeting, an organization, or a building--for the saints to come into. The kingdom of God is supposed to also be the household of God, and it should be a notable family, because it has a notable Father.

Shoot, I wish I had read your last post before writing the last paragraph of my last post. I'd have put it here and changed it a bit. It'd be great if you could visit. You are right that almost every community stands on the headship of the leader. I don't think we have that problem, although we're accused of it a lot. We have a very strong set of leaders (3 men), but we have a very passionate and strong membership, too. Just as you would be unlikely to come submit yourself to someone who told you to just do whatever you were told by the leadership, so would most of us. Only God could control this batch of people. You should come meet them, and you'd know what I mean by that in less than a day.As far as spiritual gifts go, we're nothing like the charismatics. We don't push spiritual gifts at all, especially tongues. On the other hand, we follow God wherever he leads, and we believe that disciples (slipping back on topic here to a needed correction) live by the words that proceed from God's mouth day by day, not just by the words he spoke two or three thousand years ago. Listen, if God's prophets can't be silent for two days, why would God keep silent for 2,000 years and make us live off things he said two millenia ago? His Word is living, not dead nor retired, and it is our daily bread.Principles will never bring the power of the kingdom, no matter how good or godly those principles are. The Word of God is active, and it accomplishes things. Those who can bring the Word to work, not just those who can memorize, outline, quote, and repeat Paul or Isaiah's words, will bring the power of God. No one else can, no matter how educated.

That helps to make a distinction I could accept, and the reference to Barnabas also. I'm simply used to hearing the emphasis on apostles coming from the charismatics who have gone so far out in wrong directions on so many things, which I personally experienced in a very disappointing and rather traumatic period of my life as a Christian, that I am geared to view it with a very jaundiced eye.

Please don't let the existence of the counterfeit stop you from looking for what Scripture says is the will of God, or working to be a part of it. I have to deal every day with the fact that many people are going to think we're "cultic." We have a barbeque, and people say we're sacrificing animals. Two 19-year-olds get married here, and people spread rumors that all our teenagers are pregnant. We ask a husband and wife to split up for a while, because they came to us on the verge of divorce, and it's said that we split up families and ordain remarriages.There's a group called Shepherdsfield in Missouri. They're nearly as large as we are. They are very Christian, and they are not cultic at all. Their leader is way too controlling, in my opinion, though he is not oppressive to their membership. There simply is no room for God to move, because their leader has all the answers. It's really quite Protestant in its doctrine, not cultic at all.This group would qualify as a part of the system of Christianity, in my opinion. My generalizations about Christianity would not apply to them, as you have pointed out. Let me point out in return that your generalization about communities would not apply to them, either. I just want you to know not everything is counterfeit.Just for the record, there is another group in Indianapolis of about 80 adults. They don't live together, but they live in the same neighborhood, and many of them have moved into one apartment complex. I know they exist, because I've gotten a videotape and books from them, and when I called they told me I couldn't come visit, and they called me a wolf. (Very sweet; they never met me, and they know nothing about me.) However, when I was passing through Indianapolis one day, I decided to try and find them and drop in unannounced, and no one could tell me where to find them, not even four police(wo)men I saw at breakfast. I think they really are there, though. This group, too, is quite mainstream Protestant, and their leader often speaks in churches. He said he's been invited all up and down the east coast and even gone to Australia at a church's invitation. Their books make them sound awesome, but the videotape interview with the pastor was extreeeeemmmmmmeeeeely booorrrriiiiing.

Are you familiar with Steve Schlissel who pastors Messiah's Congregation in Brooklyn? http://www.sermonaudio.com/source_detail.asp?sourceid=sch...
It's a Reformed Presbyterian church. I enjoy his preaching very much, and he often exhorts Christians to live near one another, referring to the Orthodox Jewish communities around New York as examples. It seems like a basically good idea to me, but if it becomes a Thing with a Leader rather than simply Christians wanting to be among Christians I could see it becoming a problem and even cultic.{AbE: Interesting. I just listened to the first sermon on the webpage linked above ("Curtains.") Schlissel is not talking about community but he is talking about how the Bible is not theology but a love letter, and how so many have been misled to a belief in Christ that is merely an assent rather than a giving of the life -- in the context of exhorting us to witness to the Jews.}This message has been edited by Faith, 12-10-2005 02:32 PM

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 we touched on this before about Schlissel, but can you please explain Dominion Theology to me? He sounds quite orthodox Reformed Presbyterian to me. I simply like some of his preaching, having heard a series of his on the book of Acts on Christian radio, in which he did a great job of illuminating the Jewish background of the taking of the gospel from Jerusalem out to the Gentiles. Can you refer me to a discernment ministry comment on him? If you can't I can probably google it but maybe you know of a specific criticism of him somewhere?{AbE: I'm not any kind of millennialist yet, having heard preaching on all of them and finding too many unanswered questions left in each of them. At the moment I believe in a very noisy public trumpet-announced Second Coming of Christ which is simultaneous with the Rapture of the church, and not a silent pre-trib Rapture.}This message has been edited by Faith, 12-10-2005 03:54 PM

Yes...I believe this as well. I would take it a step further, however. Live the person...Be Jesus rather than merely preaching
about Him. To be in the world yet not of the world is a challenge for todays "Christian". Often, we can effectively build relationships with others without compromising or watering down our values. Jesus was only confrontational with the Pharisees and the religious hypocrites. He never rebuked the common folk for failing to understand His message.Food for thought..(Gotta run to work, ttyl )

I want to answer this more pointedly. I don't think Christianity as such is broken at all {AbE: Which isn't the same thing as not having lots of problems}. As usual it belongs to the few, not the many. This has always been the case. The early Church was as divided by heresies and odd doctrinal issues as anything we see today. The world is hostile to the real thing and paints it as evil, so the real evil in the counterfeits is detectable only by the Spirit, and we aren't all given the same discernment by the Spirit and we don't all have the same sensitivity to the Spirit's movings. The most public Christians are sometimes not the real thing. Always there are tares among the wheat, always there are counterfeits, and these seem to be proliferating in abundance just in the last few decades -- but maybe it only seems that way to me since I lived through them. There is every kind of "Christian" theology these days, sometimes it seems one for every individual.It seems to be a wish perennially revived among Christians to get back to some vision of the purity of the New Testament church but then it turns out that there are many different ideas about what that means and often they do simply turn into cults. Your focus on community is just one of many versions of New Testament Christianity. The charismatics focus on the gifts of the Spirit as the key. The Mormons are sure the entire Church went apostate in the first or second century and is only now recovered in themselves. Etc.So while I'm very aware of the problems in the churches these days that you are concerned with, and appreciate those both dead and alive who shine the clearest light on the true path (Tozer, Pink, MacArthur, Elliott, Comfort among many others), I'm not so sure there is any particular solution we should be seeking except the usual attempt to keep our own hearts focused rightly.I do appreciate what you have said about the gospel of the apostles and that needs further thought.This message has been edited by Faith, 12-10-2005 06:17 PM

That is not even debatable. Look up the crusades, the inquisitions, Malleus Malficorum. Exodus, now there is a good place to start. Try this page:Cruelty in the BibleThe present day examples abound. Look at the thinly disguised hate they have for homosexuals. Not to mention other religions. Members of the KKK considered themselves just as religious as any "chrisitian" anyone here might suggest as a "true christian."Question: Is the pope a true christian? What about in the past?

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.