Churches Dying

[dzheremi]

When I say new Atheism is dead, I mean the militant atheism which believes that science can solve all problems in life as represented by Dawkins and his ilk. It's not that Atheism itself is dead but the specific belief in a sort of rationalistic scientism is and has been superseded by a belief system of universal egalitarianism.

Ah, I see what you mean now. Thank you for explaining. Yes, that seems to be the case. It has been a few years since any of my atheist friends have put forth the idea that science can solve all problems (as though it has a moral dimension of its own, or would be naturally superior to 'religious morality' purely because it would be supposedly based in atheistic rationalism).

 

[bèlla]

You start seeing stuff like this and you wonder how close we are to Jesus return?

Not really. The bible says the sons of this age [the non-believers] are shrewder in relation to their own kind [that is, to the ways of the secular world] than are the sons of light [the believers]. It shouldn't surprise us when the world enters the church. Believers are less likely to see the wolves than their kindred. I combat that through Christ's advice.

And I tell you [learn from this], make friends for yourselves [for eternity] by means of the wealth of unrighteousness [that is, use material resources as a way to further the work of God], so that when it runs out, they will welcome you into the eternal dwellings.

I spent a year in that scripture deepening my shrewdness and finding others like myself. If the churches are compromised I'll start my own and have memberships and bring in speakers until a permanent presence is found. That's why I'm looking for land with a chapel. I've anticipated the problem.

Some people don't know I've been on the super liberal side before. I failed to warn as the watchman of Ezekiel, and I let so many pursue wicked ways without saying a word, nor witnessing Christ.

Liberal and conservative are one and the same. They have the same master.

Most people don't heed warnings. But every now and then you'll get one or two who will. The numbers may be slightly better if you're well acquainted.

~bella

 

[FireDragon76]

I've got some good churches in my area, and to my knowledge none of those so called "rainbow" churches, you know, with the flag out front and marching in "Pride" demonstrations. I couldn't believe my eyes when I started seeing that a few years back. It's amazing because of what the Scriptures say about Pride - as we know, Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall, as is written in Proverbs.

You start seeing stuff like this and you wonder how close we are to Jesus return?

View attachment 346265

Kind of diametrically opposed there: a cross which is the ultimate symbol of sacrifice and humility, and the word Pride written up on it with rainbow colors. This thing was erected at Mount Sequoyah Arkansas in 2021. Now my old rebel self might have dumped a bucket of scarlet red paint on the detestable thing and given it its real symbolism. Alas, I just pray for the lost souls who are involved in all this.

During Sabbath service today I was led to 2 Peter 1:16, " For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty."

And 2 Peter 2:1-3, "But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.
And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of.
And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you: whose judgment now of a long time lingereth not, and their damnation slumbereth not"

Covetousness doesn't necessarily mean money or material possessions, but coveting of ANYTHING, including a particular lifestyle that is in direct opposition to God's Word and His will. This is funny. I was just going to use the example of fishing because I like fishing, but you can over do it. So I looked up coveting definition and got "yearn to possess or have (something). "he covets time for exercise and fishing"" LOL! Now that's not a sinful pastime at all, BUT you can become obsessed with it, taking weekends off to go fish and neglect church, and some men even neglect family to go fishing, or go to the gym. In such cases it becomes sin. And I've done that. I didn't even intentionally mean to do it, but I coveted fishing and filling my whole fridge full, and going out on the lake every day that I neglected all else. That was over 30 years ago.
Hindsight 20/20

Certainly coveting any relationships that are not of God would fall under coveting. This is not being legalistic - it's being real.
2 Peter 3:16, "As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction."

Some people don't know I've been on the super liberal side before. I failed to warn as the watchman of Ezekiel, and I let so many pursue wicked ways without saying a word, nor witnessing Christ. I even portrayed myself as pagan for awhile, and as most people know, paganism is rife with immorality of all sorts. I even said the Holy Spirit was the goddess Sophia of the gnostics, and became gnostic in my beliefs. I joined in an unequal yoke with a girl who was pagan too. I even made fun of Fundamentalists and Christianity in general, adopting the exact same stance that the liberals now do, saying Jesus would be Ok with all this junk. Yet I was not satisfied and kept seeking more and more drink, and more and more so called intimacy until I said "Sex isn't all it's cracked up to be" because it was so dissatisfying because I was living in great sin and headed for a mighty fall!

Oh, I was thinking about this topic and wrote this note, "I think the parameters of the forum rules allow defence of the faith showing the Scriptural standard regarding sexuality, but you cannot promote homosexuality."
Even in the Liberal Forum these rules still apply:

• Members may not make posts which could be considered blatant campaigning for the acceptance of homosexuality or SSM.
• Members may not distribute any blatant propaganda about homosexuality or SSM [propaganda: information of a biased or misleading nature used to promote or publicize a particular point of view].

So because you have a negative experience with an eclectic mixture of paganism and various beliefs, you think that is representative of theologically liberal or Mainline Protestant churches?

Our churches are focused on the teachings of Jesus Christ. We are not Neo-Pagans.

 

[FireDragon76]

I'm not sure that this would directly apply to the people who are identifying as "Mainline" now, but I have noticed exactly the confusion you mention (concerning "Mainline" = "mainstream") among Mormons, of all people, on this very website. Back when the "Debate Other Religions" subforum was still open, it was not infrequent that one of our Christian posters would have to explain to the Mormons that they ought not use "Mainline" for "mainstream", for exactly the reasons you've mentioned in your reply. So I am not surprised to see that confusion pop up in other contexts. It seems like an easy fix, but I guess it is difficult to get people to change their way of speaking or writing once they already have a fixed idea of what a word means, even if that idea is not well-informed or true to the historical (and present!) usage. Call it linguistic evolution, if you must.

There are actually groups decended from the early Mormons, the Restorationists as they call themselves, that are close to Mainline Protestantism. They are called the Communities of Christ. Though they have their origins in Mormonism, today they are closer to denominations like the Disciples of Christ (ie, "No creed but Christ", focus on the Bible and early church practice), and are for the most part more theologically liberal.

There's a Youtube channel that's an outreach of one of their churches in Toronto, CentrePlace, and the pastor there with a background in history and antiquities. Unless you read their denominations history, you'ld never know they had Joseph Smith in their history.

 

[Kokavkrystallos]

Not really. The bible says the sons of this age [the non-believers] are shrewder in relation to their own kind [that is, to the ways of the secular world] than are the sons of light [the believers]. It shouldn't surprise us when the world enters the church. Believers are less likely to see the wolves than their kindred. I combat that through Christ's advice.

And I tell you [learn from this], make friends for yourselves [for eternity] by means of the wealth of unrighteousness [that is, use material resources as a way to further the work of God], so that when it runs out, they will welcome you into the eternal dwellings.

I spent a year in that scripture deepening my shrewdness and finding others like myself. If the churches are compromised I'll start my own and have memberships and bring in speakers until a permanent presence is found. That's why I'm looking for land with a chapel. I've anticipated the problem.



Liberal and conservative are one and the same. They have the same master.

Most people don't heed warnings. But every now and then you'll get one or two who will. The numbers may be slightly better if you're well acquainted.

~bella

I considered building a chapel before on my land, but it's not really feasible, and I no longer live there. I like the idea though. I've attended home churches before. Kind of like an old country chapel?

 

[dzheremi]

There are actually groups decended from the early Mormons, the Restorationists as they call themselves, that are close to Mainline Protestantism. They are called the Communities of Christ. Though they have their origins in Mormonism, today they are closer to denominations like the Disciples of Christ (ie, "No creed but Christ", focus on the Bible and early church practice), and are for the most part more theologically liberal.

There's a Youtube channel that's an outreach of one of their churches in Toronto, CentrePlace, and the pastor there with a background in history and antiquities. Unless you read their denominations history, you'd never know they had Joseph Smith in their history.

Yes, they were occasionally brought up on the same subforum by Mormons as a way of trying to say "Look, Mormons can be 'orthodox' Christians, too!", which as you might imagine was not a popular move in that environment, but I will admit that they are an interesting bunch. If I recall correctly, they are the one Mormon offshoot that rejected the Mormon "Book of Abraham" as being a part of their scriptural canon, which is not only interesting relative to what the rest of the Mormon movement decided, but also hamstrings the development of the 'theological racism' (if we can call it that) which was and arguably still is found in mainstream Mormonism, since apparently a lot of the most obviously odious decisions made by Mormon leadership (e.g, the ban on people of African descent holding the Mormon priesthood until 1978) are based in how they have traditionally interpreted that particular piece of writing. That's according to Mormons and ex-Mormons I've seen discuss the problems with the book, at any rate; I haven't read it myself, as I have no interest in yet another fantasy based on what people who couldn't read Egyptian nevertheless claimed was the case about Egypt. Athanasius Kircher et al. did that already, centuries before Smith.

 

[bèlla]

I considered building a chapel before on my land, but it's not really feasible, and I no longer live there. I like the idea though. I've attended home churches before. Kind of like an old country chapel?

The buildings are older in France. You'll have stained glass and a solid structure. The workmanship is lovely. I wanted a quiet place. Somewhere I could sit in solitude and commune with the Lord. But it has other uses and a small fellowship would be nice.

I value depth and maturity. There's things I can't receive in a traditional setting and things I want that aren't available. The only way to reconcile the two is something of my own. There's nothing more satisfying than building something from the ground up and birthing your vision.

I shared this on another thread. Something along these lines.

I've been in churches and synagogues and learned a lot. Oftentimes we're told what's true but it's important to weigh those teachings against our thoughts and beliefs and have opportunities to scrutinize our feelings. That's how it's processed. But it's equally important not to have so much instruction that you never learn how to hear from God. You don't know when He's speaking or how to get a word.

This may sound odd but I've come to realize I need my own place of worship. Something built from the ground up that implements the things I've learned and others you can't get elsewhere. A place where prayer warriors are birthed as children. You pour through scripture line by line. Greek and Hebrew are taught. God is not on the clock and breaking bread is our supper.

I want to see gifts and talents in action. All of them. There's a dearth of discernment in the church. He hasn't ceased to bestow it. But maybe we aren't listening. I want deep teachings and true community. Life preparation for marriage, college and careers. A place that prepares you for friendships, relationships and parenting. Lessons on personal development, communication, etiquette and more.

We go to the world for everything and wonder why we don't know His standard.

These are my meditations and what I put my mind towards. I ignore a lot and give greater focus to things of God. As a result I'm constantly discovering how to have more of Him. The ideas He bestows are remarkable. All problems have solutions. We need more time with Him to hear the remedy.

~bella

 

[2PhiloVoid]

There are actually groups decended from the early Mormons, the Restorationists as they call themselves, that are close to Mainline Protestantism. They are called the Communities of Christ. Though they have their origins in Mormonism, today they are closer to denominations like the Disciples of Christ (ie, "No creed but Christ", focus on the Bible and early church practice), and are for the most part more theologically liberal.

There's a Youtube channel that's an outreach of one of their churches in Toronto, CentrePlace, and the pastor there with a background in history and antiquities. Unless you read their denominations history, you'ld never know they had Joseph Smith in their history.

FD, let's not perpetuate the misconstrual between two competing "Restorationist" movements of the 1800s. While I no longer directly associate and identify with the Disciples of Christ/Christian Church/Church of Christ, it still bugs me when I see hints that all of this is somehow historically associated with Mormonism, which is really wasn't. The only thing they had in common with Mormons was the use (the competing use) of the term "Restoration."

By comparatively describing these groups the way you do here, you might leave readers with the wrong impression, sort of like if I were to casually drop the fact that Luther was highly critical of Jews and that, therefore, folks should think of Lutherans everywhere as "Jew-haters," which would be false.

 

[Kokavkrystallos]

The buildings are older in France. You'll have stained glass and a solid structure. The workmanship is lovely. I wanted a quiet place. Somewhere I could sit in solitude and commune with the Lord. But it has other uses and a small fellowship would be nice.

I value depth and maturity. There's things I can't receive in a traditional setting and things I want that aren't available. The only way to reconcile the two is something of my own. There's nothing more satisfying than building something from the ground up and birthing your vision.

I shared this on another thread. Something along these lines.

I've been in churches and synagogues and learned a lot. Oftentimes we're told what's true but it's important to weigh those teachings against our thoughts and beliefs and have opportunities to scrutinize our feelings. That's how it's processed. But it's equally important not to have so much instruction that you never learn how to hear from God. You don't know when He's speaking or how to get a word.

This may sound odd but I've come to realize I need my own place of worship. Something built from the ground up that implements the things I've learned and others you can't get elsewhere. A place where prayer warriors are birthed as children. You pour through scripture line by line. Greek and Hebrew are taught. God is not on the clock and breaking bread is our supper.

I want to see gifts and talents in action. All of them. There's a dearth of discernment in the church. He hasn't ceased to bestow it. But maybe we aren't listening. I want deep teachings and true community. Life preparation for marriage, college and careers. A place that prepares you for friendships, relationships and parenting. Lessons on personal development, communication, etiquette and more.

We go to the world for everything and wonder why we don't know His standard.

These are my meditations and what I put my mind towards. I ignore a lot and give greater focus to things of God. As a result I'm constantly discovering how to have more of Him. The ideas He bestows are remarkable. All problems have solutions. We need more time with Him to hear the remedy.

~bella

I have to get ready for church ( A little Baptist church) but I will reply to this later on this afternoon. I agree with all this and it pretty much echoes my feelings on the matter.

Thanks also for getting the thread back on track, talking about churches

 

[Kokavkrystallos]

I do have a few minutes before I have to leave. As far a dearth of discernment in the church - yes, absolutely. I've seen horrific abuses when people claim to have discernment too. But I've been in some really blessed services where there is real discernment, and gifts in operation: not the fake stuff of some televangelists.

I often go out in the woods or a field, or sit by a stream to pray and meditate on the Word and be closer to God without distraction of people, or traffic. Just nature - birds chirping, and the wound of a rushing stream or a waterfall, the wind, which always reminds me of John 3.

I went on a group hike with one of the churches last weekend and one of the leaders asked how we saw things of God in nature. People answered various things, the mountain, the trees, the sun that gives heat and light and can be related to the Son of God, the birds soaring - then the wind blew across the top of the hill we were on and I mentioned the wind, as the Spirit, - you cannot see it but you see its effects by the trees moving and feel it on your skin.

And, more churches need to do stuff like that with their congregations: go out on a hike with those who are able, or do things outdoors. Not just the church picnics, though those are ok. So many churches do NOTHING of the sort, except sit in pews or chairs every Sunday, or every Sabbath and hear the same songs and a message. That all has its place and a very important one, but the early church did things together, and went door to door in the community. One of my churches does that, though I haven't done it yet with them.

 

[bèlla]

And, more churches need to do stuff like that with their congregations: go out on a hike with those who are able, or do things outdoors. Not just the church picnics, though those are ok. So many churches do NOTHING of the sort, except sit in pews or chairs every Sunday, or every Sabbath and hear the same songs and a message. That all has its place and a very important one, but the early church did things together, and went door to door in the community. One of my churches does that, though I haven't done it yet with them.

The lack of creativity and ingenuity is astounded. It's the same old thing rinse and repeat that gets replicated. But I don't have the hindrances they do. Namely 501c3, denominational loyalties, and financial strangleholds. When you're relying on external support there are subjects you may avoid to minimize financial impact.

But when you fund it yourself you have greater autonomy. All subsidies have strings. Religious or otherwise. Innovation is possible when you're not beholden. And I like that. I think we'll see more of this in the years to come. Branching out or taking the reins of their spiritual walk and demanding more of themselves and others. They're not going to settle or accept lukewarm alternatives. They need meat and meat they'll have.

~bella

 

[FireDragon76]

FD, let's not perpetuate the misconstrual between two competing "Restorationist" movements of the 1800s. While I no longer directly associate and identify with the Disciples of Christ/Christian Church/Church of Christ, it still bugs me when I see hints that all of this is somehow historically associated with Mormonism, which is really wasn't. The only thing they had in common with Mormons was the use (the competing use) of the term "Restoration."

By comparatively describing these groups the way you do here, you might leave readers with the wrong impression, sort of like if I were to casually drop the fact that Luther was highly critical of Jews and that, therefore, folks should think of Lutherans everywhere as "Jew-haters," which would be false.

Sorry if I offended you.

I don't attach anything particularly negative to Mormons or Mormonism. If a person belonging to a church descended from Joseph Smith claims to be a Christian in the liberal Protestant tradition, I am willing to take them at face value as a fellow Christian of a similar orientation as myself.

 

[Kokavkrystallos]

The lack of creativity and ingenuity is astounded. It's the same old thing rinse and repeat that gets replicated. But I don't have the hindrances they do. Namely 501c3, denominational loyalties, and financial strangleholds. When you're relying on external support there are subjects you may avoid to minimize financial impact.

But when you fund it yourself you have greater autonomy. All subsidies have strings. Religious or otherwise. Innovation is possible when you're not beholden. And I like that. I think we'll see more of this in the years to come. Branching out or taking the reins of their spiritual walk and demanding more of themselves and others. They're not going to settle or accept lukewarm alternatives. They need meat and meat they'll have.

~bella

The church I attend is an Independent Baptist so is not tied to any denomination. It's supported solely by the congregation, which is small. We do get a few newcomers now and then. Maybe 30 people or 40 total with the kids. On Easter there was like 60, so not a large church. But the Word is preached, and we get meat. I love that last saying "They need meat and meat they'll have!" Amen and Amen!

You may like this message: The Boss is Here!

 

[Tuur]

This is a hard topic for me, for I no longer feel at home at the church where I'm a member, or in the local association, for that matter. The trouble is that it's easy to find fault to justify oneself and oneself is hardly an impeccable standard. The congregation is friendly, and yet I feel as though I have no church home. I'm an OEC, which was once the norm in local Baptist churches and now it seems YEC is. That's one reason I don't feel at home, but the bigger reason is I feel like the Southern Baptist Convention is trying to straddle the fence at time: trying to seem appealing to the world in the name of evangelism while also trying to remain on sound doctrine. I was not happy with a purported use of Cooperative funds prior to one convention election, or how congregations aren't kept informed on some things. Other things, like songs and order of service doesn't bother me nearly as much because such have changed over time and will continue to do so.

Perhaps the biggest issue in not feeling like I have a home is that when my family was going through a crises, I saw more compassion from other denominations than I did Baptists. Yet I can't agree with some doctrinal points of those denominations, so there's no home with them, either.

I do listen to sermons on the radio. The late Adrian Rodgers is a favorite. But that's not the same as church. And at times I wish I had a church home, but there seems to be no home for me.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Sorry if I offended you.

I don't attach anything particularly negative to Mormons or Mormonism. If a person belonging to a church descended from Joseph Smith claims to be a Christian in the liberal Protestant tradition, I am willing to take them at face value as a fellow Christian of a similar orientation as myself.

Oh, you didn't offend me. When I referred to my being "bugged" by the association you mildly made, it was simply that when I see an error in historical association being alluded to as a historical fact, my analytic and historical sensibilities flare up because in my philosophical outlook on life, I'm looking for statements of factual accuracy as representative of reality rather than either theology or accomodations to whatever makes us feel good.

But again, Alexander Campbell did not descend from Joseph Smith. Quite the contrary, really. Even though I don't agree with Alexander Campbell's cessationism, I still want to see Church History of any church described in historically accurate and fully contextualized terms. Disciples of Christ/Church of Christ/Christian Church are as different from Mormon theology as night and day.............and I say this as an impartial commentator who no longer believes in the same way as the Campbellites. But regardless, I like accurate details.

If, on the other hand, I've misread what your intended implications were, meant to be, I'm sorry ahead of time, FD.

 

[FireDragon76]

Oh, you didn't offend me. When I referred to my being "bugged" by the association you mildly made, it was simply that when I see an error in historical association being alluded to as a historical fact, my analytic and historical sensibilities flare up because in my philosophical outlook on life, I'm looking for statements of factual accuracy as representative of reality rather than either theology or accomodations to whatever makes us feel good.

But again, Alexander Campbell did not descend from Joseph Smith. Quite the contrary, really. Even though I don't agree with Alexander Campbell's cessationism, I still want to see Church History of any church described in historically accurate and fully contextualized terms. Disciples of Christ/Church of Christ/Christian Church are as different from Mormon theology as night and day.............and I say this as an impartial commentator who no longer believes in the same way as the Campbellites.

I can't speak much of the Church of Christ, having only had limited familiarity with them (my cousin is in that religious denomination, I would describe his religion as biblical fundamentalism of a sectarian sort), but from familiarity with the Disciple of Christ, it doesn't seem at all obvious to me. Disciples of Christ are a non/minimally confessional church, as are some Mormon groups.

The United Church of Christ actually has some historic ties to Restorationism, and the UCC congregation I am a member of has very close ties to the local Disciples of Christ congregation, including participating in some ministries.

But regardless, I like accurate details.

If, on the other hand, I've misread what your intended implications were, meant to be, I'm sorry ahead of time, FD.

It seems to me both the Christian movement and the Latter-Day saints emerged from a similar cultural milieu, so that's why I was saying I wasn't too surprised that they both can run in similar intellectual trajectories (towards liberal Protestantism).

 

[FireDragon76]

I could add a lot more stuff, but then my post would get long. Do not get me started on the pastor that kicked a Bible during a church service during the week of the Super Bowl (American Football is boring anyway, and does not belong in a church): Ohio megachurch pastor kicks Bible off stage during Super Bowl Sunday service

That stuff makes my blood boil.

Unfortunately, the mixing of crass entertainment and religion in the US is nothing new, it goes back to at least Billy Sunday, who often used similar antics to draw a crowd's attention.

 

[AlexB23]

Unfortunately, the mixing of crass entertainment and religion in the US is nothing new, it goes back to at least Billy Sunday, who often used similar antics to draw a crowd's attention.

Yeah, and we should do something about stopping crass entertainment in churches, especially in the US.