Restoring Christianity

[solitude]

Golden Rule. Live it.

The Sermon On The Mount. Live it.

[Martin]

kinda figured that it was a 'church of christ' site... guess every group has a distinct vocabulary. full disclosure... i don't attend this particular church but do attend a 'church of christ' congregation. while i can't speak for the op, i can speak as another member of that same group...

everyone since martin luther has thought he was doing the same thing. a call to the fundamental principles of christianity, gosh, how original!

i don't think originality is the point here... the point is seeking truth and making sure that the church abides by that truth. as a catholic, you find this truth through your catholic traditions. we believe that the bible is the inspired word of god... so we search for truth there. those such as martin luther made great strides to restore the church, but we feel that there is much to luther's doctrine that is irreconcilably flawed.

is this where the filthy pig hagee is speaking later this month?

NO. fortunately, hagee has no affilation with the churches of christ.

what sets your "return to core values" apart from someone like luther or calvin or zwingli or groeschel? (the last one is easy)

yeah... obviously the last one is easy. i wouldn't say that groeschel or those like him aim for a 'return to core values'... i'd say that those in that particular movement focus on making the church 'relevant' and 'hip' to the current culture.

as for luther, calvin and zwingli i'll agree that the motives are similar... a desire to 'restore' the church to a time that is perceived as a better state. what sets us apart is the 'core values' themselves... we find that those three (and many others) perpetuate flawed interpretations of scripture and therefore perpetuate flawed doctrines.

3 make every effort to keep the unity of the spirit through the bond of peace.

unity is a great thing... but one doesn't sacrifice truth for the sake of unity. that's where the theology of groeschel differs from that in most of the 'church of christ.'

since religious institutions are a part of the cultures in which they exist, in order to "restore" the church, wouldn't we also have to "restore" the rest of society to first century standards?

interesting point... but no. the idea isn't to restore the culture of the first century... the idea is that the earliest church is the model for how we should believe and what we should do and that to introduce doctrines and practices not found in scripture pollutes the church. therefore, the idea is to restore the church to the principles and practices upon which it was founded and that these principles are found only in scripture.

and what was so great about these mythical churches of the past? if you read paul and other writers of the time, the church was just as contentious and fractured then as now. why wouldn't it be? human nature hasn't really changed since then. people are just as prone to disagreement and argument now as ever.

another great point... i totally agree that scripture tells us that there was dissent in the early church... to me, that's a good thing because it tells us that our problems and our differences are normal and are bound to happen... what's valuable is the lessons learned from how the early church dealt with those problems and differences. in a way, i think you answered your previous concern here... while our culture varies greatly from that of the first century, human nature hasn't really changed that much. therefore the wisdom given from scripture to deal with these inevitable problems is just as relevant today.

these kinds of movements are really about people insecure about their place in the world and are desperately trying to stop everything from changing so they don't lose their place in the world.

i think you totally misunderstand here... the 'church of christ' doesn't try to stop everything from changing. we just believe that scripture is the inspired word of god and therefore the actions of the church must have their foundation on those scriptural principles and nothing else. it has nothing to do about 'losing our place in the world'... just with maintaining what we believe god desires of us.

catholic: a person who belongs to the universal christian church. despite the sinfulness of its people and its leaders, it endures today.

what's in a name? in australia, the church of jesus christ and latter day saints (mormons) refers to itself as 'the church of christ'... so does that mean they're part of the same affiliation? of course not. whether or not a group is part of the enduring legacy of christianity rests not with the name but with the principles and actions that group stands for. those in the 'church of christ' don't believe that the doctrines and practices of the catholic church are consistent with scripture and therefore not consistent with what god wants the church to be.

more than anything, i was commenting on ctr's post about the only church being that named after christ, which was validating how his church is the only church, and other churches (which i took to mean including catholic churches named after saints / men) are not worthy because they "marginalize christ and his world."

ughhh... i'm gonna have to use my shift key and capitalize a couple words to make my point on this one. in all fairness, we use the term 'church of Christ' not 'Church of Christ'... seems trivial, i know... but it's therefore not saying the same thing as 'Baptist Church' or 'Lutheran Church', etc... all it's saying is that it strives to be the church that christ established.

so... like i was saying about australia earlier... because of what the mormons call themselves there, our groups refers to itself as the 'church of God' in australia. perhaps you'll disagree, and that's cool, but the point is that the name should be scriptural... the church is god's and doesn't belong to any specific doctrine or belief... a believer in christ should strive to be a christian... no more... no less... no need to be a 'Baptist', a 'Lutheran', etc.
well...

that's probably enough outta me. -M

[Midtowner]

[SIZE=2]as for luther, calvin and zwingli i'll agree that the motives are similar... a desire to 'restore' the church to a time that is perceived as a better state. what sets us apart is the 'core values' themselves... we find that those three (and many others) perpetuate flawed interpretations of scripture and therefore perpetuate flawed doctrines.

And interestingly enough, I think that were Calvin, Zwingli or Luther alive today, they would find your interpretation of the scripture to be flawed as well.

I imagine that scriptural interpretation is similar to many other academic fields -- if you ask a panel of 10 academic experts about their opinion on any given subject, be prepared for any number of ideas (many conflicting, of course) which are claimed to be "true."

The scripture is the same way -- many read it different ways and come to extremely different conclusions. For example, some feel that we need only look at the literal truth of the Bible as it appears in English, since it's divinely inspired, it'll convey the right message (a/k/a the "if English was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for me" method). Others believe that you have to know the original language which the Bible was written in and have access to as near-to-manuscript writings as possible to correctly understand the Bible. Still others believe that one must have all that as well as a strong historical background to truly believe the Bible. Finally others believe that the Bible must be understood through the lens of other extra-Biblical dogma or scripture. All of those groups would come to similar, but still substantially different opinions as to what the "core" values of the Bible actually are.

For that reason, count me as a skeptic. When someone claims to be going back to the "core" of the scripture, I just roll my eyes and say "here we go again."

[Martin]

and interestingly enough, i think that were calvin, zwingli or luther alive today, they would find your interpretation of the scripture to be flawed as well.

no doubt... and i'd never claim otherwise. maybe they were 'right' maybe we are... either way, though, i think that 'truth' in the context of christianity is a universal thing... given conflicting viewpoints, both can't be 'right.'

here's the biggest bone i'd have to pick, though... while perhaps none of these men would have supported it in their lifetimes, their human interpretations of an (arguably) divine source have become creeds that form the backbone of denominational doctrine. people study those creeds without studying the scripture itself. to me, if some christian creed contains less than scripture then it is lacking in doctrine. if it contains more than what is found in scripture, then it is adding to god's doctrine and is therefore flawed. if it contains exactly what is found in scripture, then such a creed is simply the scripture itself... in my opinion, why depend on anything else.

i imagine that scriptural interpretation is similar to many other academic fields -- if you ask a panel of 10 academic experts about their opinion on any given subject, be prepared for any number of ideas (many conflicting, of course) which are claimed to be "true."

i totally agree. there are always going to be conflicting interpretations... as you've stated, there isn't even consensus on how to receive scripture... given that, i don't see how this nebulous idea of 'unity' could ever be a reality. at the end of the day, i think each person should study for himself and defend what he thinks is right... there are going to be some differences that are reconcileable, but others... not so much. to me, while unity is a nice thing, the point is truth rather than unity.

for that reason, count me as a skeptic. when someone claims to be going back to the "core" of the scripture, i just roll my eyes and say "here we go again."

to me, just because different groups come to different conclusions doesn't make the whole thing an excercise of futility... i think that many 'christian' groups practice things that no interpretation of scripture could justify... if believers would actually study what the bible says instead of taking another's word for it, i think they'd be in a better state.

-M

[Midtowner]

It'll just be too bad when we are all denied entrance at the Pearly gates because the folks at the "Flippin' Church of God" had it right all along.

[Martin]

oh wow... can't see how they didn't figure that one out. reminds me of the many 'bad church sign' blogs on the net.

i think it's offline now, but an organization called 'works through faith ministries' once owned the domain, 'wtfministries.com.'

-M

[downtown20]

Hasn't history pretty well proven fundamentalism is always a bad thing?

[Midtowner]

Hasn't history pretty well proven fundamentalism is always a bad thing?

Most people would be a little more careful about using absolutes to describe anything.

The easiest response to your question would be that perhaps the fundamentalists in history who according to you, did bad things, just failed to get fundamentalism right.

So long as they stay in their corners and don't bother the rest of us, I have no problem with fundamentalists.

[Edmond_Outsider]

That's the problem, Mid. Fundamentalists always seem to want to make everybody conform to their version THE TRUTH.

I agree, though. I don't care if you dress in fur and howl at the moon while kissing rattlesnakes. Just don't try to convince me that's the way I should live or try to force your religious bias on me via meddling with politics.

[joel228]

Just don't try to convince me that's the way I should live or try to force your religious bias on me via meddling with politics.

I don't think anyone should force people into believing their way, but trying to convince them in an appropriate public place, such as a public square or this discussion forum, is a completely different matter. I believe every Christian should speak with unbelievers about their faith regularly. Jesus told us to go and preach the gospel to everyone.

Also, there is nothing wrong with participating in a representative form of government and elected officials relying on religious beliefs to influence their policy, or voters likewise relying on religious beliefs to influence the candidates they choose to elect.

[Midtowner]

Also, there is nothing wrong with participating in a representative form of government and elected officials relying on religious beliefs to influence their policy, or voters likewise relying on religious beliefs to influence the candidates they choose to elect.

As far as what a voter does, they can do anything they want. If they want to vote for a guy solely because they are pro-life, power to 'em.

Elected officials are different though. Once you're elected to public office, you represent everyone, not just the folks who voted for you. Accordingly, it is okay to use your religion as a moral compass in deciding policy matters, i.e., the Bible says stealing is bad, so as a public official, it's a good thing not to condone stealing.

It is quite another thing for an elected official to use her position to try to force their dogma on others. For example, a school board official using her position to ensure that instead of scientific matters being discussed in science, creationism was taught instead.

[FritterGirl]

I don't think anyone should force people into believing their way, but trying to convince them in an appropriate public place, such as a public square or this discussion forum, is a completely different matter.

So, is walking on someone's PRIVATE property and knocking on their door an "appropriate public place?"

I believe every Christian should speak with unbelievers about their faith regularly. Jesus told us to go and preach the gospel to everyone.

And said Christians should respect those who choose not to believe, or believe in a different deity (or deities), and not judge them for being wrong, nor condemn others' holy books as being wrong. Sadly, that respect is seldom given. It usually ends up as a "My g_d is better than your g_d approach."

It's one thing to talk about one's faith in terms of how it guides one's life personally, another altogether as to be so intrusive as to tell another person their beliefs, however different, are wrong, and that "your way" is the only "right way."

Also, there is nothing wrong with participating in a representative form of government and elected officials relying on religious beliefs to influence their policy, or voters likewise relying on religious beliefs to influence the candidates they choose to elect.

It's one thing for a single elected official to let his/her religious/non-religious morals/beliefs to guide personal viewpoints with regard to voting, another altogether to allow religion in and of itself to enter into public policy discussions and decision-making.

[joel228]

So, is walking on someone's PRIVATE property and knocking on their door an "appropriate public place?"

'
It's not a public place. Whether it is appropriate is up for debate. I personally have found that people are automatically and unsurprisingly defensive when approached at their home. While I've had a few good conversations with people on their porch, I don't think door-to-door is effective. And I concede in most cases it is unnecessarily intrusive.

And said Christians should respect those who choose not to believe, or believe in a different deity (or deities),

I agree here. Christians should respect everyone and treat everyone with respect, regardless of the persons faith, lifestyle, appearance, you fill in the blank...

...and not judge them for being wrong, nor condemn others' holy books as being wrong. Sadly, that respect is seldom given. It usually ends up as a "My g_d is better than your g_d approach."

I believe the issue of right vs. wrong is independent of respect. Right vs. wrong can be respectfully argued. I often explain that I believe the words of Jesus when he said that he is "the way, the truth, and the life." and that no one comes to the Father but by him. I believe that any gods other than the God of the Bible are false gods and I have no reservations about saying so, but I can say it in a way that is respectful of those who disagree.

It's one thing to talk about one's faith in terms of how it guides one's life personally, another altogether as to be so intrusive as to tell another person their beliefs, however different, are wrong, and that "your way" is the only "right way."

You appear to misunderstand my faith. There is much more at stake than my life being personally guided, or winning an argument. Two people die every second. And I believe that if someone dies without Jesus Christ than they are going to hell. You may consider this to be an offensive belief, but it's what the Bible says. I believe it. While I know many don't agree with that belief, it is the belief I hold. And if I believe that, it is morally reprehensible for me to just let someone go to hell "out of respect for their beliefs."
Now, I'm not condemning them. My Bible says they're already condemned if they don't believe in Jesus. I am trying to do what Jesus did, to seek and save the lost. Jesus told us that God did not send him into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through him might be saved.
I am motivated by love for people, to try and rescue people from hell. I've had plenty of people walk away from me and tell me they simply disagree and will take their chances. But I've had very, very few get angry with me, because people can tell that I'm motivated by compassion. They may think I'm misguided, but they can for the most part see my motivation.

[windowphobe]

The folks who've knocked on my door have never sounded the least bit coercive. Maybe I'm more intimidating-looking than I think - or maybe some folks just resent the idea of people ringing the doorbell at all.

[kevinpate]

I've never met a pushy or unpleasant door knocker except for the semi-youngesters who used to try to peddle way overpriced magazine subscriptions, and I've not seen one of them in many a year now.

[FritterGirl]

I was never talking about folks who've been rude. With one exception, most of the religion peddlers who have found there way to my doorstep have been quite pleasant, and I make an effort to be pleasant with them, even offering to read from one of the many spirituality books in my collection when they offer to read from their book, and in the heat of summer, offering them nice chilled water.

Joel brought up the idea that it is the goal (according to his beliefs) that every Christian should try to "convince" others into believing their way in an "appropriate public place."

My question was whether MY doorstep, on property I LEGALLY own (well, technically my mortgage company owns it for the next 28 years), is considered an appropriate "public" place for said conversion, er, convincing tactics to take place. And if so, then how do these folks justify my doorstep as their public square?

[Oh GAWD the Smell!]

If I know that somebody is going to be knockin' on my door and prosthelytizing away...I make SURE that I'm only wearing a towel when I answer the door and at some point it WILL fall off. I also try to work in "c'mon in! We'll take a bath and talk about my soul!" at some point in the very short conversation.

See...It ticks me off to no end when they don't think that the "NO SOLICITING" sign applies to them.

[Edmond_Outsider]

By "force" I mean via stacking school boards so they have to teach junk science or trying to legislate morality evidenced by the silly history of alcohol law in OK.

Anybody remember liquor by the wink laws?

Of course our personal ethical and moral standards influence everything we do. It's not reasonble to expect otherwise. It's only when specific religious tests are placed on every public official's every action.

As for coercive religious prostltizing, I've been confronted with it more times than I can enumerate. Some of the more recent ones are:

1. Being confronted with two teenaged evangelists at the grocery store to convince me to go see "Passion Of The Christ" right then. They just "happened to have extra tickets" to give me and my 5 year old daughter. Lets forget for a second that this movie isn't really appropriate for a 5 year old. But, they would not take my polite "no thank you" for an answer. They kept saying, "we think it's really important for me to see "what it was like for him to die for our sins." After the 4th or 5th refusal, I started getting a bit testy. BLURG. Then, of course, I had just come from my church (who else but a chruch goer is dressed in a suit and tie at 11 AM on a Sunday) which they presumed wasn't jesusee enough for me and I need to go see Mel's blood feast to get my appropriate dose of Jesus.

2. A gaggle Jehovah's Witnesses, ranging from 6 to 60 and led by the a pushy, old, grouchy man, appeared in my garage to tell me how much danger I was in from dying in a nuclear war and going to hell. They had a copy of the Watchtower the old guy insisted I needed to read. That was worse because the guy came in my garage and would not leave despite my numerosus "no thank you" responses.

[Easy180]

'
I am motivated by love for people, to try and rescue people from hell. I've had plenty of people walk away from me and tell me they simply disagree and will take their chances. But I've had very, very few get angry with me, because people can tell that I'm motivated by compassion. They may think I'm misguided, but they can for the most part see my motivation.

I'm fine with that but I find most that knock on my door are just trying to promote their particular church...This just comes across as trying to increase attendance/donations instead of truly being concerned about my salvation

I would prefer they just give me literature about Christianity w/o the obvious promotions of the church they attend...Encouraging me to attend any church seems much more sincere

[joel228]

I'm fine with that but I find most that knock on my door are just trying to promote their particular church...This just comes across as trying to increase attendance/donations instead of truly being concerned about my salvation

I would prefer they just give me literature about Christianity w/o the obvious promotions of the church they attend...Encouraging me to attend any church seems much more sincere

Easy,
I encourage people to attend any church where they'll be encouraged to grow in their faith in Christ and the Bible is taught. That's the difference between evangelism and church-building. Jesus told us to preach the gospel and that he (Jesus) will build the church.