Unfortunately, after deliberating with shadow we have decided to end the debate on changing churches(not that anyone is reading). This is as we have both lost interest on the topic issue. The structure of future debates may be changed to prevent it being too draggy. Perhaps there will be no more debates. A blog is after all, not a good place for such events.
D
Tuesday, July 8, 2008
Sunday, June 15, 2008
The Treatise of a Free-Thinking Christian
A TREATISE ON THE FREE THINKING CHRISTIAN
What is a thinking Christian and are all called to think?
ON FREE THINKING
1)Every Christian has the right to think critically or not to think critically just as every man has the right to think critically or not to think critically
1.2 Every Christian who does not think does not forfeit salvation for thought is not the prerequisite for salvation
1.3 Every Christian who does not think still can be used by God for He still works in those who are not perfect
WHY ONE SHOULD THINK
2) Every Christian should think and consider their faith
2.4 For it is said in Philipians 4.8 to think on such things
2.5 Every Christian who believed 2.4 is not a thinking Christian for they have
believed an assertion and an overly ambitious interpretation of the verse
2.6 Every Christian is called to think for they should have a reason for their faith
as it is said in 1 Peter 3:15
2.7 Every Christian should ask themselves why they believe in God if in 2.6 they
do not have a reason for their faith.
2.8 Every Christian who in 2.6 states personal experience as a reason should
question why their personal experience should be put above the personal
experience of other religions
2.9 Every Christian is called to think for in Matthew 7:15, Jesus says beware of
false preachers. Preachers are not infallible, and it is not wrong to critique
them.
ON EXPERIENCES WITH GOD
3) Coming back to 2.8
3.1 Every thinking christian should ask why other religions have seemingly God experiences.
3.2 Every thinking christian if told that those experiences are deceitful and the lies
of the devil, should ask themselves how they do not know that their own experiences are deceitful and are the lies of the devil.
3.3 Every thinking christian should ask whether perhaps it is those religions that are right
3.4 Every thinking christian should ask why not accept the experience of a madman that there are aliens that look like clowns
3.5 Every thinking christian if told that the experience of a madman is unbelievable should question that maybe it is the madman who is sane and not us since we are basing our proof on experience alone.
ON DOUBT
4) Every christian should know that to doubt is to think
4.1 For to think is to not know everything
4.2 To not know everything is to question
4.3 Many christian books tell christians to think as it will strengthen their faith, but never say what should be done if they think and lose their faith
4.3 Every christian including new ones should think critically even if it means jeopardizing their faith
4.4 For what is their faith in the first place, if they did not think about it?
4.5 It is not the fault of those who truly disbelieve(honestly and not for ulterior motives) for not believing, it is the fault of the christian for not providing essential evidence.
4.6 By this I do not mean that non-believers do not go to hell(if there is such a place), but I mean to show that the church should not blame atheism on evolution, or certain books or philosophers but rather ask themselves whether they have managed to answer the books and philosophers.
4.7 Every Christian should know they are the “light of the world” therefore they must not shrink from an intellectual challenge. For Jesus interacted with all, not only the prostitutes but with lawyers and Pharisees as well who were the intellectuals of the day.
4.8 Every Christian should question why they should continue believing if the church cannot answer them
4.9 Every Christian should know no one has all the answers, but at least some sort of closure should be provided
4.91 Every church should question whether they are the light of the world if they cannot be an answer to Christians themselves, much less the world
ON FAITH
5) Hebrews 11:1 , For faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things unseen
5.1 Every thinking christian should know that in the bible it talks about the “evidence” of things unseen. Do we have the evidence for the things unseen? Or do we have mere feelings
5.2 Every thinking christian should know that nothing is can be absolutely known for certain and thus faith is needed.
5.3 Every thinking christian should question something if too much faith is necessary
5.4 Every thinking christian should know that mere belief in something is blind faith
5.5 Every thinking christian should know that thinking about their faith then truly implies rational faith
5.6 Every thinking christian should know that if one says that the atheistic challenge need not be met because we have faith, that faith is blind as it is mere belief without considering the whether the belief is true.
ON THINKING
6) Every thinking christian should have some background knowledge of their religion
6.1 Every thinking christian would have read some apologetics
6.2 Every thinking christian would have read some theology
6.3 Every thinking christian should have read a good atheistic book(at least)
6.4 Every thinking christian should know that know that philosophy is not something obscure and dangerous. They should know that our roots of theology in Aquinas and Augustine has roots in Greek philosophy.
6.5 Every thinking christian should have some sort of notion of church history
6.6 Every thinking christian should be open to criticisms by atheist, agnostics or even other Christians
6.7 Every thinking christian who has not done the above should not feel bad but rather start to do something.
ON DIALOGUES
7) Relating back to 6.6
7.1 Every thinking christian should know it is not wrong to debate with others and even non-christians
7.2 By arguments I mean logic and not real shouting and screaming
7.3 Some say that arguments cannot convert anybody. Atheists say that is why they are not Christians.
7.4 Again some say arguments cannot convert anybody. One should ask why they believe in something so unconvincing.
7.5 Again some say arguments cannot convert anybody. One should ask why so many people now believe the earth goes around the sun and not the sun around the earth. For it was an argument which has convinced people.
7.6 Some say arguments will lose the audience. True for some, for others they are lost if no arguments are given. For those who will not listen to arguments, they are not thinkers. For a thinker must defend their stance not on pure belief but on arguments.
7.7 This is not to say one should go around constantly arguing. There must be a balance. However one should not cower and retreat from arguments.
IN CONCLUSION
8) This has not been a comprehensive argument. These are things which to me are intuitive if one accepts that Christians should think.
8.1 No thinking Christian should reject this treatise on the claims of pastors or those in position, not even professors. The thinking Christian only has the right to reject this treatise on the basis of logic and argument.
8.2 The bible says to love the lord with all your heart, all your soul and all your MIND.
8.3 One cannot love someone, they do not know.
8.4 Sola christus, amen.
The Treatise of a Free-Thinking Christian
To Dad, probably the only christian that will
understand(by understand I mean empathise and not
comprehension alone)
this...maybe
HAPPY FATHER’S DAY
INTRODUCTION
I use to have a certain pity for atheists who comment on how Christians do not think and for those X-tians who have fallen away because of this. It is of course faulty logic to reject something on the basis that its proponents do not think. However, like a flash, a certain encounter has made me suddenly realise what they felt.
Even those Christians who agree with me that we must think about our faith, only seem to think that such deliberation is right if we strengthen our faith. If our thoughts lead us elsewhere, suddenly faith takes over and logic is kicked into the background. This is especially so if you have had “experiences” with God. Such double standards are sickening.
Would Martin Luther have decided that papal authority is infallible and that God is actually love if he followed “faith” instead of thinking? No, it is the study of scriptures that lead him to that conclusion. If he crumbled to pressure of having “faith”, the catholic church would still be selling indulgences for your sins. In fact Martin Luther said that unless it is shown in scripture or by logic(meaning even if there was no scriptural evidences but it was shown logically), he would not recant
I am calling this treatise that of the “free-thinking” christian. Though free thinking is often associated with atheists, a free thinker is actually one who bases his beliefs on logic, is open minded to new ideas and is ready to let go of their old beliefs if it is shown to be false. It is a sad state of the church that a freethinker is someone with secular beliefs since this implies that to follow logic is to abandon religion.
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
Changing Churches?(Opening rebuttal pt 2)
D has taken a very conservative stance of saying it is sometimes right to change church while it is sometimes wrong. In a sense he has proposed something very wishy-washy and I believe his definitions are rather unclear. As I have said in the first part of my opening, what if a person believes the doctrine of the church is wrong when the person himself is wrong? My previous analogy of the bowtie wearing Christian should prove this point.
Rather if D would like to propose doctrine, the imbalanced church and reluctance to change as circumstances, he should make the signs clearer and more objective instead of putting it into the hands of the christian and say do whatever you think.
I have said less than D, but I believe that I have already pointed out many fallacies in his thinking. Thus I close my opening.
-Shadow
Rather if D would like to propose doctrine, the imbalanced church and reluctance to change as circumstances, he should make the signs clearer and more objective instead of putting it into the hands of the christian and say do whatever you think.
I have said less than D, but I believe that I have already pointed out many fallacies in his thinking. Thus I close my opening.
-Shadow
In Reply: To Digress
There are a errors in your thinking my dear friend. Firstly, just because something is of natural origin does it mean it is not of God? Does not God use human means to reach others?
Secondly, are you saying that conversions can be not of God? Surely that is not true, for how can salvation which is by definition something given by God, be something that is not of God?
I believe the balancing point is that just because some experiences are natural, does not mean it is not of God. However since some experiences are natural, we have to be wise in differentiating between what is humanly induced and what is truly a God experience. A question though, even if some are humanly induced, might they not be of God since they would help increase a person's faith? Nevertheless you make a good point in saying that reliance on such experiences should not become the bedrock of proper christian faith.
-D
Secondly, are you saying that conversions can be not of God? Surely that is not true, for how can salvation which is by definition something given by God, be something that is not of God?
I believe the balancing point is that just because some experiences are natural, does not mean it is not of God. However since some experiences are natural, we have to be wise in differentiating between what is humanly induced and what is truly a God experience. A question though, even if some are humanly induced, might they not be of God since they would help increase a person's faith? Nevertheless you make a good point in saying that reliance on such experiences should not become the bedrock of proper christian faith.
-D
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
To Digress
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Sq-YUdq1OI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-DylNVUN_3I&feature=related
This is a bit of a distraction but these videos have just caught my attention. Now generally you might expect me to refute what is going on, but rather I am going to do the opposite. I am going to question our faith. Please watch the video first as it is essential to understanding the point I am about to make.
Before I begin, let me first state that there are a few large gaping loopholes in Derren's experiment such as expecting every pastor in the whole world to be trained hypnotist's and cold readers. However a valid point is made, "If these conversions can be made just because of natural circumstances, then is there really something supernatural?" Now let us not talk about conversions alone but rather all kinds of "spiritual" experiences.
It is commonplace to see people cry under the presence of God and feel so touched and yet they can just walk out of the place without a single change or dare I propose even leave without conviction. With all the brilliant and dazzling lights, with superb music, the jumping up and down, and of course the statements of faith; are these just items to help 'suggestibility'? Many would say, but these are all to help a person get closer to God. Well, that is exactly what 'suggestibility' is. Many a time we say we feel a great high during worship, sadly I have felt the same when listening to other music.
Let me drop the bombshell. This is just my bias opinion, but I agree with Derren Brown. Many times what we experience in church is just pure hype.
Such actions are by no means wrong. It is like closing our eyes when we pray, the action of closing our eyes actually help to keep us from being distracted. Nevertheless, it is the actual act of praying to God that is important, not the closing of our eyes. In primarily charismatic circles however, the 'closing of eyes' has become the main focus. But it needs to come to a place where we can go past all these things.
I remember in church one time a pastor said that the service must not be predictable so as to prevent the church from being "religious" and being "stuck in a certain culture". The same night, I read CS Lewis' Letters to Malcolm where he believes a service should always be the same. That is because it is not the service that matters, but the focusing on God. A service that always changes makes people distracted and deters focus. I believe both sides have certain truths, but I have begun to lean more on CS Lewis' side.
How can we come to a place where emotions do not matter anymore(not that emotions are not important but rather we place God before our emotions)? Where our decisions to praise God does not depend on how well we feel. How can we worship like those in persecuted countries where they can sit for hours listening to God's word? There is certainly no glamour in that, and many a strong Christian including myself would never sit for 6 hours straight just absorbing God's word. What makes the Bible so beautiful for them eventhought they have to walk miles to go for meetings, eventhough they sing songs that are decades old, eventhough there is no great pentacostal preacher?
What made those in the Old Testament love God so much? They did not have the priviledge that we have of knowing Jesus. They did not have the Holy Spirit. They were not able to communicate with God whenever and wherever they wanted. They had to slave to bring cows and sheep to the temple each week. What made David sing such beautiful praises and dance naked when the Jews regained the ark of the covenant.
Last comment, many a person would say they do not really know how to hear God's voice. How can we say we truly love and have a relationship with Him if we cannot communicate? Food for thought indeed: is our faith based on a real relationship with God or just suggestibility? Are we looking for the next high and spiritual experience or are we longing to sit before the feet of Jesus? That is another interesting question that can become a future debate, since there are so many things that we deem is religious which is just human, what is actual relationship with God?
-shadow
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-DylNVUN_3I&feature=related
This is a bit of a distraction but these videos have just caught my attention. Now generally you might expect me to refute what is going on, but rather I am going to do the opposite. I am going to question our faith. Please watch the video first as it is essential to understanding the point I am about to make.
Before I begin, let me first state that there are a few large gaping loopholes in Derren's experiment such as expecting every pastor in the whole world to be trained hypnotist's and cold readers. However a valid point is made, "If these conversions can be made just because of natural circumstances, then is there really something supernatural?" Now let us not talk about conversions alone but rather all kinds of "spiritual" experiences.
It is commonplace to see people cry under the presence of God and feel so touched and yet they can just walk out of the place without a single change or dare I propose even leave without conviction. With all the brilliant and dazzling lights, with superb music, the jumping up and down, and of course the statements of faith; are these just items to help 'suggestibility'? Many would say, but these are all to help a person get closer to God. Well, that is exactly what 'suggestibility' is. Many a time we say we feel a great high during worship, sadly I have felt the same when listening to other music.
Let me drop the bombshell. This is just my bias opinion, but I agree with Derren Brown. Many times what we experience in church is just pure hype.
Such actions are by no means wrong. It is like closing our eyes when we pray, the action of closing our eyes actually help to keep us from being distracted. Nevertheless, it is the actual act of praying to God that is important, not the closing of our eyes. In primarily charismatic circles however, the 'closing of eyes' has become the main focus. But it needs to come to a place where we can go past all these things.
I remember in church one time a pastor said that the service must not be predictable so as to prevent the church from being "religious" and being "stuck in a certain culture". The same night, I read CS Lewis' Letters to Malcolm where he believes a service should always be the same. That is because it is not the service that matters, but the focusing on God. A service that always changes makes people distracted and deters focus. I believe both sides have certain truths, but I have begun to lean more on CS Lewis' side.
How can we come to a place where emotions do not matter anymore(not that emotions are not important but rather we place God before our emotions)? Where our decisions to praise God does not depend on how well we feel. How can we worship like those in persecuted countries where they can sit for hours listening to God's word? There is certainly no glamour in that, and many a strong Christian including myself would never sit for 6 hours straight just absorbing God's word. What makes the Bible so beautiful for them eventhought they have to walk miles to go for meetings, eventhough they sing songs that are decades old, eventhough there is no great pentacostal preacher?
What made those in the Old Testament love God so much? They did not have the priviledge that we have of knowing Jesus. They did not have the Holy Spirit. They were not able to communicate with God whenever and wherever they wanted. They had to slave to bring cows and sheep to the temple each week. What made David sing such beautiful praises and dance naked when the Jews regained the ark of the covenant.
Last comment, many a person would say they do not really know how to hear God's voice. How can we say we truly love and have a relationship with Him if we cannot communicate? Food for thought indeed: is our faith based on a real relationship with God or just suggestibility? Are we looking for the next high and spiritual experience or are we longing to sit before the feet of Jesus? That is another interesting question that can become a future debate, since there are so many things that we deem is religious which is just human, what is actual relationship with God?
-shadow
Friday, April 25, 2008
Changing Churches (Opening rebuttal pt 1)
Unfortunately, I have not fully formulated all my arguments yet but let me first go through D's arguments one by one to determine their validity. I have no time and no need for fancy openings or inspirational quotes unlike D.
Next let us enter into the real argument. In D's first proposition, he states that it is permissible to change church because of what happened in Revelation with the Nicolatans. D should be reminded that he cannot be too literally taking that as proof for the situation in the Bible is different from today in many ways as D himself admits:
So how does D know this? I thought earlier on D states that a church should be balanced? Now he talks about just service and little teaching. I suppose it would be alright if a church had a great feeding the poor program but every sunday the preacher just says Jesus loves you and ends the service. I know that is an exaggeration, but it perfectly fits into the parameters that D has set.
-Shadow
While this is by no means wrong, we have shifted the focus of the church from God to ourselves, the people.D interestingly says this but a question can be asked, we shift our focus on God, but did not God say love your neighbour as yourself? God in Genesis said to Abraham, that He would bless him as long as he became a blessing to other nations. It is just the silly that talk about God all the time and yet do nothing for His people. Remember Jesus talking about the goats and the sheep? It is those that feed the hungry and give to the needy that will essentially inherit the kingdom. Yes, it is all about God! But likewise, God is all about the people! I think the main important focus is that we do not just abstain from loving ourselves, but rather love all things that God loves.
Next let us enter into the real argument. In D's first proposition, he states that it is permissible to change church because of what happened in Revelation with the Nicolatans. D should be reminded that he cannot be too literally taking that as proof for the situation in the Bible is different from today in many ways as D himself admits:
As such, today we are not going to have a Bible exposition but rather we are forced to use analytical thinking to produce an answer.Firstly, they were changing groups not churches. Secondly, how can D assume that the church will proclaim the Nicolaitans as a sect? Thirdly, since the situation then was different, how can you assume that it will allowed today? It is D's premise that since they did it then, we can do it now. But in the first place D establishes that the church back then was different from now! So how can we apply the same rules again to two different situations?
Now it might be asked why is this so? Well in the early church, there were not so many denominations as there are today.
Redundant statement, those who are in a new town are not changing churches. They are looking for a new one.
It does not relate to those who are in a new town and are looking for a new church.
How does one be strong enough to have commitment to the church and help it when it is struggling? This is done by training up strong christians. How can a dying church grow strong christians? As such it is not so simple an answer as D would like us to think. Besides that, D does not give a clear answer to the second question. Is he implying that Christians should not change churches?
That is why we must be committed to a church, and help it even if it is struggling, even if it is lousy, and even if it is dying.
So D creates a chaotic system where everyone tries to change the church. Take for example if a person believes that every christian should wear bowties to church. He then tells that to the pastor. The pastor refuses to accept it. As such, the person now has the perogative to leave the church. This is also implied when D talks about doctrine. Yes it can work for those with good doctrine, but what about those with bad doctrine? For no one thinks that their own doctrine is false.
If a christian has not tried to help and change the church, the christian has no right to change church.
Basically a church should be balanced.Then again, who is the more authoritative person to say whether or not the church is balanced? Is it not the pastors who have more experience? D is basically taking all power out of church authorities and putting it into the hands of people. He is doing exactly the opposite of what he is intending to do in the first place of keeping the army of God together.
But, if the ministries of the church are effective or have the potential, then stay. Let me say this, you will grow more from serving people than obtaining greater teaching.
So how does D know this? I thought earlier on D states that a church should be balanced? Now he talks about just service and little teaching. I suppose it would be alright if a church had a great feeding the poor program but every sunday the preacher just says Jesus loves you and ends the service. I know that is an exaggeration, but it perfectly fits into the parameters that D has set.
-Shadow
Thursday, March 27, 2008
Pause
Unfortunately, due to unforseen circumstances, this blog will have to be put on hold. My reply which was supposedly supposed to come soon will have to wait. Till then...
Shadow
Shadow
Monday, February 25, 2008
Additional Rules
This is something that I have just occured to me. No posts can be changed or editted after the opponent has posted. So once I have posted my opening argument, D can no longer edit his previous posts. This is to ensure that we do not just simply change our posts midway in the argument. This applies on grammatical and spelling errors as well.
BTW, there are no apologies needed, as I have said before, this blog is not for anyone else. Will be replying soon.
-Shadow
BTW, there are no apologies needed, as I have said before, this blog is not for anyone else. Will be replying soon.
-Shadow
Sunday, February 24, 2008
Apologies
Sorry if there are any incoherent sentences in my writings. These are for me and Shadow's intellectual and writing practice sake. We are just lay people and not proffesionals and I hope it does not show too much.
-D
-D
Changing Churches?(Opening post-Pt2)
CAN CHRISTIANS CHANGE CHURCH? IF SO, SHOULD THEY AND UNDER WHAT CIRCUMSTANCES?
Should Christians Change Churches?
Now that we have covered the first question let us proceed to next important section. Firstly, let me say that there is a difference from "can" change church to "should" change church. It might be permissible but not advisable. Basing our inference from Rev 2:14-16 it would indeed seem that there are indeed circumstances where one can change churches. If Shadow would like to contest this fact(that sometimes christians should), let him discuss it together with whether we can. Why you say? This is because the way I phrased the argument in the first part of my opening argument covers this topic in a way.
However, I will not be lazy and leave it at that, let me say why Christians should not change churches. If you look at the historical church in the Bible, it is very different from the current state of the church. Thus all my statements of the early church in the previous post can no longer be used. This is because they would no longer be relevant in the current church situation where there no longer is one unified church body.
Let me begin by saying that this would only relate to those who are already planted in churches. It does not relate to those who are in a new town and are looking for a new church. Of course under those circumstances it would be suitable to look around until you are comfortable in one place or find a place you feel God has called you to.
We are the body of Christ(1st Cor 12:12-14) and we can be said as to be one army. Also remember that we do have a last commission of reaching the nations(matthew 28:19-20). It would be only logical that for an organization to undertake such a huge mandate that all its members must be commited. The fact that we have so many denominations can perhaps be a blessing in disguise that our system is much more flexible than in earlier days(if only we can get over inter-church disunity). What would happen if in each of the churches people left at any sight of problem? It would lead to chaos. In an army you do not run if you encounter the enemy, your job is to fight. It is same with the church, why do people think that the church is invulnerable to satan's attacks? If we encounter problems, we must face them head on with the whole church behind the leadership. Besides that, the people in the church must be committed to serving in the church to touch the lost and people around them. Effective ministries cannot be built if the members leave after every few years. Let me say this, serving in the church is more important than what you can learn in church. The emphasis in the Bible has always been to bring back more people to God. Knowing "about" God is not as important as bringing someone to know God. After all when we die we will meet God Himself and our knowledge about Him will be complete regardless of what we know in the present world.
Our main goal is to SERVE JESUS, how are we going to do that if we constantly care about which church will best SERVE US? That is why we must be committed to a church, and help it even if it is struggling, even if it is lousy, and even if it is dying.
(EDIT: What I mean by knowing about God means that we just want head knowledge or more teaching or new theology. Knowing God means your relationship gets deeper with God by praying, worship etc. )
What are the right circumstances?
Let me first say that the circumstances that I list out should only be taken if the church leadership is adamant not to change and if they have a "I am right" attitude. If a christian has not tried to help and change the church, the christian has no right to change church.
1) DOCTRINE
This would of course be the main reason why a person should change church. If for example the church does not believe in Jesus then for what reason are you in the church. You can't bring people to Christ if the church under you work does not believe in Jesus. If the church has wrong doctrine and does not intend to change its doctrine, a christian should leave right away lest he/she fall into sin as well. However, let me say that this should apply only to major doctrines of the faith. Some parts of theology such as the nature of God, while being a hot topic is very controversial , does not really affect ones love for Jesus and it is already said in the Bible, the Lord's ways are higher than our ways. Do we really think we can put God on a piece of paper?(Interesting facts: Think that Calvinism[everything is predetermined] is wrong? The great theologian JI Packer and the great preacher the late Charles Spurgeon are(were) staunch Calvinists. Think about that.)
2)RELUCTANCE TO CHANGE
Seems like I am repeating myself, but it is true. If a church is ever reluctant to progress and continually challenge itself, then leave. Why do I say that? This is because the only church that would ever do such a thing is a church who thinks it is perfect. Of course let me say that I am using the word change very loosely. I include a growing vision into change. I am not saying that a church must keep up with the latest fashions and trends, but it must keep up with problems it faces and with the community. A church which cannot relate to a community cannot reach it.
3) INBALANCED CHURCH
Basically a church should be balanced. If a certain church does not want worship or does not want evangelism then leave the church. Many a time a church only wants what can bring itself more fame. A church should always have a good mix of worship, teaching, evangelism and ministry with missions tying it altogether. I am not talking about churches who perhaps are better at worship than the word or vice versa. I am talking about churces who would not even want to touch missions(for example).
I believe these three things would cover all reasons. Any other reasons not in these three should be too petty to mention( I would be grateful to Shadow to point out anymore as I am sleepy and can only think of these 3).
Now you might be saying, wait a minute! Where are all your Bible verses to back you up? Well like I said at the beginning of my post, the early church is so different from the church today that even if there were any verses that are related to this topic, they would not be relevant.
There is something that should be addressed however as it seems to be quite popular. It does not really relate to the topic but is important nonetheless.
SHOULD A CHRISTIAN LEAVE BECAUSE OF SHALLOW PREACHING?
I should first make sure there is a difference between shallow preaching and wrong preaching. If it is wrong preaching you should definitely leave. Shallow preaching is a totally different matter. Let me make a big statement. If you want deep teaching.... don't go to church!!!! Why? Pastors jobs are so diverse and burdensome that they have barely enought time for personal study. Besides, the main objectives of the church are not just in teaching. Basically if you hang around in a church long enough, you would have listened to all the sermons the pastor of that church has to preach. In fact if you hang aroung even longer, you would have listened to most of the kind of sermons in the ENTIRE lay-christian(note the lay) community. As I have said before, service to the community and outreach ministries are more important than what we know about God. When we get to heaven we will know much more about Him anyway. If the shallow preaching of a pastor leads to shallow ministries then by all means leave(and if the leadership will not change). But, if the ministries of the church are effective or have the potential, then stay. Let me say this, you will grow more from serving people than obtaining greater teaching.
There is good news however. The place to go for deep teaching is....Bible seminary and books!!! Go to the Bible seminary. People there are paid to come up with new ideas and to explore doctrines. Your pastors are not and might not have the capabilities. Look at the 12 apostles, how many of them were "trained" in Bible teaching. They were trained to evangelise! They did not even have a degree behind them, they barely were christians and already went from town to town preaching the good news. If you are truly serious about deeper teachings then get off your butt. Don't be lazy and expect pastors to feed you. Go and pick up books and read. If you were really "better" than those shallow pastors you would already know this and would not need to solely rely on pastors. Think for a while, where do pastors get their teaching from? The answer is simple, they study by themselves. So let us imitate them as they imitate Christ.
Please forgive me if I have been too critical or have been ranting but this is indeed an important issue and the ME attitude in the church has to be shaken out.
-D
Should Christians Change Churches?
Now that we have covered the first question let us proceed to next important section. Firstly, let me say that there is a difference from "can" change church to "should" change church. It might be permissible but not advisable. Basing our inference from Rev 2:14-16 it would indeed seem that there are indeed circumstances where one can change churches. If Shadow would like to contest this fact(that sometimes christians should), let him discuss it together with whether we can. Why you say? This is because the way I phrased the argument in the first part of my opening argument covers this topic in a way.
However, I will not be lazy and leave it at that, let me say why Christians should not change churches. If you look at the historical church in the Bible, it is very different from the current state of the church. Thus all my statements of the early church in the previous post can no longer be used. This is because they would no longer be relevant in the current church situation where there no longer is one unified church body.
Let me begin by saying that this would only relate to those who are already planted in churches. It does not relate to those who are in a new town and are looking for a new church. Of course under those circumstances it would be suitable to look around until you are comfortable in one place or find a place you feel God has called you to.
We are the body of Christ(1st Cor 12:12-14) and we can be said as to be one army. Also remember that we do have a last commission of reaching the nations(matthew 28:19-20). It would be only logical that for an organization to undertake such a huge mandate that all its members must be commited. The fact that we have so many denominations can perhaps be a blessing in disguise that our system is much more flexible than in earlier days(if only we can get over inter-church disunity). What would happen if in each of the churches people left at any sight of problem? It would lead to chaos. In an army you do not run if you encounter the enemy, your job is to fight. It is same with the church, why do people think that the church is invulnerable to satan's attacks? If we encounter problems, we must face them head on with the whole church behind the leadership. Besides that, the people in the church must be committed to serving in the church to touch the lost and people around them. Effective ministries cannot be built if the members leave after every few years. Let me say this, serving in the church is more important than what you can learn in church. The emphasis in the Bible has always been to bring back more people to God. Knowing "about" God is not as important as bringing someone to know God. After all when we die we will meet God Himself and our knowledge about Him will be complete regardless of what we know in the present world.
Our main goal is to SERVE JESUS, how are we going to do that if we constantly care about which church will best SERVE US? That is why we must be committed to a church, and help it even if it is struggling, even if it is lousy, and even if it is dying.
(EDIT: What I mean by knowing about God means that we just want head knowledge or more teaching or new theology. Knowing God means your relationship gets deeper with God by praying, worship etc. )
What are the right circumstances?
Let me first say that the circumstances that I list out should only be taken if the church leadership is adamant not to change and if they have a "I am right" attitude. If a christian has not tried to help and change the church, the christian has no right to change church.
1) DOCTRINE
This would of course be the main reason why a person should change church. If for example the church does not believe in Jesus then for what reason are you in the church. You can't bring people to Christ if the church under you work does not believe in Jesus. If the church has wrong doctrine and does not intend to change its doctrine, a christian should leave right away lest he/she fall into sin as well. However, let me say that this should apply only to major doctrines of the faith. Some parts of theology such as the nature of God, while being a hot topic is very controversial , does not really affect ones love for Jesus and it is already said in the Bible, the Lord's ways are higher than our ways. Do we really think we can put God on a piece of paper?(Interesting facts: Think that Calvinism[everything is predetermined] is wrong? The great theologian JI Packer and the great preacher the late Charles Spurgeon are(were) staunch Calvinists. Think about that.)
2)RELUCTANCE TO CHANGE
Seems like I am repeating myself, but it is true. If a church is ever reluctant to progress and continually challenge itself, then leave. Why do I say that? This is because the only church that would ever do such a thing is a church who thinks it is perfect. Of course let me say that I am using the word change very loosely. I include a growing vision into change. I am not saying that a church must keep up with the latest fashions and trends, but it must keep up with problems it faces and with the community. A church which cannot relate to a community cannot reach it.
3) INBALANCED CHURCH
Basically a church should be balanced. If a certain church does not want worship or does not want evangelism then leave the church. Many a time a church only wants what can bring itself more fame. A church should always have a good mix of worship, teaching, evangelism and ministry with missions tying it altogether. I am not talking about churches who perhaps are better at worship than the word or vice versa. I am talking about churces who would not even want to touch missions(for example).
I believe these three things would cover all reasons. Any other reasons not in these three should be too petty to mention( I would be grateful to Shadow to point out anymore as I am sleepy and can only think of these 3).
Now you might be saying, wait a minute! Where are all your Bible verses to back you up? Well like I said at the beginning of my post, the early church is so different from the church today that even if there were any verses that are related to this topic, they would not be relevant.
There is something that should be addressed however as it seems to be quite popular. It does not really relate to the topic but is important nonetheless.
SHOULD A CHRISTIAN LEAVE BECAUSE OF SHALLOW PREACHING?
I should first make sure there is a difference between shallow preaching and wrong preaching. If it is wrong preaching you should definitely leave. Shallow preaching is a totally different matter. Let me make a big statement. If you want deep teaching.... don't go to church!!!! Why? Pastors jobs are so diverse and burdensome that they have barely enought time for personal study. Besides, the main objectives of the church are not just in teaching. Basically if you hang around in a church long enough, you would have listened to all the sermons the pastor of that church has to preach. In fact if you hang aroung even longer, you would have listened to most of the kind of sermons in the ENTIRE lay-christian(note the lay) community. As I have said before, service to the community and outreach ministries are more important than what we know about God. When we get to heaven we will know much more about Him anyway. If the shallow preaching of a pastor leads to shallow ministries then by all means leave(and if the leadership will not change). But, if the ministries of the church are effective or have the potential, then stay. Let me say this, you will grow more from serving people than obtaining greater teaching.
There is good news however. The place to go for deep teaching is....Bible seminary and books!!! Go to the Bible seminary. People there are paid to come up with new ideas and to explore doctrines. Your pastors are not and might not have the capabilities. Look at the 12 apostles, how many of them were "trained" in Bible teaching. They were trained to evangelise! They did not even have a degree behind them, they barely were christians and already went from town to town preaching the good news. If you are truly serious about deeper teachings then get off your butt. Don't be lazy and expect pastors to feed you. Go and pick up books and read. If you were really "better" than those shallow pastors you would already know this and would not need to solely rely on pastors. Think for a while, where do pastors get their teaching from? The answer is simple, they study by themselves. So let us imitate them as they imitate Christ.
Please forgive me if I have been too critical or have been ranting but this is indeed an important issue and the ME attitude in the church has to be shaken out.
-D
Thursday, February 21, 2008
Changing Churches?(Opening post-Pt1)
CAN CHRISTIANS CHANGE CHURCH? IF SO, SHOULD THEY AND UNDER WHAT CIRCUMSTANCES
A chronic illness is haunting the very roots of the church today. In its efforts to be seeker friendly and to make people feel more comfortable we have inadvertently created a humanistic generation of christians. The prominent idea is that the church is there to help the people, the church is there to heal our hurting hearts, the church is there to help you along your road of life, the church is there to help you when you are lost (Evidence of this is the increasing interest in inner healing ministries and ideas of being trendy whilst neglecting missions and helping our local communities).While this is by no means wrong, we have shifted the focus of the church from God to ourselves, the people. It should be reminded that Jesus indeed said that He will give us peace, but at the same time he commanded people to sell all they had(matthew 19:21), He told them that they will be persecuted just as He was(matthew 5:11-12) and He said that as the end draws near, things will worsen(matthew 24:4-10). These words to me are neither particularly comforting nor attractive.
However, the humanistic worldview that has crept into the church seems to generate Christians who are forever changing churches to fulfill their needs. Complaints that the church is not doing well or that the leadership of the church is weak or that they are not being fed properly is widespread. It has been reiterated over and over again that no church is perfect. Does this then mean that we should never change churches because the church next door has problems as well? When is it permissible for one to change church? Now I digress, for we must start with the first question itself, "Is it permissible for one to change church?"
"Is it Permissible to Change Churches?"
Interestingly enough, one cannot refer to the Bible directly for any straightforward answers. Since the first question itself is already of this nature, the related questions are so as well. As such, today we are not going to have a Bible exposition but rather we are forced to use analytical thinking to produce an answer.
Now it might be asked why is this so? Well in the early church, there were not so many denominations as there are today. Churches were identified by their state such as the Church of Ephesus and the Church of Phillipi. In fact their structure seemed to have a central administrative system for each state.http://www.fatheralexander.org/booklets/english/worship_early_church_ext.htm
They did have their own meeting places but if there was any problems it would be logical to bring it to the apostles themselves. In fact this was the case until Martin Luther broke off from the Catholic church(interestingly the catholic church means the universal church) and started the Lutheran denomination.
However my statement that no scriptural reference can be used is not entirely true. We see this verse in Revelation 2:14-16 where God is admonishing the church of Pergamos:
Rev 2:14 But I have a few things against you, because you have there those who hold the teachings of Balaam, who taught Balak to cast a stumbling-block before the sons of Israel, to eat things sacrificed to idols and to commit fornication.
Rev 2:15 So you also have those who hold the teaching of the Nicolaitans, which thing I hate.
Rev 2:16 Repent! But if not I will come to you quickly, and will fight with them by the sword of My mouth.
Let us now consider those who were part of the people who held the teachings of Balaam and the Nicolaitans(it is also interesting to note that the WHOLE church of Pergamom was admonished and not just those who had diverted from the path). If some of them repented while a majority of others did not, what should they have done(Let us say that the majority of the group was adamant and there seemingly was no hope for them to repent)? Surely they would not stay in the same group of people who were sinning. Surely if they had repented they would have joined the other factions of the church of Pergamom to counsel those who had gone astray. I would assume that if the Balaamites(not sure if this is correct) and Nicolaitons decided they would not change, that the church of Pergamom would be forced to declare them a sect and not part of the body of Christ(This would be the beginning of the Lord's fight against them or any similar alternative). Thus as I have said before, those who repented from the Balaamites and Nicolaitons would surely no longer follow them if they were declared a sect and thus follow another group/church. This is the only logical deduction if indeed the Lord came and fought them with the sword of His mouth. Thus it would be permissible for one to change church.
-D
A chronic illness is haunting the very roots of the church today. In its efforts to be seeker friendly and to make people feel more comfortable we have inadvertently created a humanistic generation of christians. The prominent idea is that the church is there to help the people, the church is there to heal our hurting hearts, the church is there to help you along your road of life, the church is there to help you when you are lost (Evidence of this is the increasing interest in inner healing ministries and ideas of being trendy whilst neglecting missions and helping our local communities).While this is by no means wrong, we have shifted the focus of the church from God to ourselves, the people. It should be reminded that Jesus indeed said that He will give us peace, but at the same time he commanded people to sell all they had(matthew 19:21), He told them that they will be persecuted just as He was(matthew 5:11-12) and He said that as the end draws near, things will worsen(matthew 24:4-10). These words to me are neither particularly comforting nor attractive.
However, the humanistic worldview that has crept into the church seems to generate Christians who are forever changing churches to fulfill their needs. Complaints that the church is not doing well or that the leadership of the church is weak or that they are not being fed properly is widespread. It has been reiterated over and over again that no church is perfect. Does this then mean that we should never change churches because the church next door has problems as well? When is it permissible for one to change church? Now I digress, for we must start with the first question itself, "Is it permissible for one to change church?"
"Is it Permissible to Change Churches?"
Interestingly enough, one cannot refer to the Bible directly for any straightforward answers. Since the first question itself is already of this nature, the related questions are so as well. As such, today we are not going to have a Bible exposition but rather we are forced to use analytical thinking to produce an answer.
Now it might be asked why is this so? Well in the early church, there were not so many denominations as there are today. Churches were identified by their state such as the Church of Ephesus and the Church of Phillipi. In fact their structure seemed to have a central administrative system for each state.http://www.fatheralexander.org/booklets/english/worship_early_church_ext.htm
They did have their own meeting places but if there was any problems it would be logical to bring it to the apostles themselves. In fact this was the case until Martin Luther broke off from the Catholic church(interestingly the catholic church means the universal church) and started the Lutheran denomination.
However my statement that no scriptural reference can be used is not entirely true. We see this verse in Revelation 2:14-16 where God is admonishing the church of Pergamos:
Rev 2:14 But I have a few things against you, because you have there those who hold the teachings of Balaam, who taught Balak to cast a stumbling-block before the sons of Israel, to eat things sacrificed to idols and to commit fornication.
Rev 2:15 So you also have those who hold the teaching of the Nicolaitans, which thing I hate.
Rev 2:16 Repent! But if not I will come to you quickly, and will fight with them by the sword of My mouth.
Let us now consider those who were part of the people who held the teachings of Balaam and the Nicolaitans(it is also interesting to note that the WHOLE church of Pergamom was admonished and not just those who had diverted from the path). If some of them repented while a majority of others did not, what should they have done(Let us say that the majority of the group was adamant and there seemingly was no hope for them to repent)? Surely they would not stay in the same group of people who were sinning. Surely if they had repented they would have joined the other factions of the church of Pergamom to counsel those who had gone astray. I would assume that if the Balaamites(not sure if this is correct) and Nicolaitons decided they would not change, that the church of Pergamom would be forced to declare them a sect and not part of the body of Christ(This would be the beginning of the Lord's fight against them or any similar alternative). Thus as I have said before, those who repented from the Balaamites and Nicolaitons would surely no longer follow them if they were declared a sect and thus follow another group/church. This is the only logical deduction if indeed the Lord came and fought them with the sword of His mouth. Thus it would be permissible for one to change church.
-D
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
Further Rules
I would like to alter the rules regarding the following:
"Debates will assume that the Bible in its entirety is the authoritative word of God. There will be no place for higher criticism(e.g. this book should not be in the bible) or skepticism (e.g.Does God exist?)."
This will henceforth be stated as the Bible Rule. However, in some debates, it will not apply. This is apparent if a debate such as "why Esther does not mention the name of God" were to arise. Whether or not this rule applies, will be stated with the announcement of each topic of discussion.
Let me put down one more rule which applies only for the first debate. The rule of the changing of churches is irrelevant to denominations(if there is a rule). It will be a general rule which can be used by any of the denominations.
-D
"Debates will assume that the Bible in its entirety is the authoritative word of God. There will be no place for higher criticism(e.g. this book should not be in the bible) or skepticism (e.g.Does God exist?)."
This will henceforth be stated as the Bible Rule. However, in some debates, it will not apply. This is apparent if a debate such as "why Esther does not mention the name of God" were to arise. Whether or not this rule applies, will be stated with the announcement of each topic of discussion.
Let me put down one more rule which applies only for the first debate. The rule of the changing of churches is irrelevant to denominations(if there is a rule). It will be a general rule which can be used by any of the denominations.
-D
Monday, February 18, 2008
First Debate
The first topic of debate which shall take place is "Whether Christians are allowed to change churches. If yes, should they and under what circumstances."
The format shall go as follows: D shall open the debate with his definition of the topic, opinions and supporting arguments. I shall do the same in the following post. Next both of us would be allowed 2 rebuttal posts each. Finally each party will have to conclude with closing arguments.
This is just an initial trial arrangement, following arguments will be conducted in similar manner unless stated otherwise. Debates will assume that the Bible in its entirety is the authoritative word of God. There will be no place for higher criticism(e.g. this book should not be in the bible) or skepticism (e.g.Does God exist?).
The standing of D and myself is simple, whatever side D takes, I will oppose him. D might not always entirely support or reject the topic and may sometimes take the middle ground. Confused? Well it doesn't matter because this blog is not for any of you.
-Shadow
The format shall go as follows: D shall open the debate with his definition of the topic, opinions and supporting arguments. I shall do the same in the following post. Next both of us would be allowed 2 rebuttal posts each. Finally each party will have to conclude with closing arguments.
This is just an initial trial arrangement, following arguments will be conducted in similar manner unless stated otherwise. Debates will assume that the Bible in its entirety is the authoritative word of God. There will be no place for higher criticism(e.g. this book should not be in the bible) or skepticism (e.g.Does God exist?).
The standing of D and myself is simple, whatever side D takes, I will oppose him. D might not always entirely support or reject the topic and may sometimes take the middle ground. Confused? Well it doesn't matter because this blog is not for any of you.
-Shadow
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
