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.

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.
Now it might be asked why is this so? Well in the early church, there were not so many denominations as there are today.

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?

It does not relate to those who are in a new town and are looking for a new church.

Redundant statement, those who are in a new town are not changing churches. They are looking for a new one.

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.

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?

If a christian has not tried to help and change the church, the christian has no right to change church.

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.

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