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
Monday, February 25, 2008
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)
