| Author | Message | ||
| Lynne Registered user Username: Lynne Post Number: 235 Registered: 10-2005 |
As I've seen concerns in this forum about people being politically correct over biblical truth. President Bush Embraces Pope and Mormon President, Hinkley. In honoring Pope John Paul II earlier.............President Bush described the Catholic leader as a devoted servant of God who "has championed the cause of the poor, the weak, the hungry and the outcast. He has defended the unique dignity of every life, and the goodness of all life. Through his faith and moral conviction, he has given courage to others to be not afraid in overcoming injustice and oppression. His principled stand for peace and freedom has inspired millions and helped to topple communism and tyranny." - from this link: http://www.religionnewsblog.com/7549-.html Also, On June 23, 2004, President Bush awarded Hinckley the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the highest civilian honor in the United States, in a ceremony at the White House. Bush honors good outward works of men. Men who are in leadership positions that are leading many to hell. I suppose if Satan built some hospitals and did enough good works, he would be praised as well. Of course he would change his name from Satan to Angel. It is a sad day when an Evangelical Christian President falls for such deception, because the deception just builds and builds when Satan has a hold. Pray for the those lost and deceived, like we were, because of these and other honorable leaders who outwardly show good works and twist the Word of God. Pray for the leadership in the U.S. Perhaps there are some of you out there have brief facts of the teachings that are not biblical of the Pope and the Mormon Church. Is there anyone out there aware of a good, solid and truthful, sermon or bible study online regarding end time prophecy and the growth of cults in these end times? Lynne | ||
| Tealeaves Registered user Username: Tealeaves Post Number: 271 Registered: 5-2004 |
If President Bush were the president of a church, and not a nation, I would agree with you 100%. But because he is president of a nation founded on religious freedom, I understand why he would give honors to people doing good in the world. I don't think he is endorsing their beliefs as true, just honoring their actions as they pertain to the good of the nation. I do think there is a difference. It wouldn't be a good idea for him to turn his back on and ignore the positive actions of citizens, just because their faith differed from his. Remembering, of course, that this country does tolerate all religions. IMHO,of course. -tanya- | ||
| Melissa Registered user Username: Melissa Post Number: 1258 Registered: 7-2003  |
I hope that if I did something really great and extraordinary, my pagan boss or co-workers or someone might recognize it. Maybe I'm the minority, but I've seen what happens when you only recognize the faith you hold....look at muslims. If you're not a muslim, you're in danger in those countries. Bush isn't authenticating their theology, but one can have theological differences and admire works in certain areas, without otherwise approving of one's theology. I work with 90% + of non-Christians, and if I could only recognize the good works of like-minded Christians, the pickings would be pretty slim. Lots of pagans do good works in our world, I'm not convinced that just because I don't share their theological position that I'm incapable of recognizing their positive efforts. If there were a flood or fire or tornado and I needed help and a Catholic or a Mormon offered it to me, I'd say thanks and be very appreciative that someone who didn't believe like me was willing to help me anyway (if they knew what I believed at all). And I'd talk about it to others. That doesn't mean I agree with their theology. To do differently would make us look like many muslims do, and I don't think they look too much like Christ. It is presumptive that because Bush recognizes someone's public works that he is endorsing their teachings regarding eternal life. Other pagans were recognized in that article...is it okay to recognize them? Is it only bad to recognize leaders of "other" religions while recognizing no-religion pagans is okay? Bush is a public official. In a pluralistic society, he can't, in good conscious, possibly think only like-minded Christians are worthy of recognition. Frankly, that would mean that pagan presidents shouldn't recognize positive Christian workers. It's a real stretch to equate recognizing someone's humanitarian efforts to endorsing their religious tenets. Neither does it make them Satan. Just because I'm a Christian doesn't mean I'm blind to the sacrificial efforts MANY pagans do make. Have you read how much money has been contributed to the relief efforts to the tsunami and earthquakes and hurricanes? I bet the majority of that money came from non-believers. Should the believers not accept it? And if they accept it, shouldn't they be grateful? I recognize their eternal condition and the eternal value of their works, but if we're saying their works are worthless, are we saying society would be better off without them (the works, not the individual)? Are we really saying Bush should ONLY recognize Christians who share our doctrinal positions? | ||
| Raven Registered user Username: Raven Post Number: 362 Registered: 7-2004  |
I think it's acceptable for leaders to recognize and give awards to people for good works regardless of their church affiliation, but he probably shouldn't have used the term "a devoted servant of God." That could just have easily been left out. | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 1226 Registered: 3-2005 |
Lynne, I agree with the respondents above. The Reformers spoke of the two kingdoms. We are not to confuse the work of the church (see the wheat and tares thread for comments from MacArthur on this) with the kingdom of civil government. I praise God for the great Catholics Bush has appointe to the courts. I also admire the work of Mormon Senator Orrin Hatch. But you know what I think of the theology of these groups. But God honors good moral civil government regardless of religious affiliation. However, at this point I must mention something much worse than what Bush, who is a civil leader did vs. what happens all the time in evangelical Christianity. It is a sad day when a very famous evangelist goes on Larry King and gushes over how wonderful the Vatican is, and how the Pope is leading people to Christ. He also refused to call Mormonism a false religion when given a chance. This same evangelist when after leading people to Christ at his crusade, then instructs his counselors to send them back to their same heretical churches, whether it be SDA or Roman Catholic, and even other more deviant faiths. Now, this is an outrage, because this man is respected world-wide and loved by everyone and speaks directly for evangelical Christianity. There are blatant examples of well respected leaders all bowing to the Vatican. When the president of the National association of evangelicals endorses books by oneness pentecostalists (a clear cut cult), and he endorses Benny Hinn as a good pastor. President Bush is in a completely different arena. Newsweek magazine did a great story about 1 year ago about Bush's faith. They say Bush is different because he actually believes what he says about God. For example, he starts his day every AM reading the Bible and Oswald Chambers' devotional. He needs our prayers and support during this difficult time. But Lynne, thanks for bringing up this stimulating topic, as this always makes for lively discussions. Stan | ||
| Lynne Registered user Username: Lynne Post Number: 236 Registered: 10-2005 |
Tealeaves and Melissa - Guess your right. Leadership is leadership, regardless of what they believe or teach. And good works are good works regardless of what a person believes. As long as no laws are being broken (like drug lords who get praise in their neighborhoods for good works). It might be quite another thing if Bush practiced idolatry with religious leaders to make them happy in view of everyone and called himself a Christian. Our country is based on freedom to practice any religion. Our laws are based on the bible, but are changing for the sake of different interpretations of the bible and of course, at some point, we must, if we don't already, include the Koran to make everyone happy. Raven - I suppose there is nothing wrong with a Christian saying "devoted servant of God" to anyone who believes in God. Perhaps devoted servant of Man to an Athiest? | ||
| Heretic Registered user Username: Heretic Post Number: 240 Registered: 2-2005 |
Stan, I agree. The level of discernment, or rather gross lack of it, that is now pervading mainstream evangelical Christianity is truly staggering and frightening, as well. It seems the so-called church "leaders" will tolerate just about anything in the name of unity and/or growing their churches or followings. Examples of this abound. In addition to your example, Stan, there is something wrong when the grandfather of the megachurch goes on the White Horse Inn and says that "just because something is in the Bible doesn't mean you should preach it." Hello?! He was speaking of God's holy justice, by the way. Something is wrong when the author of the most popular Christian book in history takes a shot at the reformers, talks about how wonderful it was when he realized how much like the Catholics he was, and says that the "new reformation" is about deeds not creeds, how the first reformation divided but this one will unite. It's disgusting, really, and should be to anyone who holds to a biblical gospel and the spirit of the reformation. | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 3289 Registered: 12-2003  |
Speaking of not preaching what's in the Bible, my mom watched a local broadcast made by Loma Linda Broadcasting Network--a local cable channel. It was a theological discussion group, sort of like the old intellectual Sabbath School discussion groups, and the topic was "soul sleep". They went through a host of OT texts about the dead not knowing anything, and then they entered the NT. When they read Paul's statements about being present with the Lord, the leader said: The idea of a body and a spirit was a pagan idea the Greeks had. Since the Bible was written in Greek, this pagan idea made its way into the NT because it was such a pervasive idea at the time. The fact that it infiltrated itself into the NT doesn't make it accurate (after all, the OT wasn't so clear). Consequently, we don't preach this idea because it came from the pagan Greeks. There you have it; Paul is completely unreliable as Scripture. Because he wrote in Greek and lived in a Greek-influenced culture, we can't take his writings at face value. What is their ground of truth, anyway? It's not the whole Bible. Apparently the OT is more reliable than the new...? Colleen | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 1227 Registered: 3-2005 |
Yes Heretic, And since you brought up the subject of the megachurches, and the pastor who wrote the most popular Christian book ever PDL, I have to say something about this. Today, while I was in the ICU of the hospital that is right down the street from Saddleback, a person came up to me who I had known a long time as maybe a nominal Christian, and just started a conversation with me since she knows I am a Christian. She has recently become a new Christian, and she related her experience to me of going to this mega-church. She is a single mother, and she is not proud of her past life. She was hoping to go to a singles group with the idea of meeting worthwhile potential marriage partners. But this time she wants to do it God's way, and is determined not to be promiscuous. She was shocked beyond any comprehension when she went to this singles group at this church. She shared with one of the leaders of this singles group that she wanted to meet potential partners who would be pure. She told me that this "leader" kind of looked at her funny and rolled his eyes as if to say "are you kidding? No one thinks like this anymore. She said she felt like she was at any singles bar where the "meet market" was staring at her like they do at these places. She told me that she always felt like she was in shallow water every Sunday, with only superficial Christianity being taught. She says that it just reflects the Orange County, Calif culture of superficiality. She said some other things about this church that I will refrain from repeating here, but it illustrates that we are living in a watered down Christian age. When John MacArthur says that this seeker sensitive movement is a massive deception, he is absolutely right. There is no accountability at these mega-churches, and no emphasis on obedience. It is fast-food Christianity. Now I love good Christian contemporary music even with a good rock beat. But there is a radio station in the Loma Linda area with SDA ties that now sounds like any top 40 rock station playing the same songs over and over. They don't play the really good cuts off a lot of the good albums. It all sounds so very superficial. Sorry folks to get off on this rant tonight, but the more I see of pop Christianity, which as Heretic stated started with Robert Schuller here in Orange County, I can see we are reaping the whirlwind. I am glad Heretic you discovered the White Horse Inn radio show at www.whitehorseinn.org where you here the truth proclaimed, and like John MacArthur these folks are not ashamed of the gospel! Stan | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 3292 Registered: 12-2003 |
I had similar thoughts about watering down Christianity, Stan, when I had a conversation this week with an Adventist who, with very controlled anger and with fast-paced, articulate delivery let me know what was wrong with criticizing other churches. What doctrines we believe, this person said, doesn't matter. All that matters is a Personal relationship with Jesus. How dare anyone think it OK to criticize another person's' Personal relationship with Jesus?! When I asked, bravely inserting myself into the passionate delivery, if they would feel the same way if they were dealing with former Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses criticizing their original churches, this person replied that they have never witnessed to a Mormon or a Jehovah's Witness, and furthermore, convincing those people was God's job. We can't. I had the thoughtóleft unexpressed for both ovbvious and obscure reasonsóthat this attitude is getting a foothold among Adventists in this liberal, "evangelical" area because it is the unfortunate attitude so much of Christendom is adopting. Yes, what "matters" is our personal relationship with Jesus. But one has great trouble developing an honest relationship with Jesus if one does not believe in the Jesus of the Bible. What we believe MATTERS. Paul is so clear that once we believe and are sealed with the Holy Spirit, our "job" is to allow Him to grow us and deepen us, teaching us obedience to Jesus at increasingly vulnerable depthsójust as Jesus learned obedience to the Father (as Hebrews explains) and obeyed to the point of death. If we do not embrace Biblical truth and the Bible as God's personal revealed word to us, we are making up our own religion. I know I keep "beating this drum", but being immersed in the Word of God and keeping our hearts filled with praise and thanksgiving to God is the way we stay focused on Him so he can protect us from deception. Colleen | ||
| Lynne Registered user Username: Lynne Post Number: 238 Registered: 10-2005 |
Stan, I wanted to make a comment about the mega-church. Having previoulsy lived in Southern Cal. and going to churches that were Adventist and some non Adventist, there was definately the same mentality in certain groups around the younger people 15 to 20 years ago. I had a roommate that acted and was in the entertainment industry and there were celebrities that attended my husbands church. One celebrity in his church was well known and had some roles that were very profane and sexually explicit. She was a member of his church and in good standing. Southern California is much more liberal than most places in this country, though they are the stage and display many poor examples for the world to see. This was the sort of thing I was around when I was coming into the Adventist church. So though I did see errors and problems in Adventism, other denominations had them too. So I didn't particularly think I was being deceived. After all, the Adventists appeared to be more conservative. I didn't agree with everything, but I was also aware that there were people who were strict in the church, people who were in the middle and people who were, well, spoiled kids who just went to church because mom and dad did and got together in groups and rolled their eyes like the leader of the singles group you mentioned above. Some people don't necessarily go to church to be spiritual, but they don't like the cigarette smoke in bars or something, you know.. And with the worldy approach of some mega-churches, it draws in the world and many problems in the world. I found myself more in the middle when I started attending the Adventist church, trying to embrace a more conservative biblical life, desiring to please God. It all started with the Bible, Jesus, the Ten Commandments, a little book by Ellen White and a prompting to throw away my bacon. It seemed biblical, logical, sincere and pure. Just a little different and at times strange. My husband said, sometimes there is a bigger picture in all of this. How God will use these things for something in the future that is much greater than we can see now. He wasn't suggesting succumbing to the unbiblical practices or beliefs, or to let them do their thing without exposing them. But what he was saying is God does have a hand in all of this. As I recently read in my one year bible about Joseph telling his brothers he forgave them. That God allowed this to happen and since it did, Joseph was in a position to get his family out of the famine. If this awful thing never happened to Joseph, Joseph would have been with his family starving. I lived in Orange County for about a year and my husband and I attended the church that Robert Schuller built when we were dating. It didn't seem like a church to me, but more like a stadium. Nice piano, but sad the person who played it for so many years committed suicide. I'll stop picking on Bush and go back to picking on my husband. A good book about Bush is called "The Faith of George Bush." Lynne | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 1229 Registered: 3-2005 |
Thanks Lynne for that thoughtful post--I agree. And maybe since I live so close to the particular churches in OC being discussed and have seen the fruit, like you have when you lived here, it is possible I am guilty of broadbrushing all seeker churches. There are other churches where the phenomenom I spoke about does not exist, and where a legitimate effort is made to evangelize the lost. There is nothing wrong with contemporary methods as long as there is absolutely no compromise in the message. In other words, good solid Biblical teaching without resorting to turning it into pop psychology. Charles Spurgeon saw the very same problems in his day, and railed against the replacement of solid Bible teaching with skits, plays, music shows etc. Spurgeon called it show-time religion instead of old-time religion. There is a famous sermon Spurgeon gave that I will have to find. It is called "Amusing Goats or Feeding Sheep". It seems that the purpose of the weekly Lord's Day church service is to primarily minister to the believers. We all need to be fed solid meat from the Word of God. The weekly service is not primarily to evangelize, although there is nothing wrong with that either. Because, in reality, the way unsaved people become saved people is by hearing the Word of God proclaimed. Romans 10 (which our FAF study is going in depth over--thanks Colleen) clearly says "faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of Christ". So, if that is how the Bible says that people become saved, then what is wrong with just faithfully proclaiming verse by verse the Word of God? It is the Holy Spirit who prepares the soil to hear the seed planted. The answer is not in coming up with how many clever and entertaining ways to bring people in. That puts the focus on the messenger instead of the message. God has made an iron-clad promise that His Word will not return void. If the church faithfully proclaims the Word, then God has promised that He will do the saving. Colleen, you made some interesting points in your last two posts above. I am blown away by that statement that because Paul wrote in Greek, then you have to assume he was spouting Greek philosophy, or somebody else inserted it in the text. That is what Adventism teaches--you can't trust the Bible, just read our books and you will understand what the Bible really says! Also the last point about that discussion with that SDA. There are certain canned phrases that abound today that have become pet peeves of mine. One is, "doctrine isn't important, it's your relationship with Jesus that counts". This is part of what is called the feminization of Christianity which David Murrow talks about in his book "Why men don't go to church" He points out that there is no Biblical terminology for a lot of phrases such as relationship with Jesus, and some other phrases we have discussed before. There is no place where we are called to have a relationship with Jesus. There is abundant terminology about following Jesus, becoming his disciples, taking up the cross, but common terms that are used today are not in Biblical terminology. But all through Paul's writings, and the other apostles, there are numerous warnings about false teachers, and admonitions to preach the word, but I don't see Paul saying that the only thing that counts is a relationship with Jesus. Yes, the concept is there, and yes we better be relating to Jesus, but doctrine about who God is and how he saves is also very important. And SDAs especially don't want to talk about doctrine because then they would be exposed. Stan | ||
| Flyinglady Registered user Username: Flyinglady Post Number: 2241 Registered: 3-2004  |
I am reminded with this talk of talking to Adventists that I am going to a baby shower. It is being given for a young friend of mine on Sunday afternoon. Her mother in law is giving it for her,she is not SDA, and her MIL is Seventh day Adventist. I met both of them at the SDA church I was attending when God showed me the web site about EGW. I am sure there will be many SDAs there. So I need many prayers, that God put the words in my mouth so speak on Sunday afternoon. Diana | ||
| Cy Registered user Username: Cy Post Number: 39 Registered: 1-2005 |
I'm having a difficult time understanding the difference between a seeker church, a mega-church, and the large (and growing) evangelical churches that I personally am seeing here in the midwest. Maybe the watered-down milk-toast churches aren't so common around here, or I'm just not looking hard enough? My sister now attends a large (and growing) evangelical church where the weekly sermon is a solid dose of Bible teaching (it's actually a church whose pastor's teachings on Galations lead several Adventists to see past the veil). On a recent Sunday when we didn't have duties in the church we regularly attend, we visited a large (and growing) local evangelical church, and I thoroughly enjoyed the sermon from Thessalonians. I guess my point is that I think I am seeing the work of the Holy Spirit writ large, in spite of the counter forces others mention above... Guy | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 1230 Registered: 3-2005 |
Cy, You are describing the Biblical way of church growth as the examples you gave so aptly point out. There is nothing against a mega-church(usually defined as over 2000 members), as long as it doesn't have a mini-gospel. What I was referring to in SoCal, and since the leaders of the seeker-sensitive movement live in Orange County where I live, I can only judge to what happens. Expository Bible teaching is being replaced by pop Psychology in the weekly pulpits, and yes the Bible is used, but in a superficial way. A recent sermon topic for the main service at a popular seeker church was "How to watch the C.S. Lewis movie Narnia (Which is great to talk about, and I support it), but is this the definition of feeding the sheep with the meat of God's Word? It looks like Cy, the midwest is more conservative obviously, and what you are describing is Biblical. Also, the other element of the seeker churches out here is the lack of emphasis on church discipline, and I gave a glaring example of what happens at one of these churches singles ministry where the idea of chastity before marriage is being laughed at even by these leaders. I am sure this is not what you are talking about. John MacArthur is a pastor of a large and growing mega-church in SoCal, where the meat of scripture one verse at a time is taught week after week. A large part of his message is on true repentance, obedience, and church discipline. He is not a Sunday Sabbatarian, and he is one of the primary endorsers of the Life Assurance book by Dale Ratzlaff "Sabbath in Christ". Here is how MacArthur describes what is wrong with the seeker sensitive movement. www.eternallifeministries.org/jm_ssn.htm MacArthur is a student of Charles Spurgeon, the great British Baptist preacher. The evangelical church in London went through the same phases of deviating from Biblical truth that the current evangelical church in some areas of USA are going through. Spurgeon spent the last years of his life writing about "The downgrade controversy" and fighting the move to replace preaching with entertainment. There is a famous sermon delivered by Spurgeon called "feeding sheep or amusing goats" that is a good read, but may be troubling to those who like the trend of entertainment coming into the churches. See what you think of this sermon www.myfortress.org/FeedingtheGoats.html Stan | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 1231 Registered: 3-2005 |
I goofed on the John MacArthur link above. It is www.eternallifeministries.org/jm_ssm.htm | ||
| Lynne Registered user Username: Lynne Post Number: 239 Registered: 10-2005 |
Stan, Thank you for listing these links. I'll listen to these this weekend. I remember when I was in Southern California a Pastor once saying in a sermon that if you are a Christian in Southern California, you were really a Christian. I believe this to be somewhat true because Southern California is more of an Idolotry based culture where the entertainment industry has its roots. I also believe there are some very sincere Christians in Southern California who are Seventh-day Adventists, because I once lived there and was sincerely a Christian and a Seventh-day Adventist. I just didn't know what those feelings were that weren't right in the church. Now I know that Satan was hiding in the walls and under the pews in spirit and not in truth. Now I know what everyone is saying in the forum about being under that veil. I have a friend who stopped attending a nearby church because she said that if you didn't have some soft of addiction or didn't belong to some sort of 12 step group, you just didn't have a place there, you just didn't fit in. That sounds a bit like pop psychology to me. I agree that the focus should be on the gospel, on Jesus. We are to come as we are to church. And if that means a person is turned away or looked down on for wearing jeans to church, particularly in a community where people are not wealthy. That is enough for me to wonder about how genuine the teachings are in the congregation. Emulate what is on television? Or what does the bible say? Come as you are to Jesus. Where do people seek God? In church. And where to they find God? Through Jesus. Lynne | ||
| Jackob Registered user Username: Jackob Post Number: 79 Registered: 7-2005 |
Perhaps it's not the right thread, but today I have a conversation with an adventists who recognizes that adventists doesn't allow people to put questions, to develop in understanding God's word, but attributed all the evil to the SYSTEM. To the system in itself, he said the Reformation was successful because political systems (german national states) opposed Roman Catholic system. Since all churches have a system, the adventist church is like everyone else. When I hear people speaking like this it's very confusing. I feel like I'm in nowhere. Have anyone give an insight which was helpful for these people to see their fallacy? | ||
| Melissa Registered user Username: Melissa Post Number: 1259 Registered: 7-2003 |
Stan you make an interesting point about doctrine a few posts back. When I first became acquainted with B, I remember talking to two male Christians and commented that I didn't understand this need to agree on every aspect of doctrine, if we were all living how Christ had called us to live, whether I believed in soul sleep or not really wouldn't change how I lived. And while that's true in practical reality, and I said it sincerely, fully committed to my faith, I was also very ignorantly to the variance on doctrine that existed out there. Growing up, I never really was in a church that focused upon talking about "other" churches. We did verse by verse teaching ....I remember it taking FOREVER to get through Psalms. But I can go to my old Bibles and look at different books and read the notes I wrote in the margins as we made our way through the book. I used to even date them, so I know when we studied it. The only difference I knew of was that methodists sprinkled and we dunked (not to be irreverant). I never imagined that the depths of conflict about doctrine existed. I don't think my ignorance was an issue of shallowness or lack of conviction...I just hadn't experienced it. I'm not sure that having a history of exacting doctrine as SDAs do would have made me "better", though I would have been more informed about the "problems" with others. I used to be one of those people who thought as long as I read my Bible and prayed and sought to be more like Christ and "do" the right thing that that was what God wanted from me. There was a lot I didn't understand (and still is), but because of this experience unlike any other I can imagine, I have reversed my position on the doctrine stuff. I'm not too hard on people who are where I was because my genuine interest in following Christ was unaltered. I was just ignorant and naive. I still talk to those two guys and one of them is very interested in all my SDA discoveries, we have both talked about our ignorance of the unity in that area when we married. He married a former catholic and said he didn't know what he didn't know, and has been lucky she was a true Christian and they enjoy fellowship together in their baptist church now. I did not get so lucky. Some of those lessons, you find out the hard way. Every day, I'm thankful for grace and that I don't have to know it all. But I do take understanding the Biblical foundation around all doctrines far more seriously than I did in younger years. It's hard to fault any of my former teachers/pastors...they taught the word alone every week, long before skits to act out the lesson ever hit the stage...and when organ music was still par for the course. But I didn't know what I didn't know. Without living in a home that had active parental involvement in spiritual issues, how much can 3 hours in church a week do? To expect the church to do everything is quite an expectation. But even still I struggle with how to teach things to my sons ... age appropriately, so they have something I didn't. Some things just come with age and experience and time. | ||
| Javagirl Registered user Username: Javagirl Post Number: 139 Registered: 6-2005 |
Jakob, Im not sure I understand your question. I do know that Jesus always attacked the "system". All systems are not closed systems. Closed systems are a sign of dysfunction. CLosed family systems are as deadly as closed church systems. Stan, Thank you for your earlier post... "This is part of what is called the feminization of Christianity which David Murrow talks about in his book "Why men don't go to church" He points out that there is no Biblical terminology for a lot of phrases such as relationship with Jesus, and some other phrases we have discussed before." My hustband and I sat thru a horrendous sermon today on obedience---I nearly walked out--in which obedience and relationship were mentioned about 50 times each, and the Holy SPirit was left out... This was the first time my husband has been to any church in months. After church I mentioned the thoughts you posted above. He agreed completly with the feminization of religion. He actually got excited when HE began describing how Jesus was not a WIMP. He talked about battles, cleansing of the temple, Gods wrath, his rebellious attitude, his guts, etc etc. We talked about the battle aspects, Commanding officer, Leader, etc. It was so refreshing to hear him defend Christ. It opened the door for some coversation on a topic he usually resists wholeheartedly. It was an interesting dynamic. I just listened in amazement and praised GOd for the opportunity for the discussion. Thanks, I know it got him thinking. Java |
