Christian Theological/Philosophical Book Club discussion
The Cafe - Open Discussion
>
Do we need polygraphs for Ministers?
date
newest »
newest »
message 1:
by
Robert
(new)
Nov 19, 2014 01:52PM
It is my understanding that a Christian Church promotes Christ. Christ is part of the Trinity and their outlook is outlined in the Holy Bible. Ergo, a Christian minister needs to be joined at the hip to Scripture. Now, pastors are human and are subject to the same sociopoliticoeconomic concerns as anyone else. But, when one becomes so enamored of cultural concerns that he sells out Scriptural veracity, shouldn't his congregation be aware of it? Sure, the parishioners will shout "Hurrah" when told brotherly love trumps sin and they can continue their conduct no matter how much Scripture says it offends God. This is irresponsible as only the collective Trinity determines who enters the ethereal afterlife - not peer love or ministerial pleading. Perhaps the elders of a Christian Church need to interrogate their young ministers as to their true beliefs as they can do irreparable harm to a congregation by liberal think. It would be best if they want to play God to establish their own new cult anyway.
reply
|
flag
Other people read scripture differently than you do, Robert
Lee - yes, they must. To the far left of me are you and David who are such questionable Christians that they must disavow the overall message of the Bible and resort to select one-liners carefully culled to represent their new wave cultural biases.To the far right of me are Brent and Ned who are such rabid Fundamentalists that they are so constantly neurotic about the obvious contradictions brought about by a too literal Scriptural translation that they must remain isolated. (Brent holed up at Liberty, and Ned ensconced among the Southern redneck ridge runners who don't know any better).
So Robert, to echo the words of the jailer in Acts 16, what must I do to be saved, according to you? I mean, you say I've disavowed the overall message of the Bible. I think the overall message of the Bible is that salvation and hope and forgiveness comes through Jesus, the crucified and resurrected God man. Feel free to tell me what I am missing?I believe I am a broken, sinful person and my only hope is not my good works but the salvation that comes in Jesus. I affirm, as far as theology goes, the truths of the Nicene Creed. I'm pretty orthodox. Should I seek some experience to prove to myself I am saved? Or is it that I do not hold the correct political views? I am excited for you to tell me what works I must perform to prove I am saved by grace?
You do have a valid concern Robert. Many churches ask very little of their Pastors and Ministers. Most just want a marriage counselor or human rights activists who occasionally mention Jesus or some cute little Bible story that tell us humans how exceptional we are.
If that is what a church wants - let them have it. And suffer the consequences. But then that type of theological illiteracy should be honestly posted on the Church billboard for all the community to see: It might even fill the pews faster.
Of course: that is also why we have such variety in denominations. You get what you ask for. I am horrified for new Christians who are seriously looking for the truth... But that is why God gave us Bibles - so the discerning amongst us can read HIS WORD for ourselves.
The other option would be to fire all the clergy and get back to the kind of ministering Jesus wished.Compare Luke 22:26-27 (Jesus's idea of ministry) with Acts 6:2 (the early church's idea of ministry) if you want a real eye-opener.
David - I believe you've mentioned that you were a lifelong Christian. So, if you accepted Jesus at an early age then you're saved. Period. Can't be undone, even by you, unless you give Satan credit for the works that are God's. That wasn't the point! My concern is that the congregation thinks they've got a whole Bible-loving minister when in reality they've got a selective passage theocrat(the love parts) who takes even those extremely liberally. Yes, being "in" the culture will keep your wife happy and like Rod says, may even fill more seats, but I think a minister has a higher calling than just orchestrating imitations of "Glee".
Thanks for the assurance Robert ;)Here's one problem with your line of reasoning in this thread - it is proven that congregations that stand in higher tension to the surrounding culture grow more quickly. This is Sociology of Religion 101 basically. You would look at the early Christians or the Mormons or just look at demographics today - evangelical churches are growing while mainline liberal ones are declining. I saw a recent article that states the last Episcopal in America may be alive today.
Being a friend of the world, as you might call it, gains you little growth in your congregation. Heck, we could look at Rob Bell. He's gained popularity outside Christian circles, but he was run out of Christian circles. Or to go another direction, we could look at the gay marriage debate. Conservatives always claim those who come out in support of gay marriage want to be friends of the world. But to come out in that way often leads to you getting fired or censured and losing most of your friends. Many Christians hide their views on all sorts of things for fear of being fired. What I am trying to say is that, for lack of a better term, congregations are often more conservative then pastors.
It is also disturbing to read what appear to me (and maybe I am wrong) very arrogant and condescending comments. It seems like you guys are ripping pastors, blaming pastors for all the problems in Christianity. If its so easy, or if you all are such experts, why don't you do it?
Pastors and congregations often deserve each other. I'm sure Joel Osteen (or Benny Hinn's) congregation assume they are BLESSED to have them. EVeryone should hope to have a Pastor that lovingly shares Theological truth. But most would rather have their desires confirmed at ALL COSTS.
David comment: " it is proven that congregations that stand in higher tension to the surrounding culture grow more quickly"
I think it depends on what the culture offers or resists. I doubt a liberal culture will seriously support liberal churches for long.
David, if you felt I was coming down hard on pastors, I'm sorry. I dearly love my pastor, she truly cares about the spiritual well-being of her flock. My disagreement is with the type of pastor who feels it's his purpose to boldly preach the gawdawful hellfire Truth according to anti-Christians like Rod and Robert. We have no need whatsoever of them, they do far more harm than good. That's the reason for pointing out Jesus' emphasis as coming as one who serves.
Lee called me an ANTI-CHRISTIAN.How amusing. I didn't know you had a female Pastor Lee (that explains a lot). I'll let Robert take it from here...
Rod, your description of a pastor as one who dispenses theological truth is the problem. Church is not a lecture hall. Look at Paul's letters - he was not reflecting on theology for fun, instead any theology was there as a foundation for mission. If you are just learning theological facts and not out serving and loving (oooh, i said loving, I'm so liberal) then you're missing the point as a church.
Honestly, Rod? The only Christ you serve is the vengeful murderer of Revelation. I've never once seen from you any sense of compassion, never once seen anything remotely Christlike. You worship the warrior god of the O.T., not Jesus.
Sorry to offend you guys: but HUMANISM does not equal Jesus. A Billion liberals just GASPED in horror!!!A church has many purposes David. And clear truthful teachings are one of them, as well as the incredible loving factor that we both agree on. But a church without the Gospel truth is not a church at all - just a community center. The Bible sure spends a great deal of time informing us how to keep TRUTH the central ingredient to the Christian Church. Strange eh?
I care about People's SOULs LEE - not their debauchful comforts. It's clear Jesus had the same concern when he said "Go and SIN no more."Lee isn't Jesus also the WARRIOR GOD of the New Testament? YES, yes HE is.
First of all, I reject the idea of a violent God in the OT. The most frequently repeated phrase in the OT is, "His mercy endures forever." Lee, you are more the expert on Revelation, but I do not see God in the Apocalypse of John as a "vengeful murderer." First of all, it is allegory. Secondly, the purpose of the allegorical violence is to promote repentance and salvation. Thirdly, the last two chapters sums up the Book, and they are hardly vengeful. Finally, Rod, as far as "A church has many purposes David. And clear truthful teachings are one of them, as well as the incredible loving factor that we both agree on. But a church without the Gospel truth is not a church at all - just a community center." This assumes there ARE clear truthful teachings. Were that so, there would not be so many Denominations.
Lee, David - I suppose I like the Truth in uncertain, uncompromised terms. When an old style pastor told me I'd better come to Jesus and repent my sins RIGHT NOW (because tomorrow isn't promised to anyone) or I would go to hell in a hand basket that's not vague liberalspeak. When today's minister gets all squishy about a million types of "love", but doesn't give any outcomes except feel good teddy bear stuff, I get nervous and nauseous.
Lee, accusing Rod of being wholly compassionless is a cheap shot, considering you have never once interacted with him outside an impersonal internet forum board.
Brent - for heaven's sake, Lee, Rod, and I have been cheapshotting each other so often for so long we ought to be permanently in the penalty box. What about this current infraction go you so aroused?
cheap shot or not, it is my perception. he can't wait to sit up in heaven so he can look down and laugh at all the mormons enduring eternal hellfire. And I'm supposed to think of him as a Christian?
It is strange that a Christian apologetics group is totally consumed with fighting each other. But not really... I believe this issue was very present in the 12 disciples of Jesus - as well as the 1st century church. Christianity is guaranteed to never be boring (or can we possibly blame the Catholic Church for that one?)
Thanks Brent. YOu Rock buddy.
Lee we all have different gifts. (Those of us that are Christians anyway.)Discernment is my passion, so is truth and ministry. Yet others have pure compassion as their gift - which is great - but truth and compassion seldom go together nicely. Like a gift of humor will not sit well with the gift of mourning, but both are essential.
I think God allows for our foolishness and pride.
John comment:" This assumes there ARE clear truthful teachings. Were that so, there would not be so many Denominations."
There are many reasons for denominations. Same reason we have Mormons and J.W.'s - people want what they want and will bend anything to get it... and then they will realize some errors and bend back.
If the Bible was a smaller book: many of our problems might have gone away. But God knew exactly what He was doing. HE was letting our hearts show our true colors.
I believe there are clear and truthful teachings. The problem is: there are too many of them. And we keep prioritizing our FAVORITES at the top...and stepping on everyone else's.
But many people want religion and actually HATE God's Word. And many want humanism and will borrow from Jesus to obtain it.
God's Word is great. That sure ain't the problem.
Why are you all so concerned with the truth or shall I call it rightness. Do we not serve a lord of mercy who came for sinners and the weak?
Cay - the Truth and rightness are not the same thing. If Lee mimics or even advances a take on Christianity that is not in accordance with the bulk of Scripture, then he can be "right" by adhering to the principles he erroneously thinks reflect Godliness. The Truth as Rod and I seem to have a meeting of the minds upon, would be in dissecting the Bible solely for the purpose of ascertaining precisely how each verse supports the overall message, which we feel flows directly from the Trinity through ordained intermediaries.
I said to a friend yesterday, the reason these arguments are relentless and unresolvable is this. Both presentations of God's character. The God of law and the God of grace are presented in the same book called the new testament. The catholic church combined these two factions which were a source of great contention in the early church. The law gospel still exists! No-one demands circumcision anymore inspite of Matthew demanding we keep all the commandments. Yet we still try to hold to the teachings.When one has the utter gall (or alternatively is stupid enough to think they can get away with it) to call out which books are law and which books are grace the confusion to a large extent dissolves.
Absolutely, I expound a bit on my site and in my book that practically the entire gospel of Mark is found in Matthew.
Matthew is only gospel to which you can make a solid case for not being an original. It is in fact (I believe) a revised updated version of Mark.
The stories from Mark are almost identical expect the greek grammar is improved and some minor details edited. However the message take a sharp diversion from Mark.
The gospel of the kingdom is preached in Mark chapter 1. In summary the precedent of Isaiah, Repentance, baptism, believing in Jesus, the Holy Spirit, kingdom of God.
This message is lost in Matthew and instead we find righteousness taught through keeping the commandments and striving for perfection.
It's been a mindblowing journey for me but the more I learn, the more clear the distinction becomes. In fact the old testament makes a thousand times more sense to me now in the light of "faithful apostolic testimony".
If you are willing to be open to it I think you will find Galatians demands the abandonment of Matthew.
Actually seven, the last being a book of twelve Pauline epistles in the tradition of Jewish scripture which at the time of Christ was 22, the last being a book of twelve.22 cups, 7 lamps, the Menorah.
It's just fascinating to me, after I finished my book I realised the books that seem apostolic beyond reproach actually stack up this way. There are so many versions of the canon, catholics 73, orthodox 76, evangelical 66, ethiopian 84 etc. It was like the final piece that made it all fit.
So you could say 18. I agree with Martin Luther's perspective on a number of things with regards to the law writings.
Oh yeah, I wasn't saying I am advocating Luther's canon, just agreeing with what he said about the deutero-canonical books.Of course it is possible 22 was artificially arrived at. The Jews now have 24, there was a bit of debate over the last 2 books. So for whatever reason they grouped them this way they have at least been consistent for thousands of years. The twelve are still considered a book of twelve to this day.
Let's see - Lee wants to discard the whole Bible except for the Servant/Slave part which he thinks indicates homosexuality is kosher and the Jesus part when he's strictly talking about compassion. Everyone else has their little parts they'd love to excise depending on bias. Why don't you just follow the damn thing instead of manipulating it around to suit your sinful behavior?
Actually that's a good question. I wrote a whole book on the subject. But I would like to be clear. My position on the canon actually comes from saying yes the three amazing people in history.1. Saying yes to Martin Luther's position of certain book being unapostolic
2. Saying yes to Bishop Eusebius writing that certain books are dubious
3. Saying yes to the apostle Paul who said we should reject the gospel of law.
Do I think these three deserve higher regard than Athanasius? Absolutely. Under Athanasius leadership the church descended into bitter feuding. The current canon of scripture is the legacy of Athanasius.
And by the way I am not attempting to validate sinful behaviour in any way. Holiness is huge, hence the title "God of fire".
@Graeme, I'm not sure. My understanding is that there were different sects that had 22 or 24 for a while. In my consideration Josephus points directly at Esther as far as his indication of timeframe (shame it's a great story). Also to me Ecclesiastes sticks out like a sore thumb in the old testament. Apparently, I have discovered, there are others who propose these two books to be the ones in question also.
Let's move this discussion to a new thread.
