Here's where churches are headed...

13,075 Views | 115 Replies | Last: 2 yr ago by whatthehey78
RAB83
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
TresPuertas said:

cmag said:

As a non-Christian, can someone explain to me what a church that doesn't believe the bible is the word of God is? That just sounds like a get together.
This is how they justify being able to support such anti-biblical positions and still being a "church."

The bible says homophobia is bad

These folks: weeeeeeeeeeel..... Thats not exactly true. Even though it specifically says that, its not God's word. Its just some dude. Our Woke-God wouldn't ever say that.

I'm generally pretty non-judgemental, but this is exactly how you get to hell. This is an outright rejection of God.




And my home church has started this. First United Methodist Richardson. I was a member for 15 years and quit a year ago. They had just gone so far off the rails. Its heartbreaking.



We left the UMC over this. It seems to have started with Adam Hamilton and his buckets. One for what you want to believe, one for what you discard, etc. There's no line-item veto on the Bible. This guy is singlehandedly destroying the UMC.

In our church, we had a young pastor declare in a sermon on the Sunday night service, populated by the youth, that the Bible was no longer "binding." The senior pastor was caught telling different people different things about whether he knew about and approved this sermon beforehand. It ripped the church apart. We were one of many couples that left.

We tried another UMC and visited a Sunday School class. They were studying Adam Hamilton. See ya. IMO, this guy is serving the diabolic, not the divine. The UMC is going the way of the Anglican church where I grew up.
BBRex
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
TheEternalPessimist said:

BBRex said:

Missouri Synod
Former SBC here. Left SBC over the creeping liberalism and egalitarianism within the convention as a whole. Also objected to the dependency of most SBC churches on undoctrinal Hillsong, Bethel, and Elevation as sources for "praise and worship" in place of doctrinally sound hymns.

I am now CREC (a conservative Presbyterian denom).

Love my Missouri and Wisconsin Synod brothers and sisters, of which there are many here in Minnesota.

ELCA is Ichabod along with almost every United Methodist Church here in the area. Most fly "pride" flags, BLM slogans, and other left wing symbols. It's quite sad indeed! Fortunately, almost all of them are SHRINKING! Praise the Lord!


Wow, you know about Wisconsin Synod. That's a pretty small group.

I'm sort of interested in hearing more about CREC. I'm not familiar with this denomination.
Bryanisbest
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Churches are dying because their people refuse to deny self, take up the cross daily and follow him. Luke 9:23-25.


The collective human ego has grown to a point of no return until Armageddon.

I am crucified with Christ. It is no longer I (the ego) that lives but Christ who lives in the me. And the live know live I live by the faith of the Son of God who loved me and gave himself up for me. Gal 2:20.
Crocker91
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Maroon Dawn said:
The funny part is, if so many Lefty types were really looking for just a moral code with no real "supernatural" element to its belief system then they'd just be Buddhists

But Buddhism doesn't allow for the moral equivocation and no personal sacrifice or restraint that Leftists are REALLY looking for

It's like someone else said above, they're just looking for a weekly group social that let's them check off "I go to Church" from their list of moral superiority points
AG @ HEART said:


Most spiritual people want the benefits of God without the moral oversight from God.
Yep. Said differently, they want GOD's blessings without his authority.
There is a rebellious streak inherent in human beings. It's the root of sin, and a consequence of free will. (BTW, the only real question I have for God is how is this gift good for us since it is so often used to lead us away from Him. But, I digress.) So, I don't disagree with the above-noted assertions about rejecting "moral oversight" or "authority". However, I would like to reframe and assert a deeper point.

God is love--that is to say, God is the willing of the good of the other as they are. Love, as it pertains to God, is not merely affection or indulgence toward someone--although these can be marks of a loving human relationship and are not, in and of themselves, always flawed. God's love is nearly inexplicably deeper than a human's ability to love. With that said, there are signs that point to similarities. One of these is that genuine love has an intimate nature--an intimate connection.

God's justice and judgment are realities as is His mercy. God doesn't sit like some sheriff or DA or trial judge looking to condemn mankind. God's law isn't meant as a weapon or a reward/penalty system. Rather, the law exists to reveal to us God's nature so that we might know and understand Him better as we draw more deeply in relationship to Him. Sin can be a rejection of God's nature, yes. Perhaps more often, it is a rejection of His gift on intimacy.

If I am in an intimate relationship with you, I cannot help but be changed. I will, by definition, begin to move toward openness and generosity for your needs above my own. I will naturally be drawn into a desire to protect you and to set the conditions for your flourishing. I will devote significant mental energies to contemplating you, and I will share those thoughts about how wonderful you are with others. I will trust you with my own brokenness. I will accept your guidance--and, yes, when I need it--your corrections. All of these things are hallmarks of real intimacy, and they--not legalism--are what God wants with us. When we are intimate with God, we grow in love and fidelity to Him. When we love what God loves, we naturally live the moral life because that orientation to the Good is the product of our constant intimacy with Him who is goodness itself.

Sin makes it all about me--my ego. Our society--with its focus on individualism--is most prone to this sin. I did this. I deserve this. I own this. I. I. I.

I'll leave you with this reflection that I received this morning. I think this woman has captured the essence of God's "law of the gift" as St. John Paul named it. I hope it's a blessing for you, and I hope it's a springboard to repentance, reform, and renewal for the people of God. Each of us can be that catalyst when we allow our own hearts to be more greatly conformed to God.

Quote:

Written by Madison Moseley | Pastoral Assistant at St. Mary's




"Remember the marvels the Lord has done"

He sent his servants after us. His prophets. His holy people. His pleading messengers.

His son.

And what was he asking then that he continues to gently seek even now? He asks that we might hand over what was always his from the starteverything. What a merciful and loving Father to patiently request from us what has never been (and will never be) our own when he could simply and instantly take it himself. Yet here I often stand, white-knuckled and fearful, before the One who gives me breath to breathe, light in darkness, a way in the wilderness.

A question often comes to my mind before him: "Why are you asking this of me?" Such a human and little and begging-to-be-asked question. And this vulnerable question makes space for the Father to remind us that he has already answered in his son - and to pour forth his desire for us to know what is true at the very core of our hearts.

A completely freeing and life-altering truth is revealed when we step aside so that the king may reign over his own kingdom: in taking him at his word and unclenching these fists, we stand to gain life without end. Eternity. The inheritance we have been grasping for. And Jesus proved this to be true when, through his hands open even to the nails of the cross, he rose from the dead and ascended into heaven. Because he will never send us where he hasn't first been. He will never ask anything of us that he hasn't first given himself.

In the end, our lives given over to him lose nothing and gain everything. What a marvel of total, merciful, and freely given love. May we encounter his son throughout this Lent and receive him. May we always remember his heart for us and respond in trust with our lives.




Reflection Questions
[ol]
  • How has the Father invited you to respond to his love today?
  • How has he done so throughout your life?
  • What are you holding onto now that Christ might be inviting you to offer back to him?
  • [/ol]


    Do you know someone that would love to receive these reflections? Forward this email to them and have them click the subscribe button below!

    Subscribe


    Sent by St. Mary's Catholic Center
    BDub3
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    AG
    annie88 said:

    If they don't believe in the word of God then they're not really a church.

    They can just be there and chant and sing and do whatever but they're not a church if they're not believing in the word of God
    Funny, it seems like you don't believe in the word of God (specifically Romans 13) with your FBJ signature. I'm all for Christians being able to speak out against the president, but to say **** him is just unbiblical.
    Get Off My Lawn
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    Just as "you shall not murder" is often misinterpreted as "thou shalt not kill" understanding of scripture often requires study beyond the superficial.

    While Authority is from God, Authoritarians are not. Submitting to proper authority is different from submitting to ALL perceived authorities.
    Take a cop that offers to let a lady out of a speeding ticket for sexual favors: his authority to ticket her is real, but he is acting beyond it.
    Now take that a step further: your local petty tyrant has told you that they're now 'transgender' and must be referred to as the opposite sex: they may even have legal standing in their demand... but that doesn't validate their demand as they are extending their reach beyond their domain (I.e. ultimate authority over truth).
    BDub3
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    AG
    Agreed on most points there, and I know Romans 13 is interpreted differently by many, which I understand completely. I guess my main point is more that Christians are sinning when they say **** the president (see many biblical texts whose interpretation is fairly consistent).
    Get Off My Lawn
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    And to continue: Daniel disobeyed authorities is his worship, but submitted in punishment. This same pattern was followed by many in the early persecuted church. And who wouldn't be silly enough to suggest that a Christian should give up their faith because of a governmental dictate? So no: disobedience and opposition to government or governmental personalities doesn't immediately put a soul in opposition to Romans 13.

    Eta: yeah - the disrespect element is a distinct matter from the disobedience one, and I'm not dug in to being "Pro-FJB" from a Christian perspective (as much as I internally desire it).
    whatthehey78
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    AG
    Everyone must make his/her own choice. (Two thieves...'mock him' or 'accept him'). Disbelieve at your OWN risk.

    What I find troubling about 'the Church' is the lack of courage to confront its enemy on any front.
    UTExan
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    whatthehey78 said:

    Everyone must make his/her own choice. (Two thieves...'mock him' or 'accept him'). Disbelieve at your OWN risk.

    What I find troubling about 'the Church' is the lack of courage to confront its enemy on any front.


    The church, like any liberal, is only going to attack "safe targets", i. e., the white heterosexual conservative male and anything which can be attached to him. It knows that to confront sin in any form would alienate the "marginalized" folks it counts on for pew-filling. It knows that to advocate for personal self-control, discipline, thrift or self-reliance/reliance on God is to wreck its narrative since the 1990s: that SOMEONE ELSE is to blame for the messes which its parishioners have made of their lives. It is also afraid to testify that Jesus Christ is fully sufficient to solve all mankind's problems and that God's Word is the compass we all need. That is why the church is losing people.
    It is better to light a flamethrower than to curse the darkness- Sir Terence Pratchett
    “ III stooges si viveret et nos omnes ad quos etiam probabile est mittent custard pies”
    whatthehey78
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    AG
    UTExan said:

    whatthehey78 said:

    Everyone must make his/her own choice. (Two thieves...'mock him' or 'accept him'). Disbelieve at your OWN risk.

    What I find troubling about 'the Church' is the lack of courage to confront its enemy on any front.


    The church, like any liberal, is only going to attack "safe targets", i. e., the white heterosexual conservative male and anything which can be attached to him. It knows that to confront sin in any form would alienate the "marginalized" folks it counts on for pew-filling. It knows that to advocate for personal self-control, discipline, thrift or self-reliance/reliance on God is to wreck its narrative since the 1990s: that SOMEONE ELSE is to blame for the messes which its parishioners have made of their lives. It is also afraid to testify that Jesus Christ is fully sufficient to solve all mankind's problems and that God's Word is the compass we all need. That is why the church is losing people.
    Personally, I would be encouraged if 'the Church' would just stand up and defend the faith and train it's followers to do the same. It also needs to diminish its efforts to be everyone's "Fun Time/Party Palace" and deal more with man's eternal salvation and deal with the 'tough issues' instead of ignoring them.
     
    ×
    subscribe Verify your student status
    See Subscription Benefits
    Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.