The mind is very complex. I would like to think that the mind controls the emotions and that I can, through thought, govern how I act. This is not the case. My desires actually shape my thoughts. In Ephesians 4: 22 I see that my old self is deluded by its lusts. In other words, my desires delude my mind. Whatever my deepest urges are, whether good or evil, my mind justifies them and supports them intellectually. History is replete with this. So is my own life. This is because I can’t admit I am capable of horrendous evil. And if I am capable, it is latent within me. It is a potential I possess. So whenever my deepest and darkest urges take over, I justify them with some kind of twisted argument that turns it all in my favor because I want to be good or appear good.
This is why the church is a tricky place. It tends to be the place where this mind-game is encouraged, supported and rewarded. I am quickly impressed with the appearance of good and quickly dismayed by the appearance of evil in others. I reward one and punish the other. By my actions I force evil to go underground in my own life and in the lives of others to do its malicious work more subversively, and I also encourage religiosity to dominate the spirit of the place. This way everybody is happy. And false. By continuing in this way we encourage codependency, immaturity and superficiality in individuals and in relationships. It promotes arrogance and disdains humility. It fears, and therefore obeys, the power of death.
Contributions to nakedpastor are greatly appreciated.
David Hayward is a pastor artistically stripping to the essential.
“Mind over matter, if I dont Mind, it dont Matter”……………….
It is the fear that we will be judged by others for our innate badness. At least it is for me.
“I would like to think that the mind controls the emotions and that I can, through thought, govern how I act. This is not the case.” – NP
Have you ever tried meditation? I do not believe I am controlled by emotions. Yes, they are strong persuaders, but they can be beat. I have often wondered if I went to church for as long as I did because I was too afraid to confront my own emotions.
Now that I have, I would not say control, but a better understanding of my emotions, I have the courage to go against them. The main thing that helped was meditaiton. Not the “sit cross legged until I was so uncomfortalble that I couldn’t walk”, and not the kind where I sit and fall asleep. But sitting aware of my breaths and thoughts. Listening to what I was thinking about and understanding myself. And realizing that a lot of what I thought about, could be dismissed or accepted. Jack Kornfield has some very interesting insight into meditation which could be follow by secularists to christians.
Last note. I liked the blog. I can relate to the other stuff about church and the ” I am capable of horrendous evil” I am amazed at how little it takes people to turn themselves into human bombs and killers of abortion doctors. Specially people who say they are very religious. People defend their ideas more than they will defend another person basic human rights.
Yes.
We have to physically speak out and say to the others, “This is going to happen, we have to not let it.”
NP said: By my actions I force evil to go underground in my own life and in the lives of others to do its malicious work more subversively, and I also encourage religiosity to dominate the spirit of the place.
———–Then quit forcing and try the Holy Spirit.
fishon
That is the power of the ‘old Adam’ (that S.O.B.) that lives inside of us all of our days.
You erroneously equate emotions with desires. They are not the same.
You certainly can control your emotions. Usually we only do when we have to.
Case in point: Ever have a scream-out fight with your wife and the phone rings? Are you still yelling when you answer it? Or are you able to control your emotion?
“This way everybody is happy. And false. By continuing in this way we encourage codependency, immaturity and superficiality in individuals and in relationships.”
And I think some churches do this to keep the worker bees happily buzzing along – all the while thinking that they are having “authentic community”.
“Authentic community” is messy.
fishon
David, I really thank God for you and this post.
I think a sigificant scripture here is “love covers a multitude of sins”. That doesn’t mean we carry on sinning “so that grace may abound” – God doesn’t ever licence our sin or condone it, but He knows we are weak and dust, and in Jesus, was tempted in all that we are, so he understands, gives us the gift of repentance, and the cross as a way of cleaning us up, again, and again, as we fall and strive to get up with our hand in his. He is realistic about sin, and put in a system for dealing with it.
Our part is to be as honest as we can, with ourselves, others, and God, about our need for that system. And to keep on using it, till the end.
I’m actually with Fishon in this one. People remain people, even after a genuine conversion, and community is seldom in unity any more than the individuals are, at any segment of time, buried together in Him. Today’s Church, it seems to me, has either lost the reality of Christ “in” me, the truth of a resurrected Jesus living in us via an authentic, tangible, identity the Bible refers to as the Holy Ghost, or…is playing a dangerous game thinking themselves to BE the Holy Ghost.
Our mind (our thinking) and our heart (our emotions) remain subject to the humanity we yet walk within and we get in trouble when we fail to accept that part of the package. Yet, through Christ, God has promised to walk with us and to strengthen us in as much as we surrender ourselves unto Him. Where that leaves us is with no more than a stumble and His assurance of grace to make the journey.
My thoughts, anyway, and I think, David, that you speak much truth about the situation within the ecclesiastical setting.
Thank you. Good preaching, NP & Jim!
“In other words, my desires delude my mind. Whatever my deepest urges are, whether good or evil, my mind justifies them and supports them intellectually. History is replete with this. So is my own life” (NP)
i agree (not about you only – but about myself also). I know this is a danger that all of us must face up to – dealing with ourselves and the way we think – and how we justify those ideas sometimes. I think this is why need to continually examine ourselves in lihgt of the best moral outcomes we might desire – and deal with desire at it’s core – again that is us. I think it is something we can have mastery over – but will always have the potential for problems (since, as humans, we like to self justify).
“This way everybody is happy. And false. By continuing in this way we encourage codependency, immaturity and superficiality in individuals and in relationships. It promotes arrogance and disdains humility. It fears, and therefore obeys, the power of death.” (NP)
I agree again. Churchianity does promote a type of believer that becomes soft to reality and strong to perceived ideas. I think it is a matter of growth/maturity in the individual to overcome this type of stuff and see the costs of their beliefs sometimes. I mean, we all need to continue to do this…sometimes our beliefs are costing us things unnecessarily.
Plus church blows because it’s so routine and played (like a role game). Everyone knows their spots and which to move and not to move…it is quite controlled…go outside those lines and all of a sudden you being realizing – ‘what exactly is my role’? It’s sad that is takes many to leave church to discover their freedoms and to find wholeness – but this is just the way things are right now. It’s also the reason when people leave organized religion they enter into all kinds of problems because they never understood balance.
SocietyVs said: Churchianity does promote a type of believer that becomes soft to reality and strong to perceived ideas.
——–That’s bunk.
——–Who’s reality?
fishon
“SocietyVs said: Churchianity does promote a type of believer that becomes soft to reality and strong to perceived ideas.
——–That’s bunk.
——–Who’s reality?
fishon”
Uh yeah, my theological sparring partner is back – awesome!
I would counter – reality in general – depending on the scenario we are discussing or the situation we need to evaluate.
For example, Fred Phelps is not a very realistic person – he seems cartoonish in his actions – a great villian. He does things that boggle the mind in my opinion – and he is part of a church (is he not?).
On a more general and plain level, many Christians struggle with treatment of others – and can have their actions determined by others. Paul is the one that talks about the ‘weaker brother’ idea one of his Corinthian letters – how we should shelf our liberties for that of a ‘weaker/soft person’. If this is followed out literally all the time – this is not making one more string in their faith – but actually more complacent. How would they know when to stop being controlled by the weakness of another? There is no guideline given by Paul for this.
I find many church people have bad reasoning skills when dealing with issues of importance with the world. Many cannot reason anything important outside some place called heaven and what will happen there – ignoring the world (to some degree) waiting for the 2nd coming. All the while – many things are occuring around them they could call their community to action on – in a sense – they are actually sleeping at the wheel – doing nothing (thinking they are waiting). In this sense, the church can lose it’s place in the ‘real world’ for some ‘other world’ thinking. That’s also a loss of reality – and getting soft on issues.
But I describe churchianity in the sense of the institution called the church missing a lot of what it could be – and what it is at current. One just needs to look at a church’s focus of it’s programs to see I am not kidding here. Preaching, Band/Song Service, Evangelism, Missionaries, Bible Study, Offerings, and Prayer Meetings. I don’t mind those things – until we delve deeper into their core practices – which are? What is the core of any of those things except to support the message of the church?
These other programs – just as important – exist in very small to nil portions – helping the poor in way of a grocery program, helping with paying bills, housing, work, or family counselling. We have many single mothers – name one program that exists to meet their needs? The elderly – they need programs to ensure they are honored. Environmental programs, community initiatives, etc. These things – and more – are quite overlooked in the church – yet they are stark realities in many churches…society trys to take care of those things (with lack of a real personal touch i will add).
So yeah, I am quite researched in what i am saying – not saying the churches do not participate in helping society – they do – but I am going local with this call. How many churches does anyone know that even thinks in this manner?
SocietyVs,
Theological sparing partner! Believe me, I never have been accused of being even close to theological. Spare, yes.
YOU: For example, Fred Phelps is not a very realistic person – he seems cartoonish in his actions – a great villian. He does things that boggle the mind in my opinion – and he is part of a church (is he not?).
————-Now lets stay with you original premise: “Churchianity does promote a type of believer that becomes soft to reality and strong to perceived ideas.” ————You’ll need to prove that Phelps became what he is because of “Churchianity.” Speculation on your part, not based on a known fact. Oh, by the way, he is a nut case in my estimation.
YOU: Paul is the one that talks about the ‘weaker brother’ idea one of his Corinthian letters – how we should shelf our liberties for that of a ‘weaker/soft person’.
———-You mis-characterize the scripture. It has nothing to do with “shelf[ing] our liberties, unless you think it as liberty taken away because you decide not to eat in the presence of someone something that might make them stumble? Maybe you do; but for me, I have freedom to not eat.” The context is about supporting, helping. The NLT says it well, “…be considerate of those who are sensitive about things like this.” Context, man, context.
YOU: I find many church people have bad reasoning skills when dealing with issues of importance with the world.
———-Aha, maybe that is because you don’t agree with them–you know, opinion. Oh, I see, since they don’t see things as you do, they have bad reasoning skills. Churchianity, I think not. Poor reasoning skills are common to man, and not a church issue. You do build a big strawman.
YOU: These other programs – just as important – exist in very small to nil portions – helping the poor in way of a grocery program, helping with paying bills, housing, work, or family counselling. We have many single mothers – name one program that exists to meet their needs? The elderly – they need programs to ensure they are honored. Environmental programs, community initiatives, etc. These things – and more – are quite overlooked in the church – yet they are stark realities in many churches…society trys to take care of those things (with lack of a real personal touch i will add).
——————You perpetuate a myth. Thousands of churches do those things. Could we do better? Always. So, when was the last time you contributed to one of these programs? How often do you contribute and help out. If you have a problem finding one to help: I CAN GIVE YOU SOME SUGGESTIONS.
YOU: How many churches does anyone know that even thinks in this manner?
———Well now, there are 7 churches in the county I live in and 6 of them actively help in many of the areas you address. Oh, an not a one has over 50 members. You see, there are 1,700 people living in the county, and the churches are the first line of defence. Oh yea, the baptist pastor and I were out fighting fire last week. The Preby. pastor is an emt and ambulance driver. The other baptist pastor drive the community bus to the nearest grocery store, 35 miles away, twice a week. Me, I do all the community funerals and weddings for absolutely no money. A drug addict mother of 4 boys had triplets. Yea, 3 more boys. Guess who was at the forefront of helping her out, and she won’t darken the door of a church. We of this county are NOT unique. Thousand upon thousands of churches do the same and more.
Get off your whinny butt and find a church that does the Lord’s work. If you can’t locate one, you ain’t trying. Try New Orleans. Wipe your tears of “woe is the church,” and go help one of them down there. Maybe take a California dreaming trip and help a church who is out on the fires giving food, water, etc. You really got a problem with ‘woe is the church,’ join the Salvation Army; they can use your help right now. You can’t find a church to help “the poor in way of a grocery program,” hey, send cash, check, money order my way. The United Methodist, in our town, who have a food program can use all you can spare, buddy. I am by no means a UM, but I give to them–want to help? The church I pastor has given thousands upon thousands of $$$$ to the Yakima Indians, and tons of clothing. What to help out. You don’t trust me, I can give you an address.
Give me a break. Just one little church here doing good–and there are thousands more. Go do something in the name of Jesus Christ.
fishon
Fishon
Good on you for all you and your community does. You had me totally inspired until you ended it with………….
“Go do something in the name of Jesus Christ.”
Why not just do it because youre a Good Human Being. Unfortunately that statement seems to leave out all the other GOOD people of the world.
John T,
I guessing you are a bright guy. Unless you know nothing about being a “Christ follower,” why would be un-inspired because I said “Go do something in the name of Jesus Christ?†Don’t forget the main thesis between SocietyVs and myself, “Churchianity.”
Oh, I am all for all of mankind doing good in their community. That just isn’t what SocietyVs and I are discussing. We have narrowed the debate to what the church does and does not do.
Also, John, I am sure you didn’t miss the fact that I am a Christian. Colossians 3:17 says: And whatever you do, whether in word or deed, do it all in the name of the Lord Jesus….” So you see, I was just following what I am taught by using that term when I am in a discussion about the church[ianity].
fishon
“You’ll need to prove that Phelps became what he is because of “Churchianity.â€â€ (Fishon)
That won’t be hard – I will just look up his past prior to being in church and his present while in church (namely his theology). I think it would be fairly obvious he was likely not out in communities picketing gay funerals prior to his faith in the Christ. Although he is a sad case, he likely invented his theology from Christian fundamentalist teachings – with certain serious twists. I would lay the fact his theology is that warped at the feet of the people that helped mentor him – and that all happened in a church somewhere.
“The context is about supporting, helping. The NLT says it well, “…be considerate of those who are sensitive about things like this.†Context, man, context.†(Fishon)
But then that does not help growth either – that’s what I am looking at. The fact of the matter is Paul is discussing eating food sacrificed to idols – and that the meat I not bad because we know there is One God. Paul suggests not using our liberty to hurt someone else – I agree there. I question it because at what point of offense will the weaker brother/sister stop at to stop someone else from being authentic?
For example, some Christians that are weaker do not like other Christians to even eat with people outside this faith (as in found in a scripture given by Paul – avoiding their company). Yet, there is actually nothing sinful about that…hanging out does not decree one is bad or something. So do we use the situation to teach the weaker to overcome their weaknesses or listen to them? That’s the point I am making.
“Poor reasoning skills are common to man, and not a church issue. You do build a big strawman.†(Fishon)
True, reasoning skills are bad across the board – but in the church – this seems like a teaching to follow. Faith, in a lot of Evangelical like organizations, rely on feelings or they get taught that (ie: have to feel the Spirit, etc). Most churches do not teach their congregants to become studious in reasoning their faith out – they teach them it is ‘finished’ – almost as if all is figured out already and pre-done for them. I think addressing that as a concern in the church is smart to do.
“So, when was the last time you contributed to one of these programs? How often do you contribute and help out. If you have a problem finding one to help: I CAN GIVE YOU SOME SUGGESTIONS.†(Fishon)
No probs here – I actually started an endeavor at a local church – and trued to get buy in and saw the falws of the system first hand. I did something called action group – which was supposed to be a ministry addressing the needs of people in the community – like a support group. Fact is, it bombed and no church supported it. It was too ‘works’ looking for them and the fact the community in a church is fragmented and not cohesive – there never was going to be buy in. I contributed everything out of my own pocket for this endeavor – helped someone move when their house burnt down, got them a washer/dryer for their family, helped others move and rented U-Hauls for them, paid some bills for another few families, etc. That type of stuff did not seem gospel enough for the churches I addressed – which included Quakers, Non-Denom’s, Alliance and Methodists. I figured it would fly – I was wrong.
“Get off your whinny butt and find a church that does the Lord’s work†(Fishon)
So when I break it down I am whining – but when you defend the church you are making suggestions…okay. That’s the exact problem in a nutshell – it’s an us and them game in the church – that is only concerned about the salvation ‘message’. Now granted the message is good – but the message also needs the substance of what salvation is.
I am not saying the church in general does not do various efforts – I know this to be true from Pat Robertson to Catholic organizations (and as you mention – the Salvation Army type places also). I stand up and appluade such efforts personally – and support what I can – where I can (being like Schindler – there is always more I could of done).
But I know – the focus of churches are not those things – they are about their own programs – which are supposed to support the community but do little of that. I applaude you for work – the pastor of the church I recently attended also does the same – but those are lone efforts – and are still good – but not church programs per se. I have yet to walk into a church with any of the programs I suggested – they do not exist as part of a specific ministry (I mean on a local level). So why should I not de-cry that? If I don’t point that out no one from within is going to – they don’t get taught to.
It’s grand if your local county does this – but if this is so – then lay out the programs and ministries being done – and how the whole congregation is involved as a whole community? The only time I see this is in the tithe – which goes to the church and not for these specific minstries. Is their a program where people can give straight to the welfare of the poor, the widow, the veteran, or the orphan? How about to some jail? I mean, these programs do not exist – or at least – I never see them. Yet I do see examples of this in the early church as a ministry. So, I think it wise to point it out and see if it can become a reality – actual ministries with programs for the whole community to participate in for the benefit of themselves and others – for the sole sake of being a giver.
On a personal level, I do everything the best I can to help others – outside the church because nothing like this exists inside the church except giving to missions (and in my opinion that is more along the lines of communal support – but still weak). I think I have the right to call that out as I see it – if I know better programs can exist and don’t.
SocietyVs,
To debate with you is almost futile. You build strawmen with your huge assumptions; i.e. you first paragraph. You use words to try and prove your arguement: “I think…, he likely….” And you know absolutly nothing about who mentored him. And if by chance it was a wacko, that does nothing to future your rage against the Church of Jesus.
Futher into your arguement you use the phrase “Most churches do not teach their congregants to become studious in reasoning their faith out….”
—–You don’t know that. That is a rather huge leap, since I am guessing you have not even visited one percent of the churches in North America. Please tell me if I am wrong. You make such a bold statement—-when imperical evidence do you base your statement on?????????
As I read the rest of your post, it seems to mean that you are calling on the Church to be social workers, somewhat like the government. That is NOT the call of the church. Don’t hear me to say the church should not help in some of the areas you suggest, but it seems as if you are calling for the Church to be a huge social service organization.
You have an ax to grind against the church, and you build up bogus complaints based on a few who may not be doing anything. And again, I suggest you base your complaints on a few bad apples.
By the way, Jesus calls upon the church to have a big ‘communal support’ system. If I have any complaint, it is that we don’t take care of our own never as well as we help the non-believer.
And SocietyVs, you give yourself away as a bigot against the church when the best you can do is pick Phelps as a point to make a point about the bigger church. You know as well as I, he and his family are not in anyway embraced by the bigger Church.
Now this is the last I will say on this. No doubt, there are local churches that could do better. However, a little googling will find for you stats on what churches in America give to the poor, the hurting, the unfortunate, not only in America, but to the World. Find something else to complain about.
fishon
“And if by chance it was a wacko, that does nothing to future your rage against the Church of Jesus.” (Fishon)
He is a wacko – which makes him not a good example (I admit) – but he was one portion of the example – an extreme point. Most people in churches are not like Fred obviously – likely not even 1% – but some have those extreme feelings so let’s not forget about them.
As for ‘rage’ or ‘anger’ – I am not mad at the church whatsoever. I am stating what I see as the obvious holes in community in the church and that’s about it. And yes, it is from my perspective alone…people do not need to agree with me – but if I am making sense on some level – it would also be wise to not dismiss it altogether.
“I am guessing you have not even visited one percent of the churches in North America. Please tell me if I am wrong. You make such a bold statement—-when imperical evidence do you base your statement on?????????” (Fishon)
You are right – I haven’t. But I have visited a lot of churches in my time – and if a lot of churches keep on looking the same from province to province and state to state – then I can only base my conclusions on what I know and see.
I find the same services, same messages, same structures, and same concerns. And although I may not have visited 1% of all the churches in Canada or America – what more should I need to know – even surveys only hit a sector of society and not the whole thing? I should go on what I have seen from churches – this is honest and real – beyond that i can guess and hope for the best – but that’s all supposition.
“Don’t hear me to say the church should not help in some of the areas you suggest, but it seems as if you are calling for the Church to be a huge social service organization” (Fishon)
I am only asking they check their focus – are they about the preaching the words or living them? The church is a lot of talk in my opinion (and it’s good talk mind you) – I even think it is a culture of talk in some ways. My concern is the church has left some of the basic ideas of caring for humanity behind – both within their community and outside it. That’s a fear of mine I see in churches – they perceive they do the works of God – when Matt 25 (sheep and the goats) leaves them open to sharp criticism.
Now I know some churches do get out there and do a lot of good – Fishon I have never denied that. I am making the hypotheses that most churches do not focus on this…and the hypotheses next to nil do these types of things for their local community to build the community in a solid body. I am open to being proven wrong on the whole issue – but I have not seen one myself. I have seen nice churches and all that – some that function without community in my opinion and yet give a lot – and others that give nothing but have community. It’s just rare to see a chuch community that is both a close knit community and also very giving.
If there is a few – show me their websites – I will go and visist (via the web) and ask questions.
“However, a little googling will find for you stats on what churches in America give to the poor, the hurting, the unfortunate, not only in America, but to the World. Find something else to complain about.” (Fishon)
My biggest complaint is concerning that exact thing – we have money to give to the rest of the planet but we can forget our own backyards. That’s a the problem I have with it also. It’s not like America(s) do not have sick, poor, needy, depressed, elderly, widows, single mothers, etc…that need as much or more help. Yet they get the short end of the stick in my opinion – which churches care about other countries on the planet except their own.
But the biggest complaint I ever here is – what exactly are churches doing that is productive then? The message is cool – but without actual works it is dead. One could make the argument the church is in fact also dead (in some regards). What has the church done for societal ills in the past 50 years exactly? Things have been gettig worse and not better – and for as ‘good news’ as the church proclaims – what ’s so good about the change they are not making in overall society?
Think about it – there are at least 250 churches or more in a big city. They are all over the place from the suburbs to the inner city – and can meet the moral and societal needs of many people in that city. To me, it looks a great web of churches that can change society for the better – and help make their city a much better place. Ideally, in 50 years a huge change in the morality of society should have taken pace.
However, this is not the case. Crime rates rose, prisons got filled, violent crime rose, divorce rates sky-rocketed, abortion became an accepted practice, single mothers have risen astronomically, poverty is something that went from small to problematic, etc. Society, for as much churches it has within it, has not gotten better but worse – and by far – worse. So, if the church is so grand and awesome an institution that is represeting God and all the glory therein – why exactly is society getting worse and not better?
SocietyVs,
You make some very good points about some of the ills of the Church. However, the illness of the church does not negate the wonderfull things that have happened because of the church.
I am only going to address this one point you make:
YOU: So, if the church is so grand and awesome an institution that is represeting God and all the glory therein – why exactly is society getting worse and not better?
—–That would be like saying that because the new beginning Church at Jerusalem did NOT have affect on the Roman Empire, therefore something is wrong with it.
Jesus and the Bible writers address the fact that they live in a Dictator government. And we are not told that it is the job of the church to overthrow or improve the society, culture or government. The Bible tells us how to live in a less than perfect world, and at the same time, teach Jesus, help the widows and orphans, care for the brotherhood, and make a difference one person at a time.
It seems to me that you view the church as needing to be a machine that takes care of all [many] the social ills of the world. But the Bible does NOT teach that. We are not even told to try and change the moral climate as an organization. It is one person at a time.
It is not true that the social, moral, and poverty level of a given Country is in directed porportion to the health of the church in a particular Country. Again, look at the first century church. It was strong and powerful; powerfull, in that it was making disciples.
To say that the church is inaffective and unproductive [pharapharsing your words] in changing the morals, ethics, and socical issues of the day, therefore it is not doing its call, is to say that because Israel continually rebelled against Jehovah, He was weak and inaffective.
And lastly, the problems, sin, and breakdown of America is not because of a weak church, it is because of a sinful people who do not want to follow the truth of God’s Word. I maintain, the true Church of Jesus Christ is doing well. The phony, lego church that does not follow Christ’s teaching, but most of America sees, is a garbage dump.
I believe that you see the Church as the catalist and the huge organization that is to solve much of the World’s ills. It is not. It is first and foremost about saving individuals, one person at a time. Are there other things to do? Yes. But they are not number one. And if we do number one, well, the rest falls into place–in as much as is possible. But, SocietyVs, Rome lives on in the World, and will not come to an end until He comes back.
fishon
“However, the illness of the church does not negate the wonderfull things that have happened because of the church.†(Fishon)
I don’t think it negates the good things that have happened because of the church at all – I admit a lot of good things have happened. I am proof that good things do happen in the church (and my family) – and I am thankful for that. But if I want to give back to the church(es) I either attend(ed) or am affiliated with – there is very little I can do – outside giving a tithe/missions field. The programs of my interest do not exist at this point. Reason being – too social work in nature I guess? No clue to be honest.
“That would be like saying that because the new beginning Church at Jerusalem did NOT have affect on the Roman Empire, therefore something is wrong with it.†(Fishon)
I agree to a certain point. It is true Christianity did not change that empire – but was rather disliked to hated by it. However, in due time (270 years or so), the faith actually becomes a central piece of the empire – changing the face of the empire and it eventually fell.
I would also say the Christian faith challenged many of the Roman practices and outright slammed them as shameful – it challenged the Empire every step of the way until it changed. Not by voting mind you – but small/public faith gatherings did that. I really don’t see that in the church these days – that type of power or moral outrage. Maybe the same problems don’t exists here?
“But the Bible does NOT teach that. We are not even told to try and change the moral climate as an organization. It is one person at a time†(Fishon)
But the bible does teach the church is the ‘body of Christ’. I would ask what was Christ’s mission and what did he do with his time? We can say the church is only about personal change – and that is grand. However, neither is that mentioned as the role of the church. The church is a community of people, not just individuals. Both aspects are needed for church to reach it’s highest heights.
The fact democratic societies are getting worse does not speak well of the church in my opinion…where churches are openly and freely allowed to exist and speak their perspectives – namely on morality. Problem is, where the church and society begin and end is so inter-twined it makes it hard for the church to say anything productive to society.
This is how it has been throughout the 20th century – the bloodiest period recorded in human history – and the church was there the whole time in huge numbers – saying next to nothing and sometimes in tacit support of the endeavors. The church usually misses the boat with it’s critiques I noticed…aiming them at issues of some importance – but neglecting the true evils of this planet in those critiques.
Nazi Germany is a classic example of this – an empire that went basically unchallenged by the church – all over the world. It should have woke the church up to this kind of ill in society but it still didn’t. The church in the West is weaker than a chain linked fence in a flood.
The church we are part of never speaks out against certain business practices in society (some are outright evil in my opinion), nor about war (as long as their country is not the one in the critique), nor about the environment (also ruined by big business), nor about poverty in countries so rich they could solve that problem, nor about the defense budget and nuclear build-up (which will most likely be the destruction of this planet), etc. The church sleeps at the wheel when it comes to actual evil – and picks piecemeal battles of things that will not upset their own gov’t. I think the church is scared of it’s own gov’t to be perfectly honest – so it tacitly walks hand in hand with it. It’s not Rome – in that you’re right – it’s worse – no one is saying anything that matters.
Paul made an interesting point in Ephesians about ‘the powers that be’ – true evil is actually raining down from there.
“For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the powers, against the world forces of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places.†(Ephesians 6:12)
“But, SocietyVs, Rome lives on in the World, and will not come to an end until He comes back.†(Fishon)
I agree – this is true – but who is Rome in this world? But even if Rome exists it wasn’t like Paul and others did not challenge those empire ideals when they ran counter to being a Christ-ian. I think the church in general has a long way to go if it wants to be anything like the church in the first century – namely with it’s stands concerning business practices, the environment, war, capital, etc. The church, like everyone else in society, benefits of the backs of capitalist enterprises in 3rd world countries – and it tacitly allows the war to be seen as something redeeming when it is nothing like that. If you ask me, the church is still Rome’s little moral guardian.
SocietyVs,
YOU: Problem is, where the church and society begin and end is so inter-twined it makes it hard for the church to say anything productive to society.
——–That is the truth.
YOU: This is how it has been throughout the 20th century – the bloodiest period recorded in human history – and the church was there the whole time in huge numbers – saying next to nothing and sometimes in tacit support of the endeavors. The church usually misses the boat with it’s critiques I noticed…aiming them at issues of some importance – but neglecting the true evils of this planet in those critiques.
Nazi Germany is a classic example of this – an empire that went basically unchallenged by the church – all over the world. It should have woke the church up to this kind of ill in society but it still didn’t. The church in the West is weaker than a chain linked fence in a flood.
———-Aha! That moves us into another realm. Personally, I do not think what was past off as the Church was the Church at all. I think the ‘lampstand’ of the church that had become polluted had been removed in Nazi Germany. Oh there were still Bonhoffer’s doing battle, but the huge institution was not even a shell of itself, but something entirely different.
I have to disagree with: “The church in the West is weaker than a chain linked fence in a flood.”
—————–What is passed off as the true church, yes, I agree. But the TRUE Church is as strong as it ever was.
—————–The fact is, the media, Hollywood paint a untrue, unreliable, unrealist picture of the true Church. Phelps gets more air time than the churches that did and are doing great work in New Orleans. Haggart got more air time than the amount of money raised by the true church to help with Tsunai victims.
YOU: But even if Rome exists it wasn’t like Paul and others did not challenge those empire ideals when they ran counter to being a Christ-ian.
—————-Paul didn’t challenge Rome——Paul challenged the people to live a personal life of Holiness–Not Rome. ******************PLEASE GIVE ME A FEW EXAMPLES AS TO PAUL CHALLENGING ROME.
YOU: If you ask me, the church is still Rome’s little moral guardian.
—————Are you speaking of the Church/Body of Jesus Christ????????/
Good conversation, SocietyVs.
fishon
“But the TRUE Church is as strong as it ever was” – Fishon
What is the “TRUE Church”?
SocietyVs, my two cents: I don’t think the church is meant to change society in the way you suggest. Jesus warned us that as His coming back got closer, evil would abound and the earth will continue to die (famines, earthquakes, ect.) so I don’t think it is the church’s responsibility to change the tide because, unfortunately, I don’t believe things will get better as far as the moral behavior of society or the quality of life goes. BUT we are meant to be a light in the darkness. Our love manifesting itself as we tell people of the love of Christ and also caring for the poor, orphans, those in jail ect. I think how we love each other as Christians is key, so the world will know who Jesus was.
We must remember, though, that although churches are entities in themselves (as Dave is helping me understand), it is made up of individuals trying to make their way in the world. It takes individuals to carry out all of the programs you mentioned and sometimes the spirit is willing but the flesh is weak. We all have our personal concerns; family problems, financial concerns, addictions and many other things. As has been said on Dave’s blog, we are a messy group going in and out of our own problems. The church can’t run with these things if the people who make up the church are crawling.
I don’t mean we do nothing, but that I think only a small portion of the church body is able to reach out to the needy at any given time. So our effectiveness is limited in this way. As Christians, unless we are full time paid employees of the church or an institution, we have a responsibility to start by caring for our families first, then our friends, our neighbors, our co-workers. Then we can move outward. I’m not suggesting we don’t reach outside the walls of our relationships but it doesn’t make sense to me to abandon the needs set before me.
You are reading this written by someone who not so many years ago had a dream to go to Africa and minister to the orphans there. I had a powerful dream that compelled me to go but was never able to make it happen due to both personal issues and relational issues. I hope someday that dream will be revived but right now I am at a place where I have just enough energy to care for the financial, emotional, and physical needs of myself and my daughter and not a whole lot more.
As a teacher’s assistant at an elementary school, I do what little I can to minister to the needs of my little charges. Loving them with God’s love and praying for them. I have wept over my lack of resources, both financial and physical energy, to really make a difference but I have had to put it to rest and just do what I can.
I trust what Jesus said to Paul, “My grace is sufficient for thee, for my strength is made perfect in weakness.” I don’t believe the church is meant to be strong in programs for those in need in this world, but strong in our faith in what Jesus has done for us. It is this faith that leads others to redemption. Jesus said the poor will always be with us and we should care for them however we can, but our main focus is the condition of their soul/spirit and where they will spend eternity.
I fear this is not a popular view but I believe Jesus died to save us from an eternity separate from God, not to ensure our physical needs are met. I would never suggest He doesn’t care about our pain because it is only knowing how much He hurts when I hurt that gets me through sometimes.
Wilfred Bird,
I imagine that what I consider as the true church you will not. But I will give you a little of what I understand as the true church.
1. “If you love me, you will obey my commands.
2. “Love the Lord your God with all you heart and with all your soula nd with all your mind.
3. “Love your neighbor as yourself.”
4. Make disciples
5. Baptize them
6. Teach them to obey all things.
7. Love the brotherhood
8. Use your gifts and talents for the furtherance of the kingdom of God
9. “Be imitators of God…and live a life of love, just as Christ ….”
10. “…live a life worthy of the calling you have received.”
11. “Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit, but in humility consider others better than yourselves. Each of you should look not only to your own interests, but also to the interests of others. Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus.”
12. “Watch your life and doctrine closely. Persevere in them, because if you do, you will save both yourself and your hearers.”
Complete, no.
Some would say, not possible.
God never tells us to do, to be, if it were not possible.
fishon
“I don’t think the church is meant to change society in the way you suggest†(Shelly)
Most people don’t in my opinion – you are not in the minority by no means on this issue. The fact is the majority of church-goers do not feel physical needs are as important as the salvation message per se. I think we have a belief in our faith that the physical is outweighed by the spiritual needs of a person…then the focus just stays on the spiritual after that point.
I tend to think the human being is 4 quadrants – emotional, mental, physical, and spiritual – and all these combined make up to complete human. If we try to isolate (or focus on) one piece and work on that then we are doing a disservice to the human person…the human cannot isolate that piece from the other 3 parts of their being – all things considered – emotional effects the physical, the physical effects the spiritual, the mental effects the emotional, etc…round and round that goes.
I tend to think the church is isolating one aspect of the whole human experience and calling that ‘spirituality’. It’s focus is on spiritual details – admitted by me – but the whole human experience is a spiritual thing when you think about it. If your spiritual aspect is fed and your physical is not – you die. What good is spiritual food if it is not accompanied by real food? The body gains nothing while the spirtual aspects of us gain nothing also…since we could not upkeep one aspect of our body. All things considered – everything we do is tied to spirituality.
That being said, my point is if someone is suffering in the physical – like depression or in prison – they need some help and praying for them is a single aspect of that. I tend to think we need to address all the needs of the person – from the emotional stuff, cognitive issues they are having, and the physical problems (usually this is all inter-twined). I think it is a mistake to think we have no duty to the human body and human construct on this planet in ways of helping with the whole human expereince – for me – spiritual is more than a prayer or some other way of looking spiritual – I will know them by their actions.
“we have a responsibility to start by caring for our families first, then our friends, our neighbors, our co-workers. Then we can move outward†(Shelly)
I agree 100%. I am all about healthy relationships – and that starts at home first and foremost. I know we have a duty to care about ourselves and our health. But I think after that initial concern we also need to move forward into programs that allow us to help others in need…seeing that our needs are able to help us feel empathy for others. I guess I want to see the church go more along those lines since I think it is good endeavor to align with the church.
“It is this faith that leads others to redemption. Jesus said the poor will always be with us and we should care for them however we can, but our main focus is the condition of their soul/spirit and where they will spend eternity.†(Shelly)
My thing is the total interaction of spirituality is about the whole human – and to forget one aspect is also to forget about the human need. I think we can deal with the spiritual stuff of the self – but that can become a selfish endeavor in my opinion. After a while church exists for the one to be the only focus – and if church does include the whole totality of human needs – then I think the church is missing the whole point of Jesus’ message.
“and if church does include the whole totality of human needs – then I think the church is missing the whole point of Jesus’ message.” (SVS)
Does is supposed to say ‘doesn’t’
Fishon,
I liked the list. It doesn’t mention specific doctrines or statement of faiths or denominations. It focuses on more practical biblical scriptures rather than obscure texts. I asked about the statement because it felt to me like you had more to say about it and that “true church” seemed like a phrase busting with meaning.
I don’t have a view of the “true church”, and I am indifferent to the thought of “church” I prefer a small meetings with friends discussing life and spirituality. Which is why I like this blog and my brother Societyvs’ blog. I like hearing differing views and being involved in good conversation. It’s an intimacy which I do not always get to be a part of.
SocietyVs:
While I agree with “I tend to think the human being is 4 quadrants – emotional, mental, physical, and spiritual – and all these combined make up the complete human.” to an extent, it is the soul and spirit that will go on when separated from the physical. As you said, “If your spiritual aspect is fed and your physical is not – you die.” but I would rather die with my spirit full of life and my body empty than my spirit dead and my body full of food. I disagree with “What good is spiritual food if it is not accompanied by real food? The body gains nothing while the spirtual aspects of us gain nothing also..” I believe that spiritual food can sustain us through unbelievable difficulties. For instance, if I consider what would be for me and unspeakable horror; losing a child, it would not be physical food that would get me through.
I remember hearing a missionary speaking of ministering to the poor and drug addicts in Hong Kong. She spoke of a time when she visited a woman who lived on a bed, under a tent, on a roof. The woman was terribly poor but the missionary (having already sold everything she owned to give to those who needed it) had nothing to offer her. After she apologized for visiting empty handed, the poor woman replied, “Oh, that’s okay. When you leave Jesus visits me on my roof.” Does that sound impossible? Maybe but I believe with God all things are possible. Sometimes, as mere human beings, we have nothing to offer, but God cares for his children in ways that are beyond human understanding. His ways are higher…
Jesus said, with regard to the sheep on his right hand (when we stand before him) Come, you blessed of my Father,inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: For I was hungry and you gave me meat; I was thirsty and you gave me drink: I was a stranger and you took me in: naked and you clothed me: I was in prison, and you came to me. ..For as you have done it for the least of these, you have done it for me. (paraphrased) Certainly, how we minister to those we see in need is high on Jesus’ priority list but in the next chapter when the disciples protest at the “waste” of the ointment the woman poored on him by saying, “For this ointment might have been sold for much, and given to the poor.” he replies (again paraphrasing) “Why are you giving her a hard time. She has done a good thing for me. For you will always have the poor with you: but me you will not always have.
It’s such a paradox but I think he is saying our love for those in need is important but our love for him takes priority over that. We love him by obeying his words, “Go into all the world, and proclaim the good news to every creature.” To Peter he said, “Do you love me? Then feed my sheep.”
You said, “I think we have a belief in our faith that the physical is outweighed by the spiritual needs of a person…then the focus just stays on the spiritual after that point.”
It has been my experience that attending to the physical needs is actually easier than attending to spiritual ones. While, as a church, we may say the spiritual out weighs the physical, it has always seemed to me that we have attended to people’s physical needs more effectively than how we have attended to their spiritual needs.
Can I ask how, in the programs you suggest, when you minister to their physical needs, how do you also minister to them spiritually? I have known (and participated in the past) of church barbecues in a park in a poor part of the city that provide food anyone who wants it and while they eat there is worship music and testimonies and sometimes even altar calls. I have heard partakers of the food say they had to pay for their meal by listening to the church’s presentation. This kind of ministry doesn’t cut it for me. I think it can be condecending and insulting. I wonder what it looks like when you minister to both body and spirit in a loving and respectful way. Do you have some ideas? I am sincere in my question because I think there must be a better way but I don’t see it happening.
SVS, I hear your love for the poor and I hear your frustration and in that I’m with ya. Shelley
“I wonder what it looks like when you minister to both body and spirit in a loving and respectful way. Do you have some ideas? I am sincere in my question because I think there must be a better way but I don’t see it happening.” (Shelley)
All I can go by is what i think will work – having tried things in the past and getting no church support in them. I ran something called an Action Group (about 7 of us) where we helped people with all kinds of needs – all we did was listen for those in need and tried our best to help out. We did things like moved people from place to place, painted a room in a house, helped a lady after a devastating fire (to move) – and bought her a washer/dryer for her and her kids, helped supplement someone’s bill payments. We had grand ideas – but with no support – we burnt out and it passed away (the idea).
There is a lot of things the church can do as a community to (a) help others and (b) build themselves into a more tight knot community. Isn’t that the goal of a good church anyways? It’s something I noticed does work…get people working hand in hand with people that want the help – and everyone is glad to be around one another. I can’t think of a greater way to spread the good news than to be it to someone else’s life.
I think programs like – groceries for those in need, single mother support programs (maybe even cheap daycare), elderly inclusion programs (making them feel wanted and special), prison programs (not just ministering to them – but helping them study or get help from the outside – to build a life), a ‘work in the neighborhood’ project (a youth group project to clean the neighborhood or make money by cutting grass, raking leafs, shovelling snow, or basic yard work), having an employment program to help people with resumes and applications, etc. I had many more but they are written down at home.
The basic idea behind most of those programs is to get the church out of the church and into their community again…as an active and essential part of that community. People see the care this place has for the neighborhood – how can they really talk bad about it? I think then we start seeing people come through the doors that want to be there and want to learn about this faith (maybe even be involved). The whole congregation is involved in all the work so everyone becomes a more close knit community – working hand in hand for the same faith. Thsi way the people coming in and the people already there sort of just phase into one another – and the community is just strong.
At least, that is my hope – no one has tried anything like this and when I wanted to – it bombed without church support. So I figured I would dedicate my time to writing and less to that idea. I also am still like that mind you – that will never change for me – but I have no group of people now – no church – no chance. So I write about the hope of what a church can become.