Welcome to De-Commissioned, a place for former members of the Great Commission movement (aka GCM, GCC, GCAC, GCI, the Blitz) to discuss problems they've experienced in the association's practices and theology.

You may read and post, but some features are restricted to registered members. Please consider registering to gain full access! Registration is free and only takes a few moments to complete.
De-Commissioned Forum
December 03, 2021, 12:09:47 am *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
  Home   Forum   Help Search Login Register  
Pages: 1 [2]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Church Growth, Schuller, Willow Creek, and ECC & GC*  (Read 26317 times)
MidnightRider
Household Name (300+ Posts)
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 300



« Reply #20 on: May 06, 2008, 06:50:37 pm »

Quote from: "Linda"
Please don't take me out of context!

I wasn't so much arguing with you as encouraging you (and everyone else) not to give up and settle for an unqualified pastor.

Usually I'm arguing, so it's OK if you didn't read it that way.  :wink:

Quote
...
I've spent the better part of three years trying to get over bad doctrine that was taught by men of "good character". It requires a lot of time to rethink things and remove the bad theology. It's been good for me, but, nevertheless, a challenge.

Three years! I am sorry to tell you this, but you are just getting started. I left 23 years ago and I am still working on it.
Logged
MidnightRider
Household Name (300+ Posts)
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 300



« Reply #21 on: May 06, 2008, 06:57:22 pm »

Quote from: "lone gone"
What I said was meant to reflect on Paul's life and his freedom in Christ. ..... If there was a temple, I could worship there. In fact I could go to the Wailing Wall, the Dome on the Rock and the Church of the Sepulcher and worship if I chose. Or chose not to.

Freedom in Christ is A Good Thing. But please refrain from animal sacrifices.  Sad
Logged
Linda
Household Name (300+ Posts)
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2496



« Reply #22 on: May 06, 2008, 08:15:25 pm »

Quote
I wasn't so much arguing with you as encouraging you (and everyone else) not to give up and settle for an unqualified pastor.

I guess what I was addressing was that you quoted me from a post out of context which made it look like I was saying that character didn't matter. Which, was not what I was saying.
Quote
Three years! I am sorry to tell you this, but you are just getting started. I left 23 years ago and I am still working on it.

Whoa, so sorry! I think this sort of proves the point I was trying to make in that previous post. You can get over a pastor having a major moral failure pretty quickly. He was wrong, the church got rid of him, life goes on for the church.

However, bad teaching takes YEARS to root out.

That was my point.

While neither are a good thing, it's easier to get over bad character coming from a pastor than bad teaching.
Logged

Thanks be unto God for his unspeakable gift.
lone gone
Veteran (100-299 Posts)
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 279



WWW
« Reply #23 on: May 07, 2008, 02:52:02 am »

"Freedom in Christ is A Good Thing. But please refrain from animal sacrifices."

That animal sacrifice thing is so OUT nowadays anyway. The IN thing seems to be non-fatal human sacrifices... especially of someone else.

I am jesting of course.
Logged
ustawannabee
Regular (15-99 Posts)
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 32



« Reply #24 on: May 07, 2008, 07:32:42 am »

I actually tryed to talk to John Meyer about the "follow your leaders' thing once. I told him that the only difference between "us" and the RC church was that they said the pope was infallible and "we" just said that if the leaders made a mistake God would use it in your life anyway. He said (and I quote) " the problem I have with the Catholics is not how they run their church but their theology on salvation"  :shock:
there wasnt much  more I could add to that conversation!
Logged

Now I am free to be me in Christ!
Linus
Obscure Poster (1-14 Posts)
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 9



« Reply #25 on: May 07, 2008, 07:51:05 am »

I think that this is an interesting perspective on sola scriptura--and one that I agree with.
Logged
AgathaL'Orange
Household Name (300+ Posts)
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1182



« Reply #26 on: May 07, 2008, 09:51:33 am »

I normally would not do this, but it fits!  I am going to type an article in that I just read (it's very short, but fits EXACTLY WHY GC went awry, in my opinion anyway.  Well, it gives ONE reason... there are more.)  I think it addresses what Linus just posted on as well.

It is from the May 2008 issue of Touchstone from the Quodlibet section.

This mini-article is by David Mills.

Here it is:

Founding Bothers
"It has been years since I have spoken to a Presbyterian who knew beans about Calvin," my friend remarked, and I am sure this is true across the traditions.  A concern for the founding fathers of one's tradition is considered a hobby for earnest young men and older academics, but not something to inflict on anyone else.

Suggest your church engage in a close study of Calvin or Luther or Cranmer or Thomas, and you'll be treated like the art movie fanatic who suggests Bergman or Ozu or Pasolini for the church movie night.  Appeal to them in an argument, and your friends will react as if you'd invoked Einstein and the theory of general relativity to settle the question of what color carpet to put in the meeting room.

I have met clergy, conservatives every bit as much as liberal, who privately regretted this but publicly supported it, I suspect because a church unmoored from its founders is a church easier to mold as one wishes.  It's like getting people to pay for a trip without telling them where you're taking them, in case you change your mind at any point on the way.  You don't want to sign a contract with the past if you don't have to.
Logged

Glad to be free.
MidnightRider
Household Name (300+ Posts)
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 300



« Reply #27 on: May 07, 2008, 09:52:25 am »

Quote from: "ustawannabee"
I actually tryed to talk to John Meyer about the "follow your leaders' thing once. I told him that the only difference between "us" and the RC church was that they said the pope was infallible and "we" just said that if the leaders made a mistake God would use it in your life anyway. He said (and I quote) " the problem I have with the Catholics is not how they run their church but their theology on salvation"  :shock:
there wasnt much  more I could add to that conversation!

<sarcasm mode ON>
All he needs to do is become RC. Then he could submit to their leadership, since he has no problem with how they run their church. They would tell him to change his theology on salvation, and then he would have no problem with them at all.
<sarcasm mode OFF>
Logged
Linda
Household Name (300+ Posts)
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2496



« Reply #28 on: May 07, 2008, 12:31:50 pm »

Hi Linus,
I don't think that the Jolly Blogger was talking about "sola scriptura".

When people say, "I just want to read the Bible and do what it says," that isn't what is meant by sola scriptura, as I understand it.

Our friends at Wiki say:
Quote
Sola scriptura (Latin ablative, "by scripture alone") is the assertion that the Bible as God's written word is self-authenticating, clear (perspicuous) to the rational reader, its own interpreter ("Scripture interprets Scripture"), and sufficient of itself to be the final authority of Christian doctrine.


I think, maybe key to that in the case of Jolly Blogger is the "Scripture interprets Scripture" part.

You can't just open up the Bible, choose a verse, and say you need to apply it to your life at that moment and do what it says. Well, I guess you could, but that would not be very wise and is not what is meant by sola scriptura.

The open Bible and Do What it Says method is where GCx has gotten into trouble. The classic Hebrews 13:17 verse on obeying leaders is the perfect example of this. They took a verse by itself, out of context in the book of Hebrews, and neglecting the rest of the New Testament which points out there is one mediator between God and man created a way of doing church that they claim is authentic because it is straight from the Bible.

About Sola Scriptura. Here's what I was trying to say.

GCx as far as I know claims to be Protestant.
Sola scriptura is a Protestant belief.
If GCx is Protestant, then they are saying that the final authority of Christian doctrine is the Word.

However, they also say,
Quote
And so even to give the controls over to God, that's hard, but the real kicker here is God is saying, "give the controls over to people that I work through, and these people are fallible, these people make mistakes, these people are weak at times. You-outta work through it anyway," that's what God says.


So, my conclusion is that GCx is not a sola scriptura church and therefore is not Protestant by the traditional meaning of that term.

I was not trying to say Sola Scriptura is the only way of viewing the Word of God. It happens to be the way I have moved and I have largely moved that way as a result of my experience with GCx. I honestly never thought about it much before.

I know some perfectly wonderful Believers who have moved a different way probably as a result of their experience at GCx also. They found the idea of the Bible plus "sacred tradition" to be in line with how they view their faith and have gone for a church with a long and rich history (rather than stay at one with a short and at times rather sordid history). By the way, I see the appeal of that, but, frankly, am afraid of Christian leaders, so just can't make that move right now.
Logged

Thanks be unto God for his unspeakable gift.
Linda
Household Name (300+ Posts)
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2496



« Reply #29 on: May 07, 2008, 12:36:14 pm »

Quote
He said (and I quote) " the problem I have with the Catholics is not how they run their church but their theology on salvation"

Wow.
When we mentioned to our pastors that the church government was similar to the RC church we were told in writing that we had borderline defamed them!
Logged

Thanks be unto God for his unspeakable gift.
MidnightRider
Household Name (300+ Posts)
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 300



« Reply #30 on: May 07, 2008, 03:26:07 pm »

Quote from: "Linda"
When we mentioned to our pastors that the church government was similar to the RC church we were told in writing that we had borderline defamed them!
I don't see why they should get so upset. It was a hierarchical government with one man at the top. That would be the pope, right?
Logged
theresearchpersona
Household Name (300+ Posts)
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 418



« Reply #31 on: June 17, 2008, 07:49:28 pm »

Quote from: "lone gone"
"Not really. There is not a temple in Jerusalem anymore."

What I said was meant to reflect on Paul's life and his freedom in Christ. ..... If there was a temple, I could worship there. In fact I could go to the Wailing Wall, the Dome on the Rock and the Church of the Sepulcher and worship if I chose. Or chose not to.

 I am sure you got it the first time but I wrote this for other believers who may not know me or the freedom I have in Christ.


Um...read the context of the verses on "liberty": Paul seems to sarcastically quote different catch-phrases of the libertines. Then he proceeds to tell us that he wouldn't do anything to offend a brother's conscience; he says that instead of glorying in our "liberty" or "freedom" in Christ we are to instead (context indicates the sense of "in opposition") do all for the glory of God (in opposition to boasting our "liberty"), and we're also to consider a brother's weaker conscience and not do anything to embolden someone.

Scripture describes our "liberty" as from sin...and us as enslaved to Christ instead of sin. Today we have too many "libertines" just as there were in Paul's day; but we should not boast in such, but rather in our weaknesses and in Jesus Christ; and remember the NT constantly tells us that it would not have us drink of the cup of idols or demons...in-context with eating in the temples of idols; AND it tells us to NOT touch "the unclean thing" (again, see context).

Saying "I can eat meat on Friday and during the Romish 'lent'" (because "taste not", "touch not", regarding food and sex--the latter being always in proper context, of course--it says actually is powerless, false religion) is legit: it repudiates false worship and teaching. Saying to a brother or sister in Christ who is disturbed that you'd go to the bar, or watch filth, who protests to you that it's wrong that you'll do whatever you want because you have such a "liberty" is vain and unloving boasting, and probably in false liberty; especially in regards to how many have come out of such things in following Christ (which appalls me about GC in its reveling in consuming whatever the world throws-out so as to be "cool" and "relevant" and "at liberty", everything but sexual junk, of course: it doesn't dare assert its liberties there: too demarcated by scripture and inarguable: I've seen it too often lose or damage its witness, or lack one altogether in the first place, just by its trying to be attractive). I often appreciate protests against certain things as wrong by brothers and sisters in Christ: because I think often they can be demonstrated genuine conviction and there one finds God truly using someone (who you'd not expect) to say "stop being worldly" vs. leadership that changes-up definitions and teachings on a whim; i.e. sometimes I think that those we'd think of as "oh, the weaker brother", may actually be more right, and in right conviction more strong, in devotion more sure, rather than they simply having a weak conscience.

Yet even if someone does have that weak conscience it is better that one consider them first; Paul rhetorically asks why his liberty should be judged by another conscience...then goes on to say that he doesn't do things out of his liberty, but for God's glory (answering the question). No we're not free to eat in the temple of idols: that's why we're told not to, and that if we do eat meat offered we're to ask no questions (just in case it's from an idol sacrifice) or else if we know, because it would embolden others, and because to God it is unclean, we're not to eat it.

With love.
Logged
lone gone
Veteran (100-299 Posts)
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 279



WWW
« Reply #32 on: June 18, 2008, 09:36:46 am »

TRP,

From what you write, I really honestly do not think you understand your Christian freedom.  It sounds as if you have taken that freedom and turned it into a new law to follow. God is not inhibited by the immature person's lack of faith. If you followed all the restriction that other people dictated to you for fear of offending them you'd have little to eat , or wear, or do.

Paul could indeed eat meat in an idol's temple since he understood that there was no such thing as another god. There is only one God, not many Gods. The earth is the Lord's and no one else's... not even mine.

Weak and or immature Christians may not see it that way. That does not negate the truth of the matter.  As a mature brother or sister , in love you should not leave them in ignorance but share the truth. Then you may both be able to enjoy the freedom that Christ has purchased for us. If the immature person cannot accept your behavior, it may still be best for you to exercise your freedom. Christ did this with the tax collectors while the practicing Jews watched and complained.

Paul wrote that to Jews he was as a Jew, to Gentiles as a Gentile. He wasn't a Jew to a Gentile or vice versa. He could eat meat sacrificed to an idol when no one was around who would be offended. That was why he could say that we could eat anything set before us.... whoever you were with was what dictated your behavior in Christ toward that person.
Logged
theresearchpersona
Household Name (300+ Posts)
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 418



« Reply #33 on: June 18, 2008, 01:34:47 pm »

Paul said that if it offended anyone he'd never eat meat again.

And the apostles say that we should neither drink of the cup of demons, nor eat of meat we know that has been sacrificed to idols (i.e. don't ask where the meat came from).

Why do say Paul could indeed eat meat in an idol's temple when he specifically instructs that they are not to act so brazenly and boldly to go into the temple and eat it there as if there was nothing wrong, thereby emboldening others' consciences? Read the entire narrative through, in-context: not merely the little snippets that people today clip-out. Paul doesn't write point-by-point as to be taken separately as different things, but rather he writes in such a way as to build his argument, till he reaches a culmination, and every part before the culmination is just leading you to where he's going.

The problem was that people were going into idols' temples and eating the meat, and thereby offending weaker consciences, as well as making other men bold to eat it. An idol to an unbeliever is a god, whereas to us we know better...but they don't; so if we profess to worship the One True God and then eat meat sacrificed to their idols...it ruins any profession of fidelity or virtue that we could have had toward them.


Quote
14 Therefore, my beloved, flee from idolatry. 15 I speak as to wise men; you judge what I say. 16 Is not the cup of blessing which we bless a sharing in the blood of Christ? Is not the bread which we break a sharing in the body of Christ? 17 Since there is one bread, we who are many are one body; for we all partake of the one bread. 18 Look at the nation Israel; are not those who eat the sacrifices sharers in the altar? 19 What do I mean then? That a thing sacrificed to idols is anything, or that an idol is anything? 20 No, but I say that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to demons and not to God; and I do not want you to become sharers in demons. 21 You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons; you cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons. 22 Or do we provoke the Lord to jealousy? We are not stronger than He, are we?


Well? It continues:


Quote
23 All things are lawful, but not all things are profitable. All things are lawful, but not all things edify.


Now you have what has long been thought to be a quote of the libertines (confidentally throughout the centuries, because "all things are lawful" taken literally would contradict both Christ and His Apostles): whereas today many by removing this from its context then say "see, I can do anything I want, I have liberty", and so they vainly boast. May they commit adultery or sexual fornication? Paul said of committing sin "Absolutely not" (a cumulative absolute negative, "oo meh", in Greek). It's just an old practice (that continues today), taking opponents' plain words and twisting them: Paul twists the catch-phrases of the libertines. Later Christian writers take words like "gnosis" which had been twisted by the gnostics and re-twist them back into their true meaning. It continues:

Quote
24 Let no one seek his own good, but that of his neighbor.


So what, then, if I have less to do or wear? Do I not trust that God will work in the weak brother to strengthen and edify him or her? There are many things that if I had not been so considered by others would have offended me and driven me away...and yet again, I think we too often jump to say "weak" vs., perhaps, "I'm wrong and they're correct". Conviction can be good or bad, Judaistic or Truly Scriptural.

Quote
25 Eat anything that is sold in the meat market without asking questions for conscience’ sake;


For who's conscience? Yours, I think here (unlike the "for conscience' sake" below), as Jamieson-Fusset-Brown comment

Quote
If on asking you should hear it had been offered to idols, a scruple would arise in your conscience which was needless, and never would have arisen had you asked no questions.


For it is Paul who just said that he would not that we partake in the cup of demons. Unlike today's libertines who say "it's just an idol" Paul above who says that he doesn't meant that an idol is anything, however the sacrifices made by Gentiles are to demons, not idols (as they think). Therefore we are not to eat when we know the meat is so offered.

Quote
26 FOR THE EARTH IS THE LORD’S, AND ALL IT CONTAINS. 27 If one of the unbelievers invites you and you want to go, eat anything that is set before you without asking questions for conscience’ sake. 28 But if anyone says to you, “This is meat sacrificed to idols,” do not eat it, for the sake of the one who informed you, and for conscience’ sake;


We are not to eat of the table of demons, for, "You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons; you cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons. 22 Or do we provoke the Lord to jealousy? We are not stronger than He, are we?"

Quote
29 I mean not your own conscience, but the other man’s; for why is my freedom judged by another’s conscience? 30 If I partake with thankfulness, why am I slandered concerning that for which I give thanks?
31 Whether, then, you eat or drink or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God. 32 Give no offense either to Jews or to Greeks or to the church of God; 33 just as I also please all men in all things, not seeking my own profit but the profit of the many, so that they may be saved.


And here we see that when the other has told him the circumstances of the offered meat (to idols) [v. 28] that we "do not eat it" [v.28]; for their conscience' sake we do not eat it [v.29], but "if I partake with thankfulness" (i.e. don't ask questions), THEN we cannot be neither judged nor slandered by their conscience [29, 30]. Thus whatever we do we do not do it for our own sake, or "liberty", but instead for God's glory [v.31] giving no offense [v.32], for their sake [v.33]. When he says "why am I slandered concerning that for which I give thanks?" you must remember that before he directed that one not ask questions: the point is that by not scrupulously asking questions about the meat he can offer thanks (JFB), and therefore he won't. But you or I let stand any argument from here that we can inconsiderately do whatever we want for the sake of our "liberty" rather than for the sake of the others. I know that contradicts all that is modern, etc. but I'm not going to plead my liberty from passages removed from this context here.

Especially appalling is the attitude today that whatever does not offend our conscience is fine for us. Again, how about adultery? "Honey, I'm sorry that you feel offended, but I didn't have any scruples with it". Or drug use? (Galatians 5 "sorcery" is actually "pharmakeia", having to do with unnecessary drug use). How about theft? "I don't feel bad about taking something so small...they wouldn't care!" (how about God?). How about neglecting parents? "I don't have to take care of my dad...he abused me!" ("honor thy father and mother). Oh, and that last one...I know abuse first hand, so if anyone else here has, remember forgiveness is also required of us, even of those who despitefully use or abuse us.

The kind of teaching flaunting itself as "liberty" isn't too unlike the libertines of Paul's day...which scriptures are against. We do have "liberty", in gratitude...apart from knowing the things sacrificed to idols; but when we know we cannot partake with thanks, being unable to partake in demons' cups, and prohibited by our Lord to embolden another into what is, for them, sin, by our demonstration: ever wonder why it is that Christians did, in fact, drink, but they usually would not go to bars (until recently)?

Matthew Henry:

10:23-33 There were cases wherein Christians might eat what had been offered to idols, without sin. Such as when the flesh was sold in the market as common food, for the priest to whom it had been given. [Yet, remember that Paul expressly says "don't ask questions about it, or take it if someone tells you it has been offered to idols--TRP.] But a Christian must not merely consider what is lawful, but what is expedient, and to edify others. Christianity by no means forbids the common offices of kindness, or allows uncourteous behaviour to any, however they may differ from us in religious sentiments or practices. But this is not to be understood of religious festivals, partaking in idolatrous worship. [i.e. we're not forbidden to receive their kindness, but are when their religious things come into conflict with ours; accordingly ancient Christian writers wrote against such things as marrying unbelievers because a wife could be forced to participate in idolatrous festivals, or a husband lured into such things--TRP.]According to this advice of the apostle, Christians should take care not to use their liberty to the hurt of others, or to their own reproach. In eating and drinking, and in all we do, we should aim at the glory of God, at pleasing and honouring him. This is the great end of all religion, and directs us where express rules are wanting. A holy, peaceable, and benevolent spirit, will disarm the greatest enemies.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  


Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC
SimplePortal 2.1.1