What should Christianity be like?

[h***@geneva.rutgers.edu]

You might be interested to read an article summarizing recent
surveys by Barna,
http://www.barna.org/FlexPage.aspx?Page=BarnaUpdate&BarnaUpdateID=280
They report that the reaction of young adults towards Christianity
has dropped a lot in the last 10 years, primarily among non-Christians;
but even younger Christians share some of the concerns.

In effect, I'd say the culture war is backfiring, because it makes
Christianity look negative and legalistic. Apparently the opposition
to homosexuals is having a particularly serious impact. I haven't read
the book (though I probably will), but knowing Barna I suspect that we
may disagree on the implications. I think the Church is paying the
price for having our most vocal representatives taking positions that
are contray to the Gospel. And the abuse of children by pastors
doesn't help.

For those who are willing to read books, I'd also like to recommend a
recent book by Alister McGrath, "Christian's Dangerous Idea." It's a
history of Protestantism, but also a look at what McGrath thinks is
coming. One interesting conclusion is that Protestantism, particularly
Calvinism, bears a good deal of responsibility for the secular culture
in the West. In trying to get rid of superstition, it became so
intellectual that it tended to discourage religious experience. But
without some experience of God, there is little reason to be
Christian. He sees Pentecostalism and related trends as being part of
the response. (An obvious response would be a shift to Catholicism.
But he doesn't think that's as likely as a shift to Pentecostalism.)

I mention both of these things in the same posting because they both
raise the same issue: what do we want Christianity to be? I would like
it to reflect Jesus' love. I would like it to be intellectually sound,
but also to involve the heart as well as the head.

I'm grappling with this issue personally, because I teach Sunday
School to 7th and 8th graders. I'm in a liberal church, in the
Reformed tradition (Presbyterian Church, USA). I'm terribly afraid
that McGrath's concerns may be true of us: I don't think we're
involving our kids in ways that make them see Christianity as
plausible. They'll be confirmed, because their parent expect it. But
once they go off for college, many of them won't be back. I doubt I
could get our kids to speak in tongues even if I wanted them to, but I
increasingly believe I need to do something to involve them
personally.

[l***@hotmail.com]

Post by h***@geneva.rutgers.edu
You might be interested to read an article summarizing recent
surveys by Barna,http://www.barna.org/FlexPage.aspx?Page=BarnaUpdate&BarnaUpdateID=280
They report that the reaction of young adults towards Christianity
has dropped a lot in the last 10 years, primarily among non-Christians;
but even younger Christians share some of the concerns.

Perhaps its both the circles we run in plus the fact that generally
speaking, the remnant has always been small, that one, I don't
see this to be in fact the case personally and two, why should
we as Bible believing Christians be alarmed by this. Is this not
the prophetic record?

Post by h***@geneva.rutgers.edu
In effect, I'd say the culture war is backfiring, because it makes
Christianity look negative and legalistic. Apparently the opposition
to homosexuals is having a particularly serious impact.

When being disciplined, children rarely if ever view it as beneficial.
However, those who have learned from it later in life see the need of
it. That Christianity, that is true Biblical Christianity, has not
cowtowed to the pluralistic and relativistic tollerant society which
it finds itself in, is a plus, not a negative. After all, just what is
the reference point here? Is it whether or not culture finds us
agreeable or whether or not we are agreeable to God?

Post by h***@geneva.rutgers.edu
I haven't read
the book (though I probably will), but knowing Barna I suspect that we
may disagree on the implications. I think the Church is paying the
price for having our most vocal representatives taking positions that
are contray to the Gospel.

Theological positions? The problem isn't that for the most part it has
stuck to its Biblical principles but that it hasn't lived them.
Spiritual adultery preceeds physical adultery. And what about USAPC
and it liberal watering down of its conservative Reformational roots?

And pray tell, what are you imaging the Gospel to entail? You seem to
be indicating Brenda's supposition that grace and love circumscribe
all of God's actions and attributes. But this is clearly not the
Biblical revelation. IT is HOLINESS that governs Him. Contrary to the
Gospel are these so called "churches" which become inclusional,
trading "the sound doctrines" of the faith for "teachers in accordance
to their own desires."

Designer religion is not the "goodnews" of Christ or the Church.

Post by h***@geneva.rutgers.edu
And the abuse of children by pastors doesn't help.

No it doesn't. But two wrongs does not make a right either.
That some people cannot or refuse to walk the path that they
say the believe does not nulify the Path itself.

Post by h***@geneva.rutgers.edu
For those who are willing to read books, I'd also like to recommend a
recent book by Alister McGrath, "Christian's Dangerous Idea." It's a
history of Protestantism, but also a look at what McGrath thinks is
coming. One interesting conclusion is that Protestantism, particularly
Calvinism, bears a good deal of responsibility for the secular culture
in the West. In trying to get rid of superstition,

Wrong. It tried to rid itself of psuedo-intellectualism. It tried
not to commit the same vainity that Israel committed when it
reguarded the letter over the intent. Fundamentalism was born
on the hope of returning the Church to its roots. The bible was
written to the common man in common language, not to the
scholastic elite.

Post by h***@geneva.rutgers.edu
it became so
intellectual that it tended to discourage religious experience.

Boy, either you or McGrath are making big jumps in time. It's
not like this happened over night. In recoiling from the
hermenutical attack of neo-orthodoxy, it over compensated
with intellectuallism. It discouraged the "religious experience"
because the "religious experience" was void of biblical doctrine.
It was predominately "experience."

Post by h***@geneva.rutgers.edu
But
without some experience of God, there is little reason to be
Christian.

Paul in Rom 1:16 states that he is not ashamed of the Gospel
intellectually while in 5:5 he confesses that he is not ashamed of
it experientially either. But as it has been correctly assessed,
emotions are at the rear of the train. Emotions must be held
in check by for doctrinal knowledge and a regenerated volition.

Post by h***@geneva.rutgers.edu
He sees Pentecostalism and related trends as being part of
the response. (An obvious response would be a shift to Catholicism.
But he doesn't think that's as likely as a shift to Pentecostalism.)

Not to "Pentecostalism" but rather to communal society. BTDT.
I've left two churches because they have so watered down that
gospel that they rarely even mentioned Christ and in their adds
they highlited donuts, designer coffee and friendliness over
sound preaching of the word. The "church" now views success
by numbers not by actual confessing and growing believers.

Post by h***@geneva.rutgers.edu
I mention both of these things in the same posting because they both
raise the same issue: what do we want Christianity to be?

Wrong reference point. Christianity is not humanistic fundmentally.
It isn't nor has it ever been what "we" want it to be. It is about
what
God designed it to be -the Bride of Christ.

Post by h***@geneva.rutgers.edu
I would like
it to reflect Jesus' love. I would like it to be intellectually sound,
but also to involve the heart as well as the head.

But at what costs? At jettisoning the grammatical/historical
hermenutic? At jettisoning sound teaching of Biblical doctrine
from our pulpits? At jettisoning the faith as illustrated in the
NT?

Post by h***@geneva.rutgers.edu
I'm grappling with this issue personally, because I teach Sunday
School to 7th and 8th graders. I'm in a liberal church, in the
Reformed tradition (Presbyterian Church, USA).

When I taught that group, I laid the law down in class and before
the smoke cleared, the kids were devouring Biblical theological
doctrines. Christ was adament to the Nth degree about subverting
children from coming to Him in the true biblical view.

Kids are being dumbed down enough in public schools so
why does the church follow suit? I guess that's because it
started with the dumbing down of the adults first. How many
adults in your assembly can answer the questions of the
shorter let alone longer catechisms? Aren't you teaching
through the catechisms any more? Is it any wonder why
our assemblies don't know what to believe let alone why?

Post by h***@geneva.rutgers.edu
I'm terribly afraid
that McGrath's concerns may be true of us: I don't think we're
involving our kids in ways that make them see Christianity as
plausible.

And why should they? How is liberal "churchiantiy" different
from society on a whole? You worry that if you started
mandating the old ways of requiring indepth catechismal
training that it would drive away the kids. But you do so
on a purely humanistic presumption -that you can do more
than the Creator of the universe. The church has been called
to do one thing -preach the whole word of God. It is God
who causes the growth. Man can water down their preaching
to where it is 99 percent fact free so as to gain the masses
but what has been won?

The fact of the matter is that the problem in society isn't
terrorism, though that is a very real threat, it isn't gang
warfair or the economy or who's president for that matter.
The problem lies exactly where it has always lay - in
the assembly of true believers. That the believing
remnant has largely have become intimidated by the
culture surrounding, it has only removed what little
restraint it was having on that society. The biblical
illustration is the salt that has lost its flavor.

It's real simple Chuck - as the broadcast title so
correctly states it, it's all about "Back To The Bible."

Post by h***@geneva.rutgers.edu
They'll be confirmed, because their parent expect it. But
once they go off for college, many of them won't be back.

And why? Because the Church does not prepare them for
the obvious indoctrination attempts of liberal educators. How
many classes have I attended or my kids or their friends attended
where the first words out the teachers most was such as to
declare that if there was anyone in their class that believed in
God, before they graduated from that class they would have
changed their mind.

The RC organization has made it a matter of record that it
wraps its arms around evolutionism. And what does evolutionism
teach? It teaches that death gives rise to higher organisms.
All one has to do is look at those two boys at Columbine.
They were celibrating evolutionism and its hero, Hitler who
based his whole rise to power on a subverted view of one of
Luther's unbiblical doctrines concerning Israel.

Post by h***@geneva.rutgers.edu
I doubt I
could get our kids to speak in tongues even if I wanted them to, but I
increasingly believe I need to do something to involve them
personally.

If you're not on fire for the Word of God, why do you imagine
that they will discover it on their own? If you are operating under
the filling of the Spirit, kids will be naturally excited to know
about the deep things of God that even their parents don't know
or wish to know.

Schaeffer was a member of the PC and it was always his
experience that when he began to discuss the effect of the
Church on the culture and vica versa, it was the adults who's
eyes rolled back into their heads and the kids who came
alive. Perhaps you should take them through the "How Then
Should We Live" series which is now available on DVD.

James 3:1 Chuck. Don't worry about the kids. Worry
about completely selling yourself out to God and becoming
totally dependent upon the Him who is there and has not
does not remain silent. Pray without ceasing over each
of the children by name and get to know them on a real
one-to-one personal relationship. But if you worry about
your relationship with God being real first, then when you
come down from the mountain you will not only have a
message to tell, you will give evidence to the fact that
He is alive and well and living in their very presence.

Get you TDNT out and look at the words used in 2 Tim 4:1.
"solemn charge" to maintain the faith
enopion "in the sight of" God.
kerusso or preach, a formal authoritative proclamation to
be accompanied with respect and careful attention -no
place for clowning around.
Reprove - return to the will of God
rebuke - severe
exhort - gentle pleading
endure -holding firmly against one's own desires in
accordance to Rom 1:32.

---

[Please note that you shouldn't attribute my comments to Barna. Barna
is generally evangelical. --clh]

[Matthew Johnson]

Post by h***@geneva.rutgers.edu
You might be interested to read an article summarizing recent
surveys by Barna,
http://www.barna.org/FlexPage.aspx?Page=BarnaUpdate&BarnaUpdateID=280
They report that the reaction of young adults towards Christianity
has dropped a lot in the last 10 years, primarily among non-Christians;
but even younger Christians share some of the concerns.
In effect, I'd say the culture war is backfiring,

Now hold on to your hats as you read this;) The Moderator and I are in complete
agreement on this.

[snip]

Post by h***@geneva.rutgers.edu
One interesting conclusion is that Protestantism, particularly
Calvinism, bears a good deal of responsibility for the secular culture
in the West. In trying to get rid of superstition, it became so
intellectual that it tended to discourage religious experience.

Yes, it did. And this is something that has always dumbfounded the rest of us.
Christianity without some kind of "religious experience" is not even
Christianity. This should be obvious, yet somehow it seems to have been
overlooked.

Post by h***@geneva.rutgers.edu
But
without some experience of God, there is little reason to be
Christian. He sees Pentecostalism and related trends as being part of
the response. (An obvious response would be a shift to Catholicism.
But he doesn't think that's as likely as a shift to Pentecostalism.)

He is probably right that it is less likely. After all, the popular impression
of Catholicism has never been that of having a plausible "religious experience",
largely because the popular impression never took into account the tradition of
Catholic mysticism.

Post by h***@geneva.rutgers.edu
I mention both of these things in the same posting because they both
raise the same issue: what do we want Christianity to be?

But this is clearly the wrong question: a much better question would be "what
does Christ want Christianity to be?".

Post by h***@geneva.rutgers.edu
I would like
it to reflect Jesus' love. I would like it to be intellectually sound,
but also to involve the heart as well as the head.

This is all very fine and good, but in what _way_ should it involve heart and
head? And what good would it really do to involve both these two of the three
parts of the soul without involving all three?

Post by h***@geneva.rutgers.edu
I'm grappling with this issue personally, because I teach Sunday
School to 7th and 8th graders. I'm in a liberal church, in the
Reformed tradition (Presbyterian Church, USA). I'm terribly afraid
that McGrath's concerns may be true of us: I don't think we're
involving our kids in ways that make them see Christianity as
plausible.

Ever wonder if the real reason for this is that the parents don't really see it
as plausible either? Except perhaps in a watered-down form, the very form their
kids see through right away?

[snip]

[AJA]

Post by h***@geneva.rutgers.edu
but I
increasingly believe I need to do something to involve them
personally.

Feed the hungry, shelter the homeless- no end to ways of getting personally
involved in this world. Christianity is a life, not a dogma or a creed,
right?
[Have them read Velvet Elvis by Rob Bell with you.]
Blessings,
Ann

[Steve Hayes]

Post by h***@geneva.rutgers.edu
I'm grappling with this issue personally, because I teach Sunday
School to 7th and 8th graders. I'm in a liberal church, in the
Reformed tradition (Presbyterian Church, USA). I'm terribly afraid
that McGrath's concerns may be true of us: I don't think we're
involving our kids in ways that make them see Christianity as
plausible. They'll be confirmed, because their parent expect it. But
once they go off for college, many of them won't be back. I doubt I
could get our kids to speak in tongues even if I wanted them to, but I
increasingly believe I need to do something to involve them
personally.

Several years ago (like about 30, so I'm talking about a different generation
here, and it may not apply) I was in an Anglican parish in an upper middle
class white suburban ghetto in Durban. There was still some cultural affinity
to the church -- people came wanting to be married in the church "because my
friend got married here and it looked so nice in the photos".

I was asked to organise the confirmation class. It was the sort of place where
kids appeared at the age of 14 or so, like leaves in autumn, wanting to be
confirmed as some sort of puberty rite.

Bear in mind that this was in an *Anglican* setting -- it may not fit the
Presbyterian setting, and in an Orthodox setting it would be different -- for
one thing "confirmation" is only rarely done separately from baptism.

So this is what I did.

I arranged a pre-confirmation course, where any one, of any age, who thought
they possibly *might* like to be confirmed, was invited. The pre-confirmation
course was the recruiting campaign; the actual confirmation course, for those
who stuck it out, would be giving equipment and instructions.

The first thing was a parish meeting.

We asked the whole parish to come to the hall, where we had the Eucharist,
followed by breakfast, followed by a meeting, all in the same room.

After breakfast I made a little speech, pointing out that *this* was the
church. The church met for the Eucharist, the same church had breakfast
together, and the same church met to discuss things -- having everything in
the same space was meant to emphasise this.

Then we asked the potential confirmation candidates to look around at the
people, and ask themselves "Do I really want to be part of this lot?"

Then we got various people to introduce themselves and explain what they did.
The rector of the parish, the other clergy, churchwardens, choir director, and
so on. A couple of people gave "testimonies" -- the standard evangelical stuff
-- how I became a Christian and what it means to me. Then at the end asked the
question again, "Do you really want to join this lot?"

The next meetings were with the interested people only (ages ranged from 9 to
about 75). We emphasised the countercultural aspect of Christianity. We showed
a film, "Question 7" which was about the son of a pastor in East Germany
having to answer a questionnaire to admit him to university, and knowing that
if his answers revealed his Christian faith, his application would probably be
refused. It perhaps helped to rub the point in that at the time I myself was
banned by the South African government.

We showed a film about the Anglican diocese of Zululand, called "To share the
same cup" (Zululand was about 150 miles away). It was to show the wider
church, and showed black and white Christians working and worshipping together
(not done in apartheid South Africa).

We got a black priest from Zululand to come and speak after the film,
explaining some of the things they had seen in the film, and answering
questions.

Finally we got the rector of a neighbouring Anglican parish, a renowned
evangelical, to come and give them an evangelistic address ending with an
altar call. We introduced it by saying that they had seen the church, the
local one at the parish meeting, the wider one in the films, different
Christian communities in different places. They were all kinds of people --
black, white, old young, rich, poor, educated, illiterate, male, female. But
all these people had one thing in common -- they were following Jesus, the
master of the Church, the Head of the Body.

Those who responded to the altar call were then told when the classes would
be.

Some of the 14 year olds dropped out. Some because they thought it was infra
dig to be taught along with 10-year-olds. They thought confirmation was about
"growing up" and that didn't exactly fit their vision. Some of the younger
ones dropped out because they wanted more time to think about it.

Then followed the confirmation course -- giving equipment and instructions.

The following year the process was repeated.

But at the first parish meeting the next year, some of the testimonies were
given by those who had been there the previous year, including the 10 and 11
year olds -- some of whom had gone on to be confirmed, and some of whom had
not. One of the most moving was from a girl who had decided that she wasn't
ready for it the previous year, but was now. She said it was a pretty
demanding commitment, and she wanted to think about it longer before she got
into it.

An interesting response came from some of the *parents* of the 14 year olds --
that it was infra dig for their children to be taught in this way by younger
kids. And it was interesting that none of the middle-aged adults who were
thinking of being confirmed expressed this kind of reaction. We had emphasised
the point that the youth were not the "church of the future", they were part
of the church of *now*.

I don't know if any of this will help you with your Sunday School class. I
hated Sunday School and tried to have as little as possible to do with it.
What I did in the same parish was to organise youth groups, first for the high
school kids, 12 and over. They had their own committee and ran it themselves.

The younger kids wanted to join, so we started one for them too -- the 8-11
year olds. And again, they had a committee and ran it themselves. I was a kind
of chaplain, available for advice if they asked for it, but not running the
thing. When we started these youth groups we explained that they would not be
"the church doing something for the youth" but "the youth of the church doing
something". Sunday School is too much of the former.

[dnatree]

LET GO OF THE VEIL OF INTERPRETATION GIVEN YOU BY THOSE THAT NEVER
KNEW ME. FOR THEY NEVER KNEW THE TRUE INTENTIONS OF THE HEART


I attended First Presbytarian Church in Huntsville Al. many years ago
because I was seeking folks that truly had a passion to know the "True
Intention of the Heart of Jesus".

In my search to know the heart of Jesus I began to have
synchronicities about "The Inheritance of the saints in light" from
col 1:12. As the synchronicities continued I came to understand that I
could not INTERPRET one word of the scripture without having the
understanding come from the Holy Spirit. Ultimately I was
misunderstood by those in that church but that turned out to be the
intention of the Spirit towards those in Christianity for after 30 yrs
of letting the Spirit have free reign what has emerged is as "the
smallest of points overlooked" by religion and society. For the Spirit
does not lead You through an INTERPRETATION of scripture but rather
starts FRESH in getting to "know YOU".

Anyway after years of experience with the Spirit after being baptised
in the scripture I was rejected and misunderstood by all Christians
because of Interpretations. In 1993 I was alone for several years with
the Holy Spirit having experiences about how I would Reach You (family
and loved ones as well as America) The synchs were about the
misunderstanding related to my daughter Raine and the song Rain by
Madonna I put in the book on the net back in the 90's. (You promised
after the Storm You would return)

Anyway my testimony is recorded on the net with pictures and stories
and You can see what folks said before each event that I posted from
the book (Wild hearted Romance with Spirit) Which reveals that the
Spirit that was in Jesus is the Smallest of points overlooked that
reveals all INTERPRETATIONS meaningless, and frees the heart from the
law of Interpretation, sin and death to see ONLY THE SPIRIT. Thousands
of events were recorded and show a picture related to the poem below.

Like a tree, I gradually took on this form. Like an
empty canvas the painter waited for spirit to move.
Dabbing only where spirit moved until the painting takes form.
Stephentree
and the poem

DNATREE
I've been searching through the past
Down the DNATREE

I've been re-membering

What life has to offer us for free

I came upon the advent of poetry

It taught me, it rocked me down to my knees
Called upon this councelor inside of me

To ask about the things that

Grew upon the tree

She said the blood of billions Had purchased this for me

It's the DNA DNA DNA Tree

Well, blessed is SHE who nailed me to this tree

Stephentree

WWW.STEPHENTREE.COM

[B.G. Kent]

Post by h***@geneva.rutgers.edu
I mention both of these things in the same posting because they both
raise the same issue: what do we want Christianity to be? I would like
it to reflect Jesus' love. I would like it to be intellectually sound,
but also to involve the heart as well as the head.
I'm grappling with this issue personally, because I teach Sunday
School to 7th and 8th graders. I'm in a liberal church, in the
Reformed tradition (Presbyterian Church, USA). I'm terribly afraid
that McGrath's concerns may be true of us: I don't think we're
involving our kids in ways that make them see Christianity as
plausible. They'll be confirmed, because their parent expect it. But
once they go off for college, many of them won't be back. I doubt I
could get our kids to speak in tongues even if I wanted them to, but I
increasingly believe I need to do something to involve them
personally.

B - I would talk about what I see as the love Of Jesus...the gentleness
the inclusiveness...the lack of hypocrisy..the focus on treating others as
you would have them treat you....having faith as solid as one teensy
mustard seed. Those are the things that stay with us..the things that keep
us Christian focused. The exclusionary tactics of some churches..the focus
on fire and brimstone and the seeming hatred of all things sexual unless
it is in a marriage of one man and one woman....those are what often
drives people away..the judgementalness and hypocrisy being at the
forefront.

Good luck in your future.

Blessings of Christ,
Bren

[Matthew Johnson]

[snip]

Post by B.G. Kent
B - I would talk about what I see as the love Of Jesus...the gentleness
the inclusiveness.

How was He being "gentle and inclusive" when He called the Pharisees "whiteashed
tombs (Mt 23:37)"?

Post by B.G. Kent
..the lack of hypocrisy

What is it, if not 'hypocrisy', for a pantheist to call herself 'christian'?

Post by B.G. Kent
..the focus on treating others as
you would have them treat you....

Again: whom was He "treating as he would have others treat him" when He said:

"Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for you are like whitewashed
tombs, which outwardly appear beautiful, but within they are full of dead men's
bones and all uncleanness.
(Mat 23:27 RSVA)



[snip]