Interesting Article

[Michael]

This's a rather interesting article I found while surfing around, take a look and don't get mad.

http://www.razormouth.com/archives/00000342.htm

[Saint Kevin]

I agree with some of the tongue-in-cheek criticisms of the razormouth article. Namely, that non-denominational churches can become so tolerant when it comes to theology that although people may attend church and feel better, the might not be getting saved. That is just as bad as cults who feed people theology that is just dead wrong, or atheists that will vehemently attack Jesus and the Bible. I don't mean to villify people in cults or atheists for that matter, many are well meaning, but I believe that the Christians who lead these churches that are devoid of theology are no better than the Pharisees, of which Jesus said:

But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you shut up the kingdom of heaven against men; for you neither go in yourselves, nor do you allow those who are entering to go in. (Matt. 23:13 NKJV)

How good is it really to get someone into a church or some other Christian gathering and not give them the Gospel. There have been way too many people who have gone to church, do all the right Christian things, acted and talked the right way but have never heard a clear presentation of the Gospel, let alone got saved. If that is what these churches are doing (and God knows which of them are) then they should stop concerning themselves with their own image, or with how "seeker friendly" or "cutting edge" they are. The Gospel is an offense to the world, to often churches can become too concerned with offending the world, so much so that they stop giving the Gospel. This is tragic.

I commend those churches that are being both creative, accepting, AND theologically sound, being rooted in scripture and concerned with it first and foremost. As to which fall into this category, and which do not, I cannot say, except to say that the church I attend is dedicated to God's word first and foremost.

Anyway, I did like the paragraph near the end of the Denver Post article about Five Iron Frenzy's bible study spawning the "scum of the earth" church. Punks are people too, and just because we may disagree with their tattoos, piercings, and lifestyle (and have perfectly biblical reasons for doing so), we cannot let outward appearances, or sinful lifestyles prevent us from sharing the Gospel. Change in other areas can come later, but salvation is of paramount importance.

Sorry for taking so long with this post, but I had a bit to get off my chest. Use discernment and pray for wisdom in picking a church, and don't waste time with those that want nothing to do with the bible, but everything to do with church activities. God's word is more important than any church function. Also, if you don't think you need to go to church for whatever reason, you can be right in saying that it is not a requirement for God's love or for salvation, but if done properly, church can help you grow a lot faster than you could ever do on your own. God has designed it for us to be strong in some areas, and to build up the body of Christ with our strengths, while at the same time being built up by our brethren who are stronger than us in other areas. Thank you to anyone who actually read all this, you truly have the patience of a saint.

[madphilb]

hmmmmm.....

I can go both ways with this.....

I've seen sillyness run rampant in church, and I've seen churches that are so uptight that they can't see beyond how they always used to do it.

I've seen most of those terms on his lexicon both used and abused...

I've seen church groups so caught up in tradition that they'd ask Paul to sit down and shut up if he where to walk into their church.

I didn't read the additional articals that where linked, but the main one seemed to be using quite a few broad generalizations and far to many assumptions about these groups based on his own feelings. That's not to say any or all of the groups he listed weren't screwballs, but "different" doesn't automatically make it a bad thing either.

And I've been to plenty of "traditional" churches that never offered the Gosple message. My grandmothers church when I used to visit Florida years ago, I went there for a month and never heard a salvation message.

I've also seen groups like these that offer God's plan for salvation every time they meet.

On top of that most of those terms (as they may really have been used, not as his "lexicon" spelled them out) are often used in Charasmatic/Penticostal circles, and while many are flakes, quite a few are solid Bible believing churches living all out for God. I suspect that the author's background might have some bearing on his opinions of such things, but I can't be certain (there are "Charasmatic Catholic" churches).

Awe...well.... whatcha gonna do.

[cbwing0]

I too have seen some foolishness in "nondenominational" churches (but after a while, I bet that "nondenominational" will be their own denomination ). I have met some people from nondenominational churches that seemed to be theologically sound. However, I know some people from my own traditional church that could be mistaken for the people described in the article.

I agree that chaos has no place in a worship service. All that does is take focus away from God.

In a way, the people that attend these churches are just expressing what I would guess most people in churches today are feeling. They don't take the time to read the bible, let alone the church fathers, theology, or biblical commentaries. For this reason, all of their knowledge about Christ comes from pastors. Since these pastors are only human, this is bound to lead to some confusion. They just rely on "faith" (not in the good sense) to tell them that they shouldn't be able to understand theology, although nothing could be further from the truth.

It is really a symptom of our age. Everything is about feelings, subjective truth, and individuality. Unfortunately the church has fallen prey to these forces that are so prevalent in the world. Call me crazy, but I have very little respect for the people who come to church knowing almost nothing of the Word of God, dancing around and raising their hands (which brings me to another point: if they always do those things, have they not become traditions?) as if that makes them spiritual.

I don't think we can point at one particular group/denomination within the church and say "they are the problem." There are problems in every denomination, just as there were problems in the churches in Paul's time (go back and read 1 Corinthians for a good example). However, pointing out someone else's problems is not an excuse for ignoring your own.

[Straylight]

It is absolutely crucial not to broad brush non-demonational churches. I've been to a few of these places, and they vary greatly. Some of them have lost focus, others are very Scripture based.

Call me crazy, but I have very little respect for the people who come to church knowing almost nothing of the Word of God, dancing around and raising their hands (which brings me to another point: if they always do those things, have they not become traditions?) as if that makes them spiritual.

In my experience, new Christians do this. I absolutely hate it when experienced Christians look down on these people -- they are often some of the most fired up people in the congregation, and they need encouragement, not patronisation.

For the record though, I was involved with a church a while ago which emphasized complete acceptance. A lot of the congregation took advantage of this.

I guess my message is -- non-denominational churches are equally valid alongside denominational ones, and equally vulnerable to problems.

[cbwing0]

In my experience, new Christians do this. I absolutely hate it when experienced Christians look down on these people -- they are often some of the most fired up people in the congregation, and they need encouragement, not patronisation.

Allow me to clarify: I have very little respect for Christians who have been in the faith for a number of years who fall into this category. I have very little respect for the people who should know better. I did not mean that I look down on new Christians who have a passion for the Lord.

[Straylight]

Allow me to clarify: I have very little respect for Christians who have been in the faith for a number of years who fall into this category. I have very little respect for the people who should know better. I did not mean that I look down on new Christians who have a passion for the Lord.

Alright, that's cool. Didn't mean that to come across as a flame.

[uc pseudonym]

Well, while I wouldn't have gone as far as the author did, I found some parts of his list hilarious. It's important to remember that satire is a major element in this writing.

If you want to know what I think, read madphilb's and cbwing0's posts (as this isn't an in depth discussion, I'm free to generalize about that).