New Denomination Idea

[Strong in Him]

Ideally it would be a really short church service. Hi! Put God's will ahead of your own, which is love all as self. See you next week. No need for anything else

Yes - and no.
Church should be about meeting together to encourage and pray for one another, and tell of how he has helped/challenged/answered your prayers during the previous week. Yes, we need teaching - but there are Bible study groups, Christian courses and a wealth of resources for that.
I would be quite happy to spend 2 hours on a Sunday morning listening to stories of answered prayer - locally, or in other parts of the world. That would be great encouragement. But a service led by, usually, one person consisting of a hymn/prayer sandwich and complaints if the "right" tunes aren't used, doesn't often do much for me.

 

[Strong in Him]

upon searching :
"Why does the Salvation Army not administer the sacraments of baptism and the Lord's Supper
http://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/48952/ddg#48955

It appears that the simple answer is that because the Salvation Army does not view baptism or communion as requirements of salvation, they are not practiced at all. This stance, however does not constitute disapproval of sacraments:"

No, I don't believe they disapprove of them - I have known several Salvationists who took communion in other churches.
But there was a request for baptism from new Christians, the leaders agreed to it - and got into trouble.

 

[seeking.IAM]

I didn't say this explicitly, but the main point is that the frivolous divorcer is unrepentant.

What would you have a repentent divorcer do?

 

[PloverWing]

I do not think that getting a frivolous divorce should earn a life-time ban from church. The person who has initiated the divorce has to show by her actions (I'll assume it's a she, since most divorces are initiated by women) that she has really repented. If it was a recent divorce, she can try to get back to her husband (although I don't think a divorced husband is obligated to take his wife back). If she acquired child support and alimony from a husband who didn't even want to divorce, then she can give it back, and try to get him to take on his responsibilities as a father on a voluntary basis (which he was probably already doing before the divorce). And she can publicly apologize.

Mostly, I'm with you on marriage being an indissoluble sacrament, but I started feeling really uneasy with this paragraph. The pronoun became "she", and we have public apologies. I'm getting an uncomfortable picture of forcing women to apologize to abusive husbands, and that's not something I want to see in church.

There is probably a place for church-sponsored marriage counselling, done in the context of the church's full teachings on justice, responsibility, reconciliation, and healing. But let's make it more private, and with genuine concern for the well-being of both spouses.

 

[Strong in Him]

I do not think that getting a frivolous divorce should earn a life-time ban from church. The person who has initiated the divorce has to show by her actions (I'll assume it's a she, since most divorces are initiated by women) that she has really repented.

1. What do you mean by a "frivolous divorce"? I hope that no courts would allow a divorce for leaving the top off the tube of toothpaste or burning a person's supper, for example. You realise that in Moses' day divorce could be frivolous - all the husband had to do was to leave a note saying "I divorce you".
2. ARE most divorces initiated by women?
3. I would have thought that if a woman had gone as far as thinking about separating from/divorcing her partner, she would have a very good reason for doing so - especially if there were children involved. So why would she need to repent because the husband may have become such a workaholic/controlling person/gambler, believing that she was his property and he could do as he wanted, that he became unbearable to live with?

If she acquired child support and alimony from a husband who didn't even want to divorce, then she can give it back, and try to get him to take on his responsibilities as a father on a voluntary basis (which he was probably already doing before the divorce).

If the husband was basically doing what he wanted, believed it was his right, saw nothing wrong with his behaviour and was getting away with it, of course he wouldn't want a divorce. How many men are likely to say, "yes, she walked out on me and started divorce proceedings - but I was behaving badly"?

And she can publicly apologize. Unless she does these things, then I would not believe that her repentance is sincere,

Again, you're assuming that because she filed for the divorce, she is at fault and needs to repent.
What about her husband repenting of doing the things which made her so unhappy that she believed she had no choice?

and I would not want to share church space with this kind of person.

So you don't want to go to church with anyone who doesn't sincerely repent of something?
Wow.

Your spouse is supposed to be the person on Earth that you love the most.

But people fall out of love, things go wrong, couples stop talking/start taking one another for granted - or realise they made a mistake getting married in the first place.
Maybe shouldn't happen, but it does. We still live in a fallen world.

I think there should be a similar attitude to all manner of sin.

I don't.
People who go to church, and even sincere Christians, are not expected to be perfect and can't be. It is not up to another imperfect human being to say "I don't think you have repented/your repentance was sincere enough. So I'm not coming to this church while you're here, or until you repent to my satisfaction."

And people have different ideas about what it sinful and what isn't; just look on these forums for "Is ...... a sin?" posts.

 

[timothyu]

The Bible is as the Bible is and too many people try to make it some sort of philosophical, political or scientific endeavor leading to confusion and discord amongst Christians.

Since the Garden people have focused on self, self absorption, self interest, self justifying, self determining, etc. God says over and over His will, before the will of man. It's that simple. And His will is simple and plainly written also, without need to establish new (or any for that matter) offshoots or definitions to please the will of man.

Luke 16:15 And he said unto them, Ye are they which justify yourselves before men; but God knoweth your hearts: for that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God.

James 1:27 Pure and undefiled religion before our God and Father is this: to care for orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.

Romans 12:2 And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.

James 4:4 Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God.

 

[com7fy8]

About not going to any church >

1. "not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together" > in Hebrews 10:25. Jesus shared with people who were imperfect and failing. He had hope for them > love "hopes all things" (in 1 Corinthians 13:7).

There is psychology in finding ways to not share with God's people > we can have the ability to find only churches which do not meet our standards, so we can have our excuse to stay away from churches. You might have seen how certain people know only of "Christians" who are angry and hateful, which they use as their excuse to consider all "Christians" to be fakes.

We have our character as our spiritual magnet that can attract us to only fakes, or our character makes us able to connect with other genuine children of God.

Who refuses to trust money because there is counterfeit money, right?

Money is quiet, but people don't find money to be boring because of how they can use it. But ones might find a gentle and humble Christian to be boring, because you can't use a real Christian for what you want and dictate.

You can not learn how to love one another the way Jesus wants, unless we spend time with each other >

"with all lowliness and gentleness, with longsuffering, bearing with one another in love," (Ephesians 4:2)

God says we need "longsuffering", for a reason.

2. The first post of this thread talks a lot about more public evils. What about arguing and complaining? Philippians 2:13-16.

Does Jesus divorce us because of our arguing and self-righteous judging? Likewise, He does not want us to dump His people because of however we can fail.

His own disciples could compare themselves to each other and try to show who was greater, but Jesus did not dump them.

Jesus is not conceited about how He really is superior.

3. The Lord's Supper was not just taking the bread and cup. They had a lamb dinner, didn't they? Plus, they spent time sharing with Jesus and each other.

I find that I learn how to love with God in prayer, and while sharing with other people.

 

[timothyu]

Yes, community living, a way of life. Not boxed in an institutional setting with its rites and rituals, alias it's by-laws and regulations. Supporting the institution instead of each other.

 

[Strong in Him]

About not going to any church >

1. "not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together" > in Hebrews 10:25. Jesus shared with people who were imperfect and failing. He had hope for them > love "hopes all things" (in 1 Corinthians 13:7).

There is psychology in finding ways to not share with God's people >

We can share with God's people without "going to church" - Bible studies, meeting in houses, coffee shops etc to pray and talk about what God has done/is doing.

Maybe churches are different where you are. But in my denomination, and where I live, there are far too many congregations with 12, or above, elderly members meeting on a Sunday for a traditional hymn/prayer sandwich. Then they have coffee - during which time they are far more animated than they were in worship - and go home.
Yes, their spiritual needs are important too, if that's what brings them comfort, hope, fellowship, teaching, fine, and if they can find preachers who are willing to do that for them, so be it. But some of us want more than that.

 

[Bobber]

I have an idea to create a church called "The Church of John 14:15"

John 14:15 reads: "If you love me, you will keep my commandments."

I like your lead in.....it awakens people do you can't be a Christian in name only but must OBEY the Jesus and consider him Lord.

These would be the tenants of this church:
1. We try to do what Jesus asked us to do.
2. We don't pretend to know stuff which we don't really know.

Ha....many do assert however they do know everything and will claim they're not pretending.

The main purpose of the church would be to share philosophical and practical knowledge of how to live a Christian life, and how to support each other in these endeavors.

Sounds good. Needs to be other things though too.

Paul said that there must not be a hint of immorality among you, and to kick people out of the church who do not repent of sin.

Think it depends on to the degree you're talking about. Many have their own personal convictions like smoking, or someone having an odd drink of alcohol , or what if any jewelry etc one might wear . I recall back in the 70's if someone even went to a movie others were convinced the one doing such had sinned. If some things are debatable perhaps not good to play the heavy hand. eg if you kick out a smoker what about the glutton. It can be complex but actually I do agree with you.

This should be a very obvious policy for 100% of Christian churches. The fact that essentially no churches do this is one of the important reasons why I do not go to church.

Surely you must admit you're speaking hyperbole there right? How could you know that no churches do this ? For one thing if you happen not to see a person keep attending....perhaps a meeting with leadership has taken place privately with an individual and they were kindly told to leave. Just because it's not public knowledge, yes even out of respect for the out of line person doesn't mean church discipline didn't happen.

I am afraid if I went to church, it would harm my marriage because of the bad example that the churches set.

An interesting point. Expand on this further please. What exactly do you mean.

 

[BrendanG]

I like the other conversations that people are having on this thread. It sounds odd to me too that the Salvation Army doesn't support baptism and communion, but I think I don't know the whole picture.

I see some questions about how I say we should kick unrepentant divorcers out, and I will address that.

"But among you there must not be even a hint of sexual immorality, or of any kind of impurity, or of greed, because these are improper for God's holy people. Nor should there be obscenity, foolish talk or coarse joking, which are out of place, but rather thanksgiving."

I'm pretty sure there is another section where Paul says that if your brother sins against you, you should talk to him about it, and if he does not repent, bring in a couple brothers, and then the whole church. And if the brother does not repent before the whole church, kick him out and treat him like an unbeliever. I don't think what I'm advocating for is very different from that.

My background is from the Orthodox church, and there are church cannons which prohibit communion for a variety of reasons. If I remember right, if you touch, you're not supposed to take communion for like a month. If you commit adultery, the penalty might be for something like 10 years. I don't even think you're supposed to have sex with your wife the day before the communion (you aren't supposed to eat breakfast either). I'm probably remembering the numbers wrong, but there are serious penalties for sins. I think my idea of what to do is actually a bit lenient from what you'd experience in a historical Orthodox Church.


I think most of the resistance to what I said comes from 2 misunderstandings. 1 comes from not reading everything I said, and the other comes from not knowing how big of a problem it is.

Plover Wing said, "The pronoun became "she", and we have public apologies. I'm getting an uncomfortable picture of forcing women to apologize to abusive husbands, and that's not something I want to see in church." It's a fact that about 50% of marriages end in divorce, and something like 80% of divorces are initiated by women. So, I would agree that it's not true to assume that it's always the woman's fault, but if you know nothing about the situation and you have to guess, then most of the time you'd be right to say that the woman is at fault.

Secular people get divorced slightly more often than people claiming to be Christians, but the difference is rather small (unless you're looking at a community like the Amish or Mormons).

I've heard people tell me before that just because 80% of divorces are initiated by women doesn't mean that it's the woman's fault 80% of the time, but I'm 100% sure that if the statistic was reversed (80% of divorces were initiated by men), then those same people would definitely say that it was the men's fault. Modern secular culture does not hold women accountable for anything. It is like they treat a woman's feelings as being holy. I cannot accept this. I think a good analogy would be killing/murder. If 90% of people are killed by men, would it be wrong to say that men commit most of the murders? I think not. Sometimes there is self-defense, but if 90% of people are killed by men, justly or unjustly, then it seems obvious that the majority of unjust killings are committed by men too. It would be absurd to say that 90% of killings are perpetrated by men, but most murders are still committed by women. That is the same logic people use when they say that just because women divorce 80% of the time doesn't mean that it's usually the woman's fault. They are the ones doing the deed. It has to be their fault most of the time.

Also, I said later that if your partner is not even trying to make the marriage work, then that's a valid reason for divorce, and I believe I listed "violent beatings" as one of the examples of a valid reason for divorce. I am not imagining a situation where one spouse has obviously done something wrong. I'm imagining a situation where the wife just gets up and leaves, doesn't even give an excuse (or makes one up which is obviously false), and then gets the court to slap alimony and child support on her husband. This happens A LOT. I've looked into this stuff and it is very easy to find testimony from MANY men that their wife divorced them out of the blue for no reason and then he has to live in his car while his wife is living in his house with her new boyfriend. IMO this behavior is not acceptable. I will not go to church with such a woman. I think there are many men who feel the same way, but you just don't hear from them because they don't go to your church and don't talk to you.

If the wife claims that the husband is doing something bad, and the husband says he's not, then that's a confusing situation and you have to try to find out the truth. But it happens in a lot of cases that the wife doesn't even claim that the husband did anything bad, and she still just gets up and leaves. You can do a quick google search about "no fault divorce" and "Why do people divorce" and see that what I'm saying is true.

Another commenter said, "But people fall out of love". I disagree 100%. If love were just a feeling, then it would be stupid for God to command us to love, because we do not have direct control over our feelings. What he means is that we resolve in our hearts to do good to other people. Love is an act of will, and you have control over it. If a person says he fell out of love with his spouse, what he/she really means is that he got married for some ulterior motive (sex, status, money, etc), and the person he "fell out of love with" no longer provides this. It is an admission that there was never genuine love in the first place.

I might have this number wrong, but I thought I remember hearing that about 5% of marriages ended in divorce in the 1800s . This is 10x better than the 50% divorce rate in the current culture. I think the difference is that in the past, they ACTUALLY TRIED to make their marriages work, but they were fallible humans. Today, we are still fallible humans, and most people DO NOT TRY.


In the Orthodox church, confession is mandatory. If I remember right, you have to do it before communion (it's been a few years for me). You don't have to do it every time, but if you skip it several weeks in a row, the priest will probably ask you what is going on. So, it is entirely natural for me to see church as a place where you admit your sins and try to do better with God's help. So, it makes no sense to me that a person would go to church and not admit his sins. If a drunkard goes to church with a bottle of vodka and gets drunk, or if he curses at people and then goes to church and acts holy, or if a wife divorces her husband for literally no reason and then goes and sings in the choir as if she is still a righteous person, then that makes no sense. A woman who frivolously divorces and still goes to church and doesn't bother to repent is the same to me as someone who gets drunk at an alcoholic's anonymous meeting. It makes no sense. The people should turn to her and ask her, "What are you even doing here? The purpose of church is to learn to love God and your neighbor better. You aren't even trying to love your husband, so why are you here?"


Part of my reasons for not going to church are personal. I was living in Russia a few years ago and I was very happy in my Orthodox Church. But I had some visa problems and was forced to leave the country. Then I had more problems when I got to the USA (geographic and church organizational issues), and was basically unable to continue attending that church (even though nobody from that church said that I had done anything wrong). I thought, "Well, obviously God doesn't want me to go to this church." But I had chosen that church as a result of sincere searching, so I did not know what to do next. I live in a liberal area in the USA, so a lot of the churches have gay flags on the front, so those are obviously no-go zones for me. And then I attended some protestant church services and heard mostly empty platitudes. And then I know in general, that there is an epidemic of frivolous divorce in the USA, and most churches don't even acknowledge it, so I know in general, 9/10 churches I attend will set bad examples for my wife. It just seems like a giant mess to me and I don't even know where to start, and I honestly haven't looked for a couple years. I looked again yesterday and found one church where I couldn't find anything wrong with them on their website, so maybe I will check them out.

I think one problem is that I lived for a little while in a monastery and read ancient books about inner work (this was historically considered the whole point of Christianity). So, the lay people don't really take their religion as seriously as I was used to. I suppose there is a reason that not everybody was expected to live like a monk, and that there were hermits. I guess there are some things that need to be done alone, so maybe it's wrong for me to expect to be able to get help with these things from a Church. I guess maybe I should just lower my expectations. But I think a reasonable minimum expectation is, "The church helps me more than it hurts me", and I think being willing to acknowledge sin is a part of that, and most protestant churches do not do this. I guess I just have to keep looking.

 

[BrendanG]

Amen ..... falling in love and falling out of love is a hollywood burlesque experience, not at all related to obedience and faith and trust in Jesus.
Falling out of love, and worse - falling in love with someone else - is a worldly carnal thing, "enjoyable" in the flesh, but nothing to do with Jesus !
Yet people are told in all the churches it is okay?!? and all they see if they watch tv !
LIttle children are raised, not in the way they should live, but to live like the sinful world lives and approves of ! That's not good nor godly nor right for any child.

I agree. I am also concerned about letting my future children watch television. Sometimes I'm concerned about what my wife watches too.

I point out things on her shows sometimes that I don't like. I think I have gotten her to think about it. I have not forbid her to watch that stuff though. She is extremely stubborn about how things are supposed to be, and she has no experience from her own family of husbands having overt authority. I also think if I forbid something without her understanding, it would just seem arbitrary to her. My wife is a reasonable person, so usually if I make a convincing argument about why something should be a certain way, that's all I have to do.

 

[timothyu]

I am also concerned about letting my future children watch television. Sometimes I'm concerned about what my wife watches too.

New app trying to emulate the classic pre-woke Disney

 

[PloverWing]

I point out things on her shows sometimes that I don't like. I think I have gotten her to think about it. I have not forbid her to watch that stuff though. She is extremely stubborn about how things are supposed to be, and she has no experience from her own family of husbands having overt authority. I also think if I forbid something without her understanding, it would just seem arbitrary to her. My wife is a reasonable person, so usually if I make a convincing argument about why something should be a certain way, that's all I have to do.

I recommend that the two of you talk about the "overt authority" thing. Some couples see the husband as having authority over the wife, so that forbidding something is a reasonable thing to do in the relationship. Other couples see the husband and wife as co-equal partners, so that the husband forbidding something is ridiculous and offensive. Both models can work, but the two spouses should agree on what kind of relationship they want. Disagreement on this (that is, disagreement about whether the marriage is hierarchical or egalitarian) can give rise to the kind of rift in the relationship that you've expressed concern about earlier in this thread.

Making a persuasive case for why a particular TV show bothers you is a better approach than issuing a command, at least in most American families.

 

[BrendanG]

Thanks for the bentkey recommendation, timothyu

I recommend that the two of you talk about the "overt authority" thing. Some couples see the husband as having authority over the wife, so that forbidding something is a reasonable thing to do in the relationship. Other couples see the husband and wife as co-equal partners, so that the husband forbidding something is ridiculous and offensive. Both models can work, but the two spouses should agree on what kind of relationship they want. Disagreement on this (that is, disagreement about whether the marriage is hierarchical or egalitarian) can give rise to the kind of rift in the relationship that you've expressed concern about earlier in this thread.

Making a persuasive case for why a particular TV show bothers you is a better approach than issuing a command, at least in most American families.

I've actually thought quite a bit about the nature of authority, dominance, submission, etc. These are my own thoughts, but I think they are consistent with scripture.

I think on a lot of issues actually, you can test them against "love your neighbor". If an idea is good for everybody involved, then it's probably right. If it's not good for everybody, then it's probably not right.

I think if the husband has authority over his wife, then it is meant to be a good thing for her. How can this be? From my own personal experience, I think the old saying that women are the "weaker sex" is true. They are obviously weaker physically. I don't think they are weaker in total mental capacity (otherwise they'd be terrible "helpers"), but I do think they are more emotional and get more easily distracted from what they ought to be doing. I think husbands are supposed to have authority over their wives because they are supposed to be responsible for them.

I think responsibility and authority ought always to go together. If I ever feel like I want more authority over my wife, I think of what I can do to help her. Usually her response is to be grateful and naturally submissive, even if she doesn't know that was my intent. I think it also keeps my domineering tendencies in check (which I do have), because I yoke them together with service. But I think dominance is a good thing if it's done for the sake of the one who is in submission.

The husband ought to be working hard to provide for his family. In the context of when the Bible was written, it was probably assumed that the wife as materially dependent on her husband. It makes sense both from a moral and from a practical standpoint to try to please the one that you are dependent on.

I try to act in such a way that my wife would consider herself better off to submit to me like a slave. I think it's really hot how Sarah calls Abraham her "Lord". I've told my wife this, but I never insisted that she call me "Lord", and she never has. But she does most of what I want without me even asking.

I think it's better for the husband to focus on being a good husband, and the wife to focus on being a good wife. I think it is technically my right, based off scripture, to order my wife around. But I do not think it is wise to do this most of the time. It is better for me to focus on being a good husband, and let my wife do her job as my wife.

I think if there were a situation where I thought my wife was in danger and that she was acting foolishly, then it would be my right and duty to tell her to shut up and do what I tell her to. But there has never been a situation yet (thank God) where I think this would have been appropriate.
I believe even if my wife understood and agreed that she should submit to me unconditionally, she should still express herself freely, and I should listen*. It is my job to take care of her; how can I do that if I don't know what she needs? She should express herself freely, I should decide what seems best to me, and I should do it, and she should follow. But I do not believe that my wife is stupid, so usually we just discuss things and come to an agreement.

*Here I mean "listen" as in "hear and understand" and NOT "obey".

In the case of moral degeneracy in movies (which my wife doesn't completely see eye-to-eye with me yet), I try to make her understand my point of view, and have faith that if I am in the right in this issue, she will come around. I think it's an important issue, but not an urgent one (nobody is going to die right away from watching a bad movie), so there is no need for drastic measures. She already seems to be thinking of what I would think when she chooses movies and shows, even if she still keeps her own opinion.

One of the things I was taught in the Orthodox church is that if someone has authority over another person (such as a priest having authority over his flock), if that person in authority leads his flock astray, then he will be held responsible for the mistake. This makes sense to me. I think whenever a husband exercises his authority over his wife, he should be afraid for his soul, because in that moment he's making himself responsible for 2 souls, rather than just the usual 1. Now, if the wife does not submit, that's on her. But if she does submit, then it's on the husband, for good or ill.

It is also true of course that the wife should not submit to sinful requests from her husband. God is higher than her husband.

 

[BrendanG]

It has been a long time since I've had these kinds of discussions with other Christians. It reminds me of my Orthodox friends from Russia, and it makes me happy. Everybody is sensible and I am glad that even the people who disagree with me are respectful.

 

[BrendanG]

Are you happy that those who would disagree with you , even if they are right by chance or by providence, could be silenced if they spoke out ; thus they may not be respectful of you at all, but they don't want to be banned ?

I am not familiar with this forum. Is it common for people to get banned for disagreement?

 

[timothyu]

I am not familiar with this forum. Is it common for people to get banned for disagreement?

More like reported. But rare.

 

[timothyu]

the Alternatives like rumble get carried away with too much that is foreign to truth and order and righteousness.

The whole purpose of discernment

 

[PloverWing]

I've actually thought quite a bit about the nature of authority, dominance, submission, etc. These are my own thoughts, but I think they are consistent with scripture.

I think your ideas are very well thought out. You've described a kind of leadership that cares for the person who is required to follow you. If you and your wife decide to have the kind of marriage in which you are in authority and she submits to you, then I think you could be a caring and responsible leader.

Is your wife in full agreement with this kind of marriage, in which you are in authority and she submits to you? If she freely and fully agrees to that arrangement, then it looks like you will be in harmony. If she disagrees, or has reservations, then you may want to have some conversations.