To tithe, or not to tithe. That is the question!

[GaryArnold]

To answer the question of who we should tithe to , I believe we are free to choose where we give our money, tithe or otherwise. It could be a local church or a homeless shelter. We are giving to Jesus.

We are free to choose where we give our money, true. But the scriptures make it clear how to tithe and where to take the tithe(s) - all three of them. You don't have a right to tithe any other way and call it Biblical or call it tithing to God. To do so is being disobedient to God.

Nowhere in the New Testament does it say now you can tithe any way you want. Rather, the New Testament says the tithe was disannulled in Hebrews 7:5,12,18. But the New Testament does say to give where there is a need. NOT tithe, but give.

 

[Frogster]

2 cor 3:6, the letter kills, the tithing law kills, they take away the joy of giving, by turning it into a legal compulsion, and of course the guilt ruins it all too. Tithe is a power word in the church.

 

[New_Wineskin]

I do not believe that the church is man made organized religion.

The Church is not man-made - the term , the thinking , and the application of "go to church" is man-made .

 

[rhiannalynn]

I believe that God wants to have our hearts and couldn't care less about our money. However, with many people, their money tends to have them instead of the other way around. I have personally seen changes in my life that I'm extremely thankful for because of the heart change that comes from being open handed instead of tight-fisted. I have felt more freedom and intimacy with God because my heart is in right standing with him. I stress about money less. If the command to tithe wasn't there, I don't think I would have. I don't think God wants your money in a legalistic "if you don't do this, I'll send you to hell" sort of way.

I believe that God gives us more favor and responsibility based on how we steward what he has given us. If he knows that we are willing to trust him with our finances or any other area close to our heart with just a word from him, he will likely entrust us with more. I always think of the story with Abraham and his son Isaac--God tells Abraham to sacrifice his only son Isaac (God had promised that Abraham would be the father of nations), and Abraham obeys, only to have God provide a ram instead at the last moment. God doesn't intend to leave us with less. He just wants our hearts and sometimes we need to reallocate our treasure for that to happen. Sometimes it takes 10%, or more (or less). I think 10% is a good rule to start with and to bring some consistency.

 

[jamadan]

I believe that God wants to have our hearts and couldn't care less about our money. However, with many people, their money tends to have them instead of the other way around. I have personally seen changes in my life that I'm extremely thankful for because of the heart change that comes from being open handed instead of tight-fisted. I have felt more freedom and intimacy with God because my heart is in right standing with him. I stress about money less. If the command to tithe wasn't there, I don't think I would have. I don't think God wants your money in a legalistic "if you don't do this, I'll send you to hell" sort of way.

I believe that God gives us more favor and responsibility based on how we steward what he has given us. If he knows that we are willing to trust him with our finances or any other area close to our heart with just a word from him, he will likely entrust us with more. I always think of the story with Abraham and his son Isaac--God tells Abraham to sacrifice his only son Isaac (God had promised that Abraham would be the father of nations), and Abraham obeys, only to have God provide a ram instead at the last moment. God doesn't intend to leave us with less. He just wants our hearts and sometimes we need to reallocate our treasure for that to happen. Sometimes it takes 10%, or more (or less). I think 10% is a good rule to start with and to bring some consistency.

So you could make your same point, a nice point by the way, by more correctly stating that 'God asks that we give'. There no longer is a 'command to tithe' any more than there is a command to be circumcised or to sacrifice an animal for forgiveness of sin. That Covenant was fulfilled by Christ.

Is really is that simple of an adjustment. But it's an important distinction.

 

[K2K]

We are free to choose where we give our money, true. But the scriptures make it clear how to tithe and where to take the tithe(s) - all three of them. You don't have a right to tithe any other way and call it Biblical or call it tithing to God. To do so is being disobedient to God.

Nowhere in the New Testament does it say now you can tithe any way you want. Rather, the New Testament says the tithe was disannulled in Hebrews 7:5,12,18. But the New Testament does say to give where there is a need. NOT tithe, but give.

You missed verse 6

Heb 7:6 But the one whose genealogy is not traced from them collected a tenth from Abraham


Like Abraham, our tithing is not, according to the Law, due to the Levitical priests, but rather to the preist whose genealogy is not tracable because it goes all the way back.

It's not that the Law is done away with, but that the Law is fulfilled throught Jesus Christ. So the tithe is due Him, not the church, not any human priest. Abraham did not give a tithe of ten percent every week, He gave one time, and as instructed by the Lord.

Heb 7:16 who has become such not on the basis of a law of physical requirement, but according to the power of an indestructible life.

Churches right and left tell you to give them 10% of your money. But we are to live by the voice of the Lord and give as He tells us, not based of a law of physical requirement.

So does He say to give. Certainly, but not as people think. Did He give only ten percent or did He give His entire life?

He gave all on the cross, so it is not 10 % but all that is due the Lord. So if He who gave all tells you to give, won't you give? And if you know Him, will you now turn back to your understanding of the Law?

He has me give and it went to a church, but not as people think. He had me open a christian book store which took all the money I had. Then He instructed me to give the store to a church. The value of what I gave in physical terms was $77,000. I don't make much money, so that might be 10% of all the money I ever make.

Now that is closer to how Abraham gave, isn't it. Or did you read that Abraham gave every week like you tell others to do?

So do I still give. Yeah, when He tells me. And recenntly I was attending a chruch that He kept telling me to not give to until He instructed me. Then one day He told me to start giving an amount that was 10% of what I was making each week. Yet He told me to start at a specific time about a month away. Right before I was to give the church started preaching about giving 10 % according to the Law, as present in the attached post.

Now this was fine for me, because the Lord has already told me to start, and so I did. But as they preached the four week series on giving according to the Law, my giving took on a sour feeling because it now felt like I was giving because of a rule instead of because the Lord whom I love told me.

Then the Lord sat me down one morning and told me that my church had done me a great diservice, because giving according to a rule (The Law) brings resentment (Sin), but if you give because of love (and God is Love) then your giving brings happiness.

Those who live by the Law instead of by a relationship with the Lord should be pitied. The Law does not bring happiness, a relationship with the Lord does.

We don't live by the Law but by hearing our Lord by faith. When the Lord tells you to give, it will make you happy. If the church tells you to give according to the Law, it will make you miserable.

Gal 3: 5,6 So then, does He who provides you with the Spirit and works miracles among you, do it by the works of the Law, or by hearing with faith? Even so Abraham BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS RECKONED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS.

Abraham did not give every week his tithe!!! Abraham listen to the Lord his God and gave where and as his Lord told him. And Jesus told those Pharisees, that if they were sons of Abraham they would do like Abraham did. Abraham did not seek to kill the One (Whose name is called the Word of God), but lthere are people ike the Pharisee who lived by the Law and killed the small voice of the Lord inside them and killed the One who had the small voice on the cross.

Gal 3:7 Therefore, be sure that it is those who are of faith who are sons of Abraham.


Man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus. And our tithes (indeed all we have) are not due human preists, but they are due God. So perhaps we should start listening to Him to find out where and how He would like what is due Him given!!! Or will you kill the small voice of the Lord inside you by trying to live by your understanding of the Law instead of through a relationship with the Lord?

 

[Frogster]

the giving macedonians were poor 2 cor 8, the tithing jerusalem church was poor, paul was often poor, and even the corinthians in 2 cor 8:14 were told they might one day be poor, Jesus said we will always have the poor, all indicating that there is not always a financial return, when we give cash.

 

[BeforeThereWas]

This is your only response to the questions asked of you?

One thing stands out to me. The statement man made organized religion. I think that is where one of the main points of contention comes.

I do not believe that the church is man made organized religion. I believe it is organized by God himself.

Really? You believe the first century Church possessed and practiced what is done today? Where do you see them pouring their resources into errecting communal facilities, lawn care, professional staffing, fancy candle chandeliers, padded seats or pews, etc., etc., etc.?

Where do you see them sitting perpetually as a passive audience as opposed to being directly involved in each other's lives, and exercising their spiritual maturity as functional believers?

How about we apply an acid test, shall we?

Pull money away from the (C)hurch (capital "C"), and the (C)hurch continues to live and breath as a living, thriving entity.

Pull the money out from under institutionalized (c)hurch organizations (small "c"), and they collapse, organizationally, close the doors, lock the windows, and cease to exist as they were known.

Buildings and religious organizational structures are therefore purely man-made, not God-breathed.

The (C)hurch, on the other hand, thrived for centuries without the luxuries of communal buildings, choir robes and music entertainment.

Applying warm fuzzies toward the institutional model doesn't prove they originated from God, no matter how long one holds his breath.

Granted: The Lord can and does use them for His own purposes, but, then, our Lord also used pharoah.

One problem is the utterly blind indifference people foster in thinking that primary support of a luxury before, if ever, meeting the needs of fellow believers, is rightfully justifiable from scripture.

I challenge anyone to show me where the first century (C)hurch practiced such nonsense!

Why stop with church being "man made' . Why not say that the Bible is man made since the hand of man was involved in writing it ?

Nobody said the Bible is man-made. That's an apples to oranges analogy you're trying to foist upon what clearly is a weak, at best, case on your side. Nice try.

Look. Unbelievers can walk into, and become members of, any (c)hurch (small "c") organization. Even D. James Kennedy routinely stated that many in his congregation would more than likely never enter Heaven, and many other preachers say the same to this very day.....except the ear ticklers, that is. Maybe you institutional pastor is an ear tickler. I don't know. As for me, I prefer to exercise responsibility over what I believe by reading what's written in the word of God.

How many unbelievers are members of the Church (capital "C")?

None! Nadda. Zilch. Zero.

Were there unbeleivers who infiltrated the presence of first century believer's meetings. Sure. The Judaisers were in their midst.

The (C)hurch is God-breathed. All those man-made (c)hurch organizations out there are man-made because any organizational structure man formulates and charters are just that.....man-made, whether you and others like that reality or not.

When those organizations collapse, believers continue to live on in Christ Jesus, regardless. Never do we see in the Bible a necessity for luxuries such as (c)hurch organizations with buildings, professional staffing, office equipment, et al.

There are even congregations labeled as "Christian" who follow after false christs completely unknown to the scriptures. One of the biggest of them is centered in Ro.....well, I'll let you fill in the blanks on that one.

Cold, hard FACT: Antiquity of a belief or belief system doesn't make ANYTHING infallible, or established by God. Neither does a love for something make it God-breathed.

I think that the church which is Christ's body mirror Christ in the fact that it is both divine and human at the same time. Jesus was both God and man and both his humanity and his divine nature are shown in his body , the church. The human element does not stop the sovereign hand of God from manifesting his divine hand in his Church.

There's no doubt that some of the (C)hurch occupies pews and chairs in man-made (c)hurch organizations. The presence of believers, and their love of something, however, doesn't make that something sacred, and therefore a creation of God. The temple and the bloodline priesthoods lost their signifigance at the point Jesus gave up His Spirit on the cross. The veil was rent from top to bottom.

The history of the institutionalized (c)hurch organization model is traceable to the time of Constantine in the fourth century, NOT to the time of Christ Jesus or His apostles.

I can see why someone would find it distasteful to tithe or give money , at all to people. Why would I want to give my money to someone else ? But if we see God in it , then it changes our whole perspective.

That pretty much sums up what's wrong. Many professing believers are plenty happy handing over to organized religion their primary giving because they personally benefit from it. After all, there's no earthly payoff handing it over to fellow believers who are in need, or those in their local communities. That's about as fleshly and selfish as anyone could possibly admit.

To answer the question of who we should tithe to , I believe we are free to choose where we give our money , tithe or otherwise. It could be a local church or a homeless shelter. We are giving to Jesus.

Again, that sums it up nicely. Fleshly people will always justify ignoring the biblical model for giving by hiding it under the piles of their own filthy beleifs about what's taught. The clear language of scripture gets in the way of doing what we want, so they garnish their beliefs with sweet smelling, spiritual sounding jargon that leads nowhere near what's actually shown to us by way of living examples and instructions within the very word of God.

Thanks, but no thanks. That brand of religiosity has outlived its usefulness. Reports pour in from all over the country of how (c)hurch attendance has been declining for some time now. Many people want something more real and solid rather than plastic and pastor-centric.

BTW

 

[Yitzchak]

Really? You believe the first century Church possessed and practiced what is done today? Where do you see them pouring their resources into errecting communal facilities, lawn care, professional staffing, fancy candle chandeliers, padded seats or pews, etc., etc., etc.?

Where do you see them sitting perpetually as a passive audience as opposed to being directly involved in each other's lives, and exercising their spiritual maturity as functional believers?

How about we apply an acid test, shall we?

It sounds more like you have some pet peeve issue that you are trying to force. Your justification for attacking the church falls short for me.

How many unbelievers are members of the Church (capital "C")?

None! Nadda. Zilch. Zero.

This is a false dichotomy. The scripture speaks of one church , not two. Trying to create this second imaginary choice to justify not supporting the one true church is just empty rhetoric. This other " church " that you speak of does not exist and never has. There has always been and still is only one church upon the earth. That church includes humanity as well as the divine.

The (C)hurch is God-breathed. All those man-made (c)hurch organizations out there are man-made because any organizational structure man formulates and charters are just that.....man-made, whether you and others like that reality or not.

Not so. Since those things which you describe are a part of Church , then your attempt to separate them is only an excuse for judging that what God has established.

Thanks, but no thanks. That brand of religiosity has outlived its usefulness. Reports pour in from all over the country of how (c)hurch attendance has been declining for some time now. Many people want something more real and solid rather than plastic and pastor-centric.

BTW

There have been centuries of church history. Times of decline and times of growth. As Christians , we are to support the church , not attack it.

 

[GaryArnold]

As Christians , we are to support the church , not attack it.

No, as Christians, we are to support the Church (with a capital C), not the church (with a small c) which is nothing but a man-made organized corporation doing business as a church.

Just go to any modern-day dictionary and look up the word "church." The first definition given in the American Heritage Dictionary is:
"a building for public Christian worship."

 

[BeforeThereWas]

It sounds more like you have some pet peeve issue that you are trying to force. Your justification for attacking the church falls short for me.

I take it this is your way of saying you have no legitimate and honest answers to questions put to you, such as where scriptures uphold the modern, institutional model as being representative of the (C)hurch.

Attack plans most generally don't include asking that you provide support for your claims, therefore labeling my treatise and questions on this topic as an attack clearly speaks to the fact that you prefer mischaracterising something you can't effectively answer.

This is a false dichotomy. The scripture speaks of one church , not two. Trying to create this second imaginary choice to justify not supporting the one true church is just empty rhetoric.

Oh, please! Is that the best you can do? Is that the extent of your arsenal?

The institutional MODEL is just that.....a MODEL. The Church established by Christ Jesus doesn't enjoy the flexibility employed by the institutional MODEL, which in some cases is purely pagan.

Some people are so deeply sold out to the institutional model that they can't see anything outside their petty four walls. I put forth sound reasoning as to why the institutional MODEL can completely pass away and the Church still remain. That's not a matter of creating a "second church."

Why not simply answer my questions rather than side-step with straw men tactics?

This other " church " that you speak of does not exist and never has. There has always been and still is only one church upon the earth. That church includes humanity as well as the divine.

Unfortunately for you, all you've done is create a nonexistent dichotomy. I clearly stated that the Church occupies some of the seats within church organizations. That in no way is an attempt to create a second "church," especially when pointing out the cold, hard fact that unbelievers also occupy space in most church organizations. Did that strike a nerve, or are you simply blowing smoke to cover for the discomfort you experience when faced with that reality?

Organized religion is not THE Church. They are either independent organizations, or they are nationally affiliated through a central denominational headqaurter organization. The Church Christ Jesus established isn't at all fractured and schizmatic as is the case with the institutional MODEL.

You can sit there and try to deny the facts all you want, but in the end your beliefs along this line are found sadly wanting.

Attempts at trying to JOIN to the Church that which is man-made speaks loud volumes to a severe lack of understanding. The Church can hold within her hand the tool of institutionalized religion, and make it serve what the Lord sets her to do. Otherwise, that MODEL can be discarded at no cost to the (C)hurch.

The (C)hurch can and does live on with or without the institutional MODEL. Deifying the man-made MODEL as being an integral part of the Church is adulterous at best.

There have been centuries of church history. Times of decline and times of growth. As Christians , we are to support the church , not attack it.

You clearly are not properly armed to engage this discussion with meaningful dialogue. The best you've done thus far is misrepresent my statements and the character of the Church as it's described within the Bible. The institutional MODEL is found NOWHERE in the pages of the NT.

The level of understanding you've exhibited is lacking. I've studied history quite deeply, and can see you're ill-equipped. There's no shame in admitting that.

Perhaps you'll one day be able to answer the questions I've asked of you without jumping off into the briar patch while demanding that I pushed you.

Tit-for-tat postings are a waste of time.

BTW

 

[BeforeThereWas]

No, as Christians, we are to support the Church (with a capital C), not the church (with a small c) which is nothing but a man-made organized corporation doing business as a church.

Just go to any modern-day dictionary and look up the word "church." The first definition given in the American Heritage Dictionary is:
"a building for public Christian worship."

Gary,

Adding to what you've said:

I will admit that when one joins a club or religious organization from which they reap benefit, they should financially support it if they expect it to offset operational costs. I have no problem with that so long as the support of such things are a lesser priority to meeting genuine needs.

From the perspective of scriptures, however, most people, in relation to their giving, have biblical priorities backwards.

I agree with those who say we have total freedom to give where we like. The only stipulation, or limitation I'd place on that (for those who desire to remain biblically consistent) is they don't call it "giving" when handing money, for example, over to something from which they reap direct benefit, such as most institutional church organizations.

Purchasing food and handing it over to the hungry, or handing money over to the family down the street who lost their sole source of income due to layoff, etc., there is no direct, earthly benefit reaped by the giver, even though treasure is stored up in Heaven.

Having said that, I can't help but to marvel that any TRUE follower of Christ Jesus (the TRUE Jesus portrayed within the pages of the Bible) would EVER claim that handing over to a church organization the primary, largest portion of their support is always synonymous with "giving to God." Nowhere does the NT exemplify that system of giving or that organizational model as a legitimate replacement for meeting the needs of fellow believers and the needy in one's local community.

And yet, many have chosen to blindly go along with the status quo of historic, institutional teachings; that organized religion is the proper repository of one's primary giving, and that it's acceptable to the Lord that the leftovers be used for meeting needs. Antiquity never conveys any teaching to the level of infallibility. How so many justify in ther feeble thinking the idea that the electric company is a higher priority than the needs of the (for example) humble widow in their midst. That completely escapes me, and yet those people sleep very well at night. How.....I can't say for sure, except that their consciences have been seared with something FAR more hot than a coal from an average fire.

Assuming the antiquity of a doctrine as ample evidence of a doctrinal teaching/concept being acceptable before the Lord is nothing but an out-of-control slide into error. If antiquity were an acceptable baromoeter for TRUTH, then one can go and join a Buddhist sect. After all, their teachings were around a thousand years before Christianity had ever been known to this earth.

For those who support the practice of placing people as a lower priority than the needs of a facility and its professional staffing, I fear they're the ones ground to powder UNDER the Rock rather than among those who are broken from having fallen UPON the Rock.

BTW

 

[GaryArnold]

BTW - I agree completely. So-called "giving" to a church organization is no more "giving" than when you hand over money to pay for a Christian Music CD. Also, if you expect a blessing when you give, is that even really giving to begin with, or is it an investment, or purchasing a blessing?

The organized church has diminished what true giving is all about.

 

[New_Wineskin]

BTW - I agree completely. So-called "giving" to a church organization is no more "giving" than when you hand over money to pay for a Christian Music CD. Also, if you expect a blessing when you give, is that even really giving to begin with, or is it an investment, or purchasing a blessing?

The organized church has diminished what true giving is all about.

Yes , giving to an organization to which you belong that only or mostly supports that organization is the same as a club that accepts donations to continue functioning . There is no "giving to god" in that . One is simply giving money to themselves - used for their own enjoyment .

 

[Frogster]

this whole thing is isane, the tithe teachers have nothing to go on in the NT text, other than to contort heb 7, or to twist 2 cor 8-9 to get money for themselves.

 

[Frogster]

the people who get rich off of this scheme, should consider barnabas, who gave, unlike those who live high off others.


4:36 Thus Joseph, who was also called by the apostles Barnabas (which means son of encouragement), a Levite, a native of Cyprus, 37 sold a field that belonged to him and brought the money and laid it at the apostles' feet.


Gee...look where it went...wow...




Acts 6:1 Now in these days when the disciples were increasing in number, a complaint by the Hellenists arose against the Hebrews because their widows were being neglected in the daily distribution.

 

[BeforeThereWas]

Good points, Frogster.

Even more astounding is that we've seen the claim made in this thread that institutional church organizations are the Church. No reasonable explanation was offered in support of that assertion, but that it was made at all boggles the wildest of imaginations.

When the Jews sewed the two halves of the veil together, that didn't magically conjure God back down into that structure, and thus the emphasis on a building being replaced.

I can't help but to shake my head when I hear the pathetic declaration that some building is "God's house."

Folks, as many of you know, those idiots can't rob us of the blessed privilage of being indwelt by the Holy Spirit. They can try robbing their followers of their God-given heritage, but not us. I see them for what they are.....charlatans.....quacks....pseudo spiritualists.

BTW

 

[Frogster]

Good points, Frogster.

Even more astounding is that we've seen the claim made in this thread that institutional church organizations are the Church. No reasonable explanation was offered in support of that assertion, but that it was made at all boggles the wildest of imaginations.

When the Jews sewed the two halves of the veil together, that didn't magically conjure God back down into that structure, and thus the emphasis on a building being replaced.

I can't help but to shake my head when I hear the pathetic declaration that some building is "God's house."

Folks, as many of you know, those idiots can't rob us of the blessed privilage of being indwelt by the Holy Spirit. They can try robbing their followers of their God-given heritage, but not us. I see them for what they are.....charlatans.....quacks....pseudo spiritualists.

BTW

Wholeheartedly agreed! Tithing has become circumcision, legalism today, the "standard of excellence", good point about the cutain getting sewed back up. Entrenched dogmatism. Happy Thanksgiving, frog.

 

[Yitzchak]

We are free to choose where we give our money, true. But the scriptures make it clear how to tithe and where to take the tithe(s) - all three of them. You don't have a right to tithe any other way and call it Biblical or call it tithing to God. To do so is being disobedient to God.

Nowhere in the New Testament does it say now you can tithe any way you want. Rather, the New Testament says the tithe was disannulled in Hebrews 7:5,12,18. But the New Testament does say to give where there is a need. NOT tithe, but give.

Just saying something is Biblical in an edgy way does not make it so. There actually has to be substance to back the claims. You can Pontificate about the issue all day long and it does not bear any real authority unless there is actually substance behind it.

A short recap. Abraham tithed , Jacob vowed to tithe , he became Israel and Israel tithed. The book of Hebrews refers back to what Abraham did as a legitimate tithe. All of these supposed rules that you are dogmatically applying to Christians are not coming from scripture.

It's not that I missed your point. I simply disagree with it. I prefer to interpret the scripture based upon the whole counsel of scripture. I also like to apply good rules of interpretation , such as the law of first mention. The scripture teaches that a tithe is giving 10% of our material gain. To zero in on a few passages out of the middle of that teaching which describe a specific tithe and apply that as a rule to everyone is not only wrong , it is a bit random and legalistic. The ironic thing is that usually being legalistic is at least accurate to the letter of the law. But not in this case. Which turns out to be irrelevant since we are not under the law.

The first mention of tithing in the Bible is tithing by faith from a willing heart. No rule or compulsion. The last mention of tithing brings us to the bottom line. The spiritual principle behind the tithing , which is that Abraham tithing was a type for us as Christians. He tithed to Melchizedek , who is a type of Christ. This shows us that tithing is done by faith to Jesus , the high priest.

Also , this false dilemma that is put forth , that we have some trouble finding someone to tithe to , simply does not exist. The church is Christ's body upon the earth and every Christian is a priest now. There is no need to make it complicated. We simply are led by The Holy Spirit to tithe to the representative of Christ upon the earth , which is the church.

 

[Yitzchak]

Good points, Frogster.

Even more astounding is that we've seen the claim made in this thread that institutional church organizations are the Church. No reasonable explanation was offered in support of that assertion, but that it was made at all boggles the wildest of imaginations.

This is simply not true. Because I decided to not reply to someone's negative diatribe about the church says nothing about what is supported by scripture and what is not.

What was actually claimed is that Jesus himself established the Church as his Representative upon the earth. Someone coming along and saying that the church is not really the church is what is actually astounding and unsupported by anything other than bitter sounding criticism of church leadership. Equally astounding is this claim that there is this imaginary church who do not want to support the church and somehow they are the "real" church which scripture speaks about. It simply makes no sense. A not so clever attempt to get around what the scripture says about the church. Just randomly say that the church is not really the church. Instead , say that only this secret group of people who I agree with are. Ridiculous.

Now here is an astounding statement. The church is the church. Period. Someone posting on here that they do not like thew way the church operates does not change that.