Combating Inclusive/Progressive Christianity

[bling]

Rather OT, but I'll bite:

Nah, I'm not for allowing us to destroy everyone's human rights under the boot of man. God grants us liberal ability to make choices within our nature, and therefore we should treat our fellow man the same way IMO.

Christians do not "destroy" anything and fight for the rights of others. God allows wicked people to take control making a huge visible contrast. If you pray for God to provide the very best situation in the USA for willing humans to accept His help, that could easily mean a place with severe persecution. The contrast becomes obvious.

 

[98cwitr]

Christians do not "destroy" anything and fight for the rights of others. God allows wicked people to take control making a huge visible contrast. If you pray for God to provide the very best situation in the USA for willing humans to accept His help, that could easily mean a place with severe persecution. The contrast becomes obvious.

OR, I simply hope that God, who keeps promises, enacts His promise in Ezekiel 36.

 

[Adventist Dissident]

What we might need is severe persecution like you might find in Communist China.

spoken like someone who has never been under persecution.

 

[AlexDTX]

It would seem to me that we are past a certain point of no return regarding church policy and direction. While I could go into the details about how our seminaries are overrun with these ideologies, I think that's a different discussion and objective. What does seem to be the case is that fundamentalism, even in basic forms such as biblical inerrancy, have been cast aside to ensure that churches are accepted by the world, bolster their member numbers simply by inviting the world in and telling them exactly what they'd rather hear than what Scripture states.

So, brainstorming on this as of yesterday, I wonder what the community would think or say if a church sprang up with the following mission statement:

We exist and gather, in the Name of God, to adhere to biblical principles set forth by Jesus Christ and the Apostles. In doing so, we reject all invitation to the world, its evils and those who seek to work it among the People of God (2 Samuel 23:6, 1 Corinthians 5, James 1:26-27). Therefore, we invite only those who consider themselves to be actively Called, possessing of righteous desire the learn and be healed from their sins, who seek repentance and the Face of the Lord, and those reborn of Spirit and in Christ (1 Chronicles 16:11, Psalm 27:8, Hosea 5:15, Luke 5:32, John 3:1-20). Those who have no desire to seek God, who have no intention of repentance, may request prayer for a new heart (Ezekiel 36, Jeremiah 31) from our pastor, but should know that this Place is Holy Ground, and therefore we reject any permit for evil to dwell within the House of the Lord.

While this may sound harsh to many, is this what is really needed to regain holiness within our churches? Should we go back to expulsions as instructed by Paul in 1 Corinthians 5, and only readmit under the evidence of sincere repentance.

It would seem to me that inclusive Christianity is becoming so inclusive they'd openly invite the devil in if he weren't already there.

Or...are most churches now country clubs and simple self-help groups?

Great start, but too secluded. Where is the mission statement in equipping the saints to share the Gospel with the lost? Where is the statement that believers will learn the leading of the Holy Spirit so they can act in confidence regarding God? Your statement is still trapped in the limited institution or professional clergy.

 

[reformed05]

It would seem to me that we are past a certain point of no return regarding church policy and direction. While I could go into the details about how our seminaries are overrun with these ideologies, I think that's a different discussion and objective. What does seem to be the case is that fundamentalism, even in basic forms such as biblical inerrancy, have been cast aside to ensure that churches are accepted by the world, bolster their member numbers simply by inviting the world in and telling them exactly what they'd rather hear than what Scripture states.

So, brainstorming on this as of yesterday, I wonder what the community would think or say if a church sprang up with the following mission statement:

We exist and gather, in the Name of God, to adhere to biblical principles set forth by Jesus Christ and the Apostles. In doing so, we reject all invitation to the world, its evils and those who seek to work it among the People of God (2 Samuel 23:6, 1 Corinthians 5, James 1:26-27). Therefore, we invite only those who consider themselves to be actively Called, possessing of righteous desire the learn and be healed from their sins, who seek repentance and the Face of the Lord, and those reborn of Spirit and in Christ (1 Chronicles 16:11, Psalm 27:8, Hosea 5:15, Luke 5:32, John 3:1-20). Those who have no desire to seek God, who have no intention of repentance, may request prayer for a new heart (Ezekiel 36, Jeremiah 31) from our pastor, but should know that this Place is Holy Ground, and therefore we reject any permit for evil to dwell within the House of the Lord.

While this may sound harsh to many, is this what is really needed to regain holiness within our churches? Should we go back to expulsions as instructed by Paul in 1 Corinthians 5, and only readmit under the evidence of sincere repentance.

It would seem to me that inclusive Christianity is becoming so inclusive they'd openly invite the devil in if he weren't already there.

Or...are most churches now country clubs and simple self-help groups?

A mission statement like you suggest would not solve the problem. What needs changed is the hearts and priorities and focus of pastors, and yes, Christians. A church mission statement should clearly define the beliefs of that church. Few churches even have mission statements or follow definitive doctrine. That is the problem. Doctrine is seldom discussed and when it is it a surface level, and only as an aside to what the preacher is actually saying. It is all about felt needs, or how to get things from God. Or it is entertainment of money seeking. Unfortunately, I think it is too late to get the world out of the visible church. There are exceptions of course to what I said. As far as a mission statement goes, an excellent example is the Westminster Confession. Whether you agree with it or not, it is the type of thing that belongs in a mission statement, or a statement of beliefs.
Children grew up in the churches learning these things and as a young adult were tested in their knowledge before they were confirmed. The confession even addresses church discipline, d does the Bible. If we did our churches according to the apostolic foundation, we wouldn't be in this conundrum.

 

[Aussie Pete]

It would seem to me that we are past a certain point of no return regarding church policy and direction. While I could go into the details about how our seminaries are overrun with these ideologies, I think that's a different discussion and objective. What does seem to be the case is that fundamentalism, even in basic forms such as biblical inerrancy, have been cast aside to ensure that churches are accepted by the world, bolster their member numbers simply by inviting the world in and telling them exactly what they'd rather hear than what Scripture states.

So, brainstorming on this as of yesterday, I wonder what the community would think or say if a church sprang up with the following mission statement:

We exist and gather, in the Name of God, to adhere to biblical principles set forth by Jesus Christ and the Apostles. In doing so, we reject all invitation to the world, its evils and those who seek to work it among the People of God (2 Samuel 23:6, 1 Corinthians 5, James 1:26-27). Therefore, we invite only those who consider themselves to be actively Called, possessing of righteous desire the learn and be healed from their sins, who seek repentance and the Face of the Lord, and those reborn of Spirit and in Christ (1 Chronicles 16:11, Psalm 27:8, Hosea 5:15, Luke 5:32, John 3:1-20). Those who have no desire to seek God, who have no intention of repentance, may request prayer for a new heart (Ezekiel 36, Jeremiah 31) from our pastor, but should know that this Place is Holy Ground, and therefore we reject any permit for evil to dwell within the House of the Lord.

While this may sound harsh to many, is this what is really needed to regain holiness within our churches? Should we go back to expulsions as instructed by Paul in 1 Corinthians 5, and only readmit under the evidence of sincere repentance.

It would seem to me that inclusive Christianity is becoming so inclusive they'd openly invite the devil in if he weren't already there.

Or...are most churches now country clubs and simple self-help groups?

God's definition of church has long been ignored. The "all are welcome" policies of most assemblies means that God's enemies have infiltrated the church. The gospel has been replaced with some kind of "invite Jesus into your heart drivel" that has no basis in scripture. The role of pastor has been magnified way above what the Bible has to say about it. Protestants sneer at Roman Catholicism but there is little practical difference in leadership methods.

Church discipline should be enforced, starting at the top. There is way too much temptation placed in the way of Pastors. Often, they spend far more time with their secretaries than with their wives. It's just wrong. At least part of the problem is the ridiculous emphasis on the "mini-pope" role awarded to Pastors. What happened to "Body ministry"? Because most pastors are paid by the congregation, many think that they own him and his time 24/7.

Watchman Nee was used by God to found hundreds of churches in China. If you want to know the Biblical pattern, read his book "The Normal Christian Church". He also wrote, "The Normal Christian Church Life".

 

[Aussie Pete]

A mission statement like you suggest would not solve the problem. What needs changed is the hearts and priorities and focus of pastors, and yes, Christians. A church mission statement should clearly define the beliefs of that church. Few churches even have mission statements or follow definitive doctrine. That is the problem. Doctrine is seldom discussed and when it is it a surface level, and only as an aside to what the preacher is actually saying. It is all about felt needs, or how to get things from God. Or it is entertainment of money seeking. Unfortunately, I think it is too late to get the world out of the visible church. There are exceptions of course to what I said. As far as a mission statement goes, an excellent example is the Westminster Confession. Whether you agree with it or not, it is the type of thing that belongs in a mission statement, or a statement of beliefs.
Children grew up in the churches learning these things and as a young adult were tested in their knowledge before they were confirmed. The confession even addresses church discipline, d does the Bible. If we did our churches according to the apostolic foundation, we wouldn't be in this conundrum.

Much of the problem arises from the fact that so few church attenders are born again. It is "Christianism". It looks a bit like the real thing but it is dead.

 

[section9+1]

If people want to come to church to find freedom from their wickedness then all and any should be welcome. If they want to find acceptance of their wickedness and inclusion regardless of it, then they had better find a progressive church because that's their place. The liberal church is the world's best friend.

 

[reformed05]

Much of the problem arises from the fact that so few church attenders are born again. It is "Christianism". It looks a bit like the real thing but it is dead.

This unfortunately is probably true. There are many people who believe if they don't belong to some other religiin, are not atheist or agnostic, then they are Christian. Or are Christian because they go to church and they don't hear anything in that church that changes that opinion. No gospel or doctrine I other words.

 

[topher694]

Church discipline should be enforced, starting at the top. There is way too much temptation placed in the way of Pastors. Often, they spend far more time with their secretaries than with their wives. It's just wrong. At least part of the problem is the ridiculous emphasis on the "mini-pope" role awarded to Pastors.

I know zero pastors where this is true, and I know a lot of them.

Much of the problem arises from the fact that so few church attenders are born again. It is "Christianism". It looks a bit like the real thing but it is dead.

Not our place to judge people's hearts and salvation. We are to look at their fruit.

 

[Jonaitis]

It would seem to me that we are past a certain point of no return regarding church policy and direction. While I could go into the details about how our seminaries are overrun with these ideologies, I think that's a different discussion and objective. What does seem to be the case is that fundamentalism, even in basic forms such as biblical inerrancy, have been cast aside to ensure that churches are accepted by the world, bolster their member numbers simply by inviting the world in and telling them exactly what they'd rather hear than what Scripture states.

So, brainstorming on this as of yesterday, I wonder what the community would think or say if a church sprang up with the following mission statement:

We exist and gather, in the Name of God, to adhere to biblical principles set forth by Jesus Christ and the Apostles. In doing so, we reject all invitation to the world, its evils and those who seek to work it among the People of God (2 Samuel 23:6, 1 Corinthians 5, James 1:26-27). Therefore, we invite only those who consider themselves to be actively Called, possessing of righteous desire the learn and be healed from their sins, who seek repentance and the Face of the Lord, and those reborn of Spirit and in Christ (1 Chronicles 16:11, Psalm 27:8, Hosea 5:15, Luke 5:32, John 3:1-20). Those who have no desire to seek God, who have no intention of repentance, may request prayer for a new heart (Ezekiel 36, Jeremiah 31) from our pastor, but should know that this Place is Holy Ground, and therefore we reject any permit for evil to dwell within the House of the Lord.

While this may sound harsh to many, is this what is really needed to regain holiness within our churches? Should we go back to expulsions as instructed by Paul in 1 Corinthians 5, and only readmit under the evidence of sincere repentance.

It would seem to me that inclusive Christianity is becoming so inclusive they'd openly invite the devil in if he weren't already there.

Or...are most churches now country clubs and simple self-help groups?

We have already responded with our own statements regarding the issues springing up.

Social Justice Statement
Nashville Statement

 

[Aussie Pete]

I know zero pastors where this is true, and I know a lot of them.
I'm glad your experience is different.

Not our place to judge people's hearts and salvation. We are to look at their fruit.

We are not to judge as in the sense of a court of law. We are to judge in the sense of discerning. I have been saved 48 years and I've seen many "wolves in sheep's clothing." Because so few people have the courage to call them out, they infiltrate the church and can be devastating. Statistically, in Australia, about 5% of church attenders are born again. Billy Graham said that he would be delighted if 5% of the people who came forward were actually born again. Who would build a house 5% brick and 95% cardboard? We are supposed to be living stones in God's temple. Yet most assemblies accept anyone who wants to come as long as they behave themselves. Sort of.

You might want to look up Paul Washer. He tells it like it is.

 

[Redwingfan9]

It would seem to me that we are past a certain point of no return regarding church policy and direction. While I could go into the details about how our seminaries are overrun with these ideologies, I think that's a different discussion and objective. What does seem to be the case is that fundamentalism, even in basic forms such as biblical inerrancy, have been cast aside to ensure that churches are accepted by the world, bolster their member numbers simply by inviting the world in and telling them exactly what they'd rather hear than what Scripture states.

So, brainstorming on this as of yesterday, I wonder what the community would think or say if a church sprang up with the following mission statement:

We exist and gather, in the Name of God, to adhere to biblical principles set forth by Jesus Christ and the Apostles. In doing so, we reject all invitation to the world, its evils and those who seek to work it among the People of God (2 Samuel 23:6, 1 Corinthians 5, James 1:26-27). Therefore, we invite only those who consider themselves to be actively Called, possessing of righteous desire the learn and be healed from their sins, who seek repentance and the Face of the Lord, and those reborn of Spirit and in Christ (1 Chronicles 16:11, Psalm 27:8, Hosea 5:15, Luke 5:32, John 3:1-20). Those who have no desire to seek God, who have no intention of repentance, may request prayer for a new heart (Ezekiel 36, Jeremiah 31) from our pastor, but should know that this Place is Holy Ground, and therefore we reject any permit for evil to dwell within the House of the Lord.

While this may sound harsh to many, is this what is really needed to regain holiness within our churches? Should we go back to expulsions as instructed by Paul in 1 Corinthians 5, and only readmit under the evidence of sincere repentance.

It would seem to me that inclusive Christianity is becoming so inclusive they'd openly invite the devil in if he weren't already there.

Or...are most churches now country clubs and simple self-help groups?

That statement applies to the taking of communion but has no place in the church otherwise. Paul teaches that we are saved by hearing thr foolishness of preaching. In other words, the Holy Spirt often acts in a man's heart when he hears preaching. We cannot therefore shut off the world for our church services.

What believers must do is insist that pastors and elders are solid theologically. One way the progessives come to dominate is by fooling elders. Too many elders are elected for unbiblical reasons. Just because Bob is a good businessman doesn't mean he'll make a good elder. It's through biblical ignorant elders that progressives and other heretics come to power.

 

[martymonster]

It would seem to me that we are past a certain point of no return regarding church policy and direction. While I could go into the details about how our seminaries are overrun with these ideologies, I think that's a different discussion and objective. What does seem to be the case is that fundamentalism, even in basic forms such as biblical inerrancy, have been cast aside to ensure that churches are accepted by the world, bolster their member numbers simply by inviting the world in and telling them exactly what they'd rather hear than what Scripture states.

So, brainstorming on this as of yesterday, I wonder what the community would think or say if a church sprang up with the following mission statement:

We exist and gather, in the Name of God, to adhere to biblical principles set forth by Jesus Christ and the Apostles. In doing so, we reject all invitation to the world, its evils and those who seek to work it among the People of God (2 Samuel 23:6, 1 Corinthians 5, James 1:26-27). Therefore, we invite only those who consider themselves to be actively Called, possessing of righteous desire the learn and be healed from their sins, who seek repentance and the Face of the Lord, and those reborn of Spirit and in Christ (1 Chronicles 16:11, Psalm 27:8, Hosea 5:15, Luke 5:32, John 3:1-20). Those who have no desire to seek God, who have no intention of repentance, may request prayer for a new heart (Ezekiel 36, Jeremiah 31) from our pastor, but should know that this Place is Holy Ground, and therefore we reject any permit for evil to dwell within the House of the Lord.

While this may sound harsh to many, is this what is really needed to regain holiness within our churches? Should we go back to expulsions as instructed by Paul in 1 Corinthians 5, and only readmit under the evidence of sincere repentance.

It would seem to me that inclusive Christianity is becoming so inclusive they'd openly invite the devil in if he weren't already there.

Or...are most churches now country clubs and simple self-help groups?

I'm sorry to tell you this, but you can't stop it. It's all been predetermined by God.

 

[grandvizier1006]

I share the OP's frustrations with progressive Christians. It's hard for me to even consider them such, but I believe if they are in an environment with practicing Christians, their minds and hearts can be changed. I dread the future of churches that may get forced to change their beliefs due to secular pressure. But Jesus said that it is the sick that need a doctor, not the healthy. Sinners must populate the church, even if they're unrepentant, because it is through us that the Holy Spirit can lead them to repentance.

 

[98cwitr]

Sinners must populate the church, even if they're unrepentant, because it is through us that the Holy Spirit can lead them to repentance.

Can that only happen within the walls of a church?

I think we need to reset a sec: What is the purpose of "church?" Why should Christians gather together in worship?

 

[topher694]

We are not to judge as in the sense of a court of law. We are to judge in the sense of discerning. I have been saved 48 years and I've seen many "wolves in sheep's clothing." Because so few people have the courage to call them out, they infiltrate the church and can be devastating. Statistically, in Australia, about 5% of church attenders are born again. Billy Graham said that he would be delighted if 5% of the people who came forward were actually born again. Who would build a house 5% brick and 95% cardboard? We are supposed to be living stones in God's temple. Yet most assemblies accept anyone who wants to come as long as they behave themselves. Sort of.

You might want to look up Paul Washer. He tells it like it is.

I know how it is. I've seen it first hand. The Bible says only God knows the heart. We can and should discern fruit, as well as the spirit(s) influencing others. We can and should demonstrate correct behavior. We can and should identify wrong behavior. But, the heart is God's domain.

Don't get me wrong, I've got my opinions on the state of the Church, same as Billy Graham or anyone else. But I'm always careful to question someone's salvation. If there's a doubt in my mind, I try to lead them in the right direction, but calling them unsaved is rarely fruitful and can be counter-productive.

 

[Hazelelponi]

...

Is your church full of broken homes, divorcees, fatherless children who are not orphaned, openly gay deacons, and performing same-sex marriages? Mine is.

There might be some of that even in a new church within the new standards.. I was divorced prior to ever being saved..

People come to Christ from varying backgrounds.. certainly those things shouldn't be happening in large part from saved individuals though.

 

[PloverWing]

We have already responded with our own statements regarding the issues springing up.

Social Justice Statement
Nashville Statement

I disagree with some of the content of these two statements (as is probably clear from my other CF posts ), but I find them to be clear statements of the point of view that the OP wants to see in the churches. If a church wanted to make clear that it is opposed to LGBT-inclusiveness, to feminism, and to social justice as a church priority, then I think adopting one or both of these statements would make church's position very clear to newcomers. If the church felt very strongly, they could require affirming one or both of these statements as a condition of membership.

 

[section9+1]

Can that only happen within the walls of a church?

I think we need to reset a sec: What is the purpose of "church?" Why should Christians gather together in worship?

Church is for Christians. No one else. Non-Christians can come in and participate if they are curious and want to learn and perhaps get involved. But they cannot remain non-Christian too long and they cannot become Christian without implementing changes. Which means repentance and turning to Christ. No one comes to Christ without first passing through John. John made the road to Christ and that road is repentance. That's how you become one of the lost sheep that he came exclusively for. No eventual repentance means no Christ.