Combating Inclusive/Progressive Christianity

[redleghunter]

You do recall that Jesus spent His time with the unwashed societal rejects (i.e. sinners, tax-collectors, and publicans) ... and that He pardoned a thief ?

This is the half of the story we hear from liberal Christians.

 

[redleghunter]

What entity was the object of their repentance? Ecclesia? What were the pastor's and elders' "requests?" (All rhetorical, thought questions, actually) Requests are granted, not satisfied.

Another option for them would have been to go to another church which also did not forbear fornication nor co-habitation, but neither required the jumping-thru of penance-like hoops to have their union renewed and sanctified by the blessing of God.

All was handled in pastoral care. Meaning there was no walk of shame and no flogging.

 

[A_Thinker]

This is the half of the story we hear from liberal Christians.

Was Jesus recorded denying Himself to anyone ?

I recognize that Paul encouraged the expulsion of a sinning member from the Corinthian congregation, but there is little else which corroborates with this in the New Testament ...

 

[PloverWing]

This is where the communication with liberal Christians breaks down. They think Biblically based churches refuse gays and won't let them in the doors. That is not how it is. We preach the Gospel to all who enter and in our communities in public places. It is the Gospel that has the Power to save. Church membership, baptism and Communion are a different matter.

"Won't let them in the doors" is not my impression of conservative churches. My impression, rather, is that conservative churches place other restrictions on partnered gay people: conservative churches often will not admit them to church leadership, usually will not marry them to their partners, and sometimes will not baptize their children. I welcome correction if I've misunderstood conservatives, but I think this genuinely is the position of many conservative churches.

I actually think it's good and important for conservative churches to make their views known to visitors from the beginning. If your church agrees with something like the Nashville Statement, then be public and explicit about it, just as you'd be explicit about your beliefs in believer's baptism or tithing or some other membership requirement.

 

[Albion]

I chose "Christian" because in the past when I have identified myself with my denomination (which is included on nearly every list of accepted orthodox, Nicene, blah, blah "Faith Groups List"--including CF's) on other forum websites, etc., I come under scrutiny, to put it mildly, very quickly. And not by what I say, but assumptions are always made about my motives because of a label. I have already noticed the same thing happen here on CF to my denominational brethren to an alarming degree.

Well, I cannot deny that what you've said here is true. So, there's a benefit when people name their respective denominations, but there is also a downside, that's right.

 

[PuerAzaelis]

Was Jesus recorded denying Himself to anyone ?

I recognize that Paul encouraged the expulsion of a sinning member from the Corinthian congregation, but there is little else which corroborates with this in the New Testament ...

And in the next book he recommends forgiving him.

 

[The Liturgist]

The unrestored churches in China are growing rapidly and the first century church grow rapidly under a harsh government.

And for that matter, so are the persecuted Christian churches of the Middle East and the former Soviet Union / Warsaw Pact / Eastern Europe.

However, the horrors that have been endured we do not want. God forbid it should reach that point. Also, let no one think such persecutions are punishments for religious failure, like the exile of the Jews to Babylon; all of the churches I just mentioned were growing and thriving before the persecution, and several of them, due to the scale of genocides, have suffered permanent damage, despite post-persecution growth.

 

[The Liturgist]

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

Interesting, because this has been a major problem in the “non-denominational” churches.

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

That’s right, and then, only when we must.

 

[The Liturgist]

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.

One thing I love about the Global South is how they are growing, on the basis of having simply inverted a few aspects of the Episcopalian theological model. As a frustrated UCC minister (who has not formally resigned, but I am planning on transitioning to the CCCC), I have seen the maximum extent of the damage caused by “inclusiveness” within a denomination; the UCC has shrunk substantially more than the Episcopal church, which sadly has also faced extreme losses. And there is every indication that these “inclusive” policies, which I think reflect a very erroneous interpretation of the Gospel, are to blame.

And @98cwitr is in a direct place to observe the effects of these doctrines, because he is a member of a denomination that is interesting, because they separated from the SBC when the SBC became more traditional in the early 1990s, and since that time the SBC has grown. Also, if we look at the ELCA vs. the various traditional Lutheran churches, the ELCA is contracting.

 

[The Liturgist]

Well let's talk about fornication in general which is not against the site rules. My pastor was approached by a young couple (man and woman) who wanted to get married. When they applied for the pre-marriage counseling he noticed they had the same address. He confronted them, they admitted they lived together and were sexually active. My pastor said he would not marry them until (1) they lived at separate abodes, (2) repented for their fornication and co-habitation, (3) went through the marriage counseling and (4) demonstrated they were not 'going through the numbers' to get married in the church and (5) brought the matter to the sitting elders.

Do you think the pastor overstepped his position as shepherd of the flock?

Oh and the couple did repent, moved to separate abodes and satisfied the sitting elders and pastor's requests. Which I applauded as many young couples would have just gone to another church which allowed co-habitation, fornication etc.

I probably would have married them, but I would have demanded as part of the pre-marriage counseling they remain celibate until the marriage, and that they did repent for having fornicated. There is I think a sense of urgency in some cases where a heterosexual couple, due to the pernicious pressures of our society, has succumbed to the temptation to cohabitate. I think it is important we wed these people, as long as there is not a good reason not to.

The old “shotgun marriage” comes to mind, but I would consider it a gross failure on my part if, due to a delay I imposed as a minister, a couple was married at a date obviously antecedent to the date of conception for their first child.

 

[The Liturgist]

You do recall that Jesus spent His time with the unwashed societal rejects (i.e. sinners, tax-collectors, and publicans) ... and that He pardoned a thief ?

If you think that such a position as the one you state above will keep evil out of your church, ... you should consider that "Satan, himself, is transformed into an angel of light" ...

In all fairness, I don’t think you are getting what @98cwitr is proposing. What he is talking about is a church environment that discourages obvious forms of sin, while still welcoming people who wish to repent of it. And this model does work. It worked very well in the Great Revivals in the US, and in Russia at the famous church of John of Kronstadt around 1900.

 

[The Liturgist]

"Won't let them in the doors" is not my impression of conservative churches. My impression, rather, is that conservative churches place other restrictions on partnered gay people: conservative churches often will not admit them to church leadership, usually will not marry them to their partners, and sometimes will not baptize their children. I welcome correction if I've misunderstood conservatives, but I think this genuinely is the position of many conservative churches.

I actually think it's good and important for conservative churches to make their views known to visitors from the beginning. If your church agrees with something like the Nashville Statement, then be public and explicit about it, just as you'd be explicit about your beliefs in believer's baptism or tithing or some other membership requirement.

With regards to people in active homosexual relationships, you have not listed anything which is different from how a church according to the 1662 and 1928 Book of Common Prayer should treat any unrepentant sinner, except for the novel situation of children born into homosexual relationships, which was historically impossible.

In that case, my instinct would be to baptize based on my sacramental understanding of baptism, but I understand a great many would not, and I expect most CCCC or Faithful & Welcoming UCC ministers would not baptize.

I also don’t believe that my church needs to be explicit about anything we do which is in accordance with the plain text of the new testament and the ancient tradition of Christianity. So I would be upfront it we required tithing or mandatory membership covenants or had some sort of 9Marks-style church discipline regime, but since I have never presided over such a congregation, and hope never to do so, I don’t think there is a need to disclose anything. And if I openly announce to the world that we follow normal, traditional beliefs on human sexuality, I make my church a target for persecution and also emphasize one aspect of traditional teaching while de-emphasizing others, which I believe the ECUSA, for example, is de-emphasizing, which I think are of equal importance.

For example, I consider the devil has an actual personal existence and that Karl Barth’s idea of “negative belief” in the devil is wishful thinking, but recently we had a thread here where a Unitarian minister in Great Britain informed a parent of a member who had expressed an opinion in the reality of the devil; I myself have met Episcopalian and UCC clergy who adopt a view of that expressed, for example, by Karen Pagels, regarding the devil, and in my opinion this is not pastorally helpful. And I don’t want to talk about the devil to prospective members of the church either...the less time discussing the adversary, the better. Likewise I don’t want to talk about things people do which are contrary to biblical sexual morality. I don’t even want to think about it. So, when it comes to adopting mainstream doctrinal positions, I don’t agree that we should declare any of these up front, because they are implicit, and we spend as little time as possible on these issues.

 

[A_Thinker]

In all fairness, I don’t think you are getting what @98cwitr is proposing. What he is talking about is a church environment that discourages obvious forms of sin, while still welcoming people who wish to repent of it. And this model does work. It worked very well in the Great Revivals in the US, and in Russia at the famous church of John of Kronstadt around 1900.

It "works" to do what ???

 

[Norbert L]

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:


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

Or does less mean more in the long run?

I think that judging Christian legitimacy by having greater numbers would be hard to ascertain. Looking at the pros and cons. The con would be that simply greater numbers is the indicator of being the rightful Church. Some Christians put a high value on this. This could be nothing more than a bias from our time period where democracy has very high persuasive value.

The pro would be by having greater numbers, some people within a larger group will one day eventually hear the GOSPEL and respond to it. It can be possible for a person to initially go to church for the wrong reasons but over time come in contact with someone challenging their conception of who Christ is.

Another con. Historically even in a small community of believers the apostle Paul believed "from among your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after them." Acts 20:30 Having a small number doesn't avoid the problem either.

Importantly a pro and con is even during the time when Christ and the apostles was extremely fresh in everyone's memories, from the time when the NT was being complied and there was access to the original copies we find this condition as the scripture says: "These are they who are hidden rocks in your love-feasts when they feast with you..." Jude 12. Simply by increasing the numbers it can be that we're not changing the ratio of true and false Christians, only that each side of the equation has gotten bigger.

Finally we should not forget about the parable of the wheat and tares which points out that a movement to reduce the number of tares will also likely pluck up the wheat. Do you want to be involved with that? Matthew 18:6 a version of this idea is in all 3 Synoptic Gospels.

What I am not saying is that you or anyone else on these forums believe they are called to build a church with a specific set of spiritual values, then go for it! Just don't expect someone else to do the ground work for you.

 

[Shrewd Manager]

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 quick review of the statements of faith of many of the megachurches reveals that eternal damnation is their prescribed eschatology, and (surprise surprise) penal substitutionary atonement their matching soteriology. Ah satan, we thank the Spirit that we're not entirely ignorant of your schemes.

 

[The Liturgist]

It "works" to do what ???

To bring people back to church and promote lasting repentance and the renewal of faith.

 

[Tropical Wilds]

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?

Our community would say “well there’s a church that will have a very small congregation” and let them about their business. As long as they aren’t protesting funerals or putting out Westboro Church signs, we wouldn’t care.

 

[Elisha's Bear]

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.

I would agree, except I would say that it's nearly the entire problem.

 

[Elisha's Bear]

Church is for Christians. No one else.

Church discipline is for Christians, and no one else. There is surely a time to call sin by its right name, but the church is the body of Christ. One big difference between Christians and non-Christians is that they know they're sinners. One of Christ's ancestors was Rahab. She almost certainly underwent revival and reformation, but she probably did as much of it as she could surrounded by others who believed.

And their scribes and the Pharisees complained against His disciples, saying, “Why do You eat and drink with tax collectors and sinners?”
Jesus answered and said to them, “Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners, to repentance.” (Luke 5:30)

Some of the most powerful, changed-life testimonies I've heard have been from people who were embraced by a loving church family.

 

[Elisha's Bear]

But they cannot remain non-Christian too long

How long is "too long?" I missed that verse.