New Denomination Idea

[timothyu]

If she freely and fully agrees to that arrangement, then it looks like you will be in harmony.

The exact same is expected of us with God.

 

[PloverWing]

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

No, not for disagreement. Mostly, there are site rules one has to follow. Some areas of CF allow debate, and some do not; in the areas that don't allow debate (like the Requests for Christian Advice section), we're not supposed to argue with each other. There are also some "safe" areas for people in different groups. For example, there's a Presbyterian/Reformed area (Semper Reformanda), and I'm not supposed to go there and tell Presbyterians that they're wrong. There are similarly safe areas for Catholics, Lutherans, Charismatics, Liberals, Fundamentalists, and so on.

If you pay attention to the rules of each area of CF, and stay within those rules, then expressing disagreement is fine. In fact, it makes for more interesting discussions.

 

[BrendanG]

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.

One of the things I told my wife early while we were dating is that if we get married, I will sweat every day to take care of her, and if necessary bleed to protect her, and I do not expect her to do the same. I also said that the wife should respond to a husband who's doing his job with a special kind of respect and gratitude. She said she'd never met a man like me before, but she didn't seem offended in any way. I also told her similar things to what I said above; that responsibility and authority should always go together, and by default, the husband by default should have more of both. Like usual, it was new to her, but she wasn't offended. Some of the things I told her she equated to BDSM though, and she just looked at me with a mixture of amusement and disapproval.

One of the primary reasons I married her was because she is so reliable and sensible. I very rarely feel the need to boss her. It is hard for me to remember a single time where she knew she was supposed to do something, and she didn't do it. I realized about a year into the marriage that her reliability is identical to her stubbornness. She basically doesn't believe in anything that she hasn't personally experienced. She doesn't have "-isms". She remembers everything and takes it to heart. So, her reliability in cooking, cleaning, etc, is just an expression of her experience that wives are supposed to do that. She comes from a foreign country btw, so her experience is different than most American women. She will not pay attention to arguments unless I relate them very closely to something practical, but if I do that, she will listen and change her behavior without any other cajoling.

So, my wife doesn't really agree or disagree with abstract concepts like most people do. She will not care for arguments like, "you should submit to me because God says so." But she sees that I'm trying to take care of her and she responds likewise. She is also humble, so she is not at all bothered by letting me take the lead if I know more than she does. So, I don't think she explicitly agrees with the idea of submission, but in practice, she does most of everything I would want her to do, and a lot of it without me even asking. I remember teaching her about some things the Bible says about submission, and it looked like she was about to cry, and she asked, "Is there anything different that you want me to do?" I realized that there really wasn't anything else I wanted her to do (apart from being more interested in philosophical topics, which I knew was impossible for her), so I regretted bringing it up and told her not to worry about it. I think maybe my wife is inoculated from most of the crazy ideas today due to her complete lack of interest in anything abstract (no feminism, communism, racism, etc), so that she has a very clean slate which makes it only natural to act like a Biblical wife in response to a loving husband, even though she does not realize that is what she is doing.

I think in practice it would be extremely hard to practice biblical submission in the current society. The secular society basically equates it with abuse. The wife has to agree to do it, or else it won't happen. I think in the past maybe a man could have married a foolish and irresponsible woman and made it work because he could tell her what to do. But that's basically impossible now. I think a woman has to be wiser now than in the past to be a good wife, since there is no way in practice for a husband to correct her if she won't receive the correction.

 

[Stephen3141]

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."

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.

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. I could speak a great deal on this, but I think that would make the post quite long.

An example of something very obvious that this church would have to do is kick people out of the church who get frivolous divorces. Jesus in the New Testament was asked if it was okay to get divorces for any which reason, and he said no. This is one of the few topics that Jesus spoke about in plain language. Therefore, no-fault divorce is obviously a no-no for Christians. It should be an obvious policy that if you get a no-fault divorce and have not made any attempt to repair your relationship with your ex-spouse (this would show sincerity of repentance), then you are not welcome in the church. 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. 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. Why should I go to church and put myself under the authority/teaching of a pastor who is obviously holds himself and his congregation to a much lower moral standard than I hold myself to? I am afraid if I went to church, it would harm my marriage because of the bad example that the churches set.


The church does not have as direct influence on most other areas of society, but there is a lot of evil they could be speaking out against that they do not mention. I looked up a bunch of stats once and calculated that about 40% of US GDP is spent on murder, theft, and gambling. This is because 100% of our wars for decades have been illegal because congress did not declare war, which makes them equivalent to murder even by secular standards. All government-mandated welfare is theft. Social security, for instance, takes food out of the mouths of the grandchildren so that the grandparents can be idle. Capital gains is a good measure for theft via inflation, since net capital gains would be impossible in an economic system that had
a steady currency supply. Also, alimony + involuntary no-fault divorce fits the literal definition of slavery. The USA is still practicing legal slavery. A lot of Christians focus on gay sex and abortion, but the people they are nagging are obviously not Christians, and therefore obviously don't care about what Christians have to say. But Christians are supporting murder, usury, theft, and slavery on a daily basis, and they don't even acknowledge that they are doing this. I don't know what an individual Christian can do about these things, but at least acknowledging them would be a good start.


If I were pastor of a church, I would pick a Bible passage or two and discuss how to practically apply it in one's life, and discuss its psychological significance (A LOT of what Jesus says is basically a kind of psychology). Then I would confess my recent sins to the congregation as we are asked to do in the New Testament, and have the congregation likewise confess whatever they are comfortable with confessing. Then we could say a prayer together (like the Lord's Prayer), sing some psalms according to the preferences of the congregation, and do the communion.

During the communion, I'd probably say something like, "I'm not sure what is technically happening during communion, or what its significance is, but you asked us to do it, so we are doing it." Then I'd read the passage in the Bible where Jesus talked about communion, and I'd give the congregation actual bread and actual wine, like it says in the Bible.

My church would not concern itself with topics that we can't actually know, such as transubstantiation or Christology.

So yea, basically I don't go to church because all the churches talk about a bunch of nonsense which they don't really know, but don't do the things that they ought to know to do.

I will almost certainly not actually start a church like this, because no one has ever listened to anything I've had to say since my earliest memories. I don't know a single person in real life who I think would understand why I think running a church like this is necessary. But I wanted to put it out there that I think the is how a church ought to be run, and I don't go to church because real churches don't look anything like this.

How would this new denomination decide what the teachings of Jesus actually were?
How would the denomination describe what it is, that we cannot really know?

I don't think that you have solved anything.
You assume that AFTER solving the basic problem of deciding what the teachings of Jesus are,
and what we cannot know, THAT the denomination would be fine.

How can you mistake bypassing solving these problems, with a solution to these problems?

 

[BrendanG]

How would this new denomination decide what the teachings of Jesus actually were?
How would the denomination describe what it is, that we cannot really know?

I don't think that you have solved anything.
You assume that AFTER solving the basic problem of deciding what the teachings of Jesus are,
and what we cannot know, THAT the denomination would be fine.

How can you mistake bypassing solving these problems, with a solution to these problem

I wrote some other stuff about this after the original post, but I understand that it would take a long time to read all of it.

I was thinking the obvious thing to start with are the explicit commands of Jesus and Paul.

For example, Jesus explicitly says that you can't divorce for any which reason, but Jesus and Paul each give 1 example of a valid reason for divorce (Jesus says adultery is a valid reason, Paul says abandonment is a valid reason). It seems obvious from this that no-fault divorce is not scriptural, but totally forbidding divorce is also not scriptural.

It seems reasonable to me to have the rule that if your spouse is trying to make the marriage work, then you also have to also make the marriage work. Valid reasons for divorce include only those situations where your spouse is not even trying to maintain the marriage (such as adultery or abandonment). But that is my idea. You could argue that any position which allows for divorce, but not for any arbitrary reason, falls within the explicit confines given by scripture.

As for examples of stuff which we don't really know, I don't believe anybody actually knows the truth about things related to Transubstantiation or Christology. The only ways I think we could know these things would be if Jesus came down and told us, or if we could perform a scientific experiment on Jesus to find out. I gave the example that if I were ever to serve communion, I would say, "I don't know what is technically happening here, or its full significance in relation to salvation and our relationship to Jesus, but Jesus told us to do it, so we are going to do it."

There would be many more issues which you would have to take a stance on in order to run a functional church. But I think you'd have to admit that a lot of your policies are your "best guesses", and treat other churches with respect who came up with different best guesses that don't obviously violate scripture.

I wrote another post about how most of Jesus' teachings are psychological in nature. I have confidence to speak about that (although I can't claim to know that everything I say is 100% correct), because I have experienced it. I started my journey by reading ancient books such as the "Ladder of Divine Ascent" and "Unseen Warfare", so I'm confident that my experience is broadly similar to the experience of the ancient saints. I would not say that my teachings are dogma though, just my best guesses from my own experience which are consistent with ancient tradition.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I wrote some other stuff about this after the original post, but I understand that it would take a long time to read all of it.

I was thinking the obvious thing to start with are the explicit commands of Jesus and Paul.

For example, Jesus explicitly says that you can't divorce for any which reason, but Jesus and Paul each give 1 example of a valid reason for divorce (Jesus says adultery is a valid reason, Paul says abandonment is a valid reason). It seems obvious from this that no-fault divorce is not scriptural, but totally forbidding divorce is also not scriptural.

It seems reasonable to me to have the rule that if your spouse is trying to make the marriage work, then you also have to also make the marriage work. Valid reasons for divorce include only those situations where your spouse is not even trying to maintain the marriage (such as adultery or abandonment). But that is my idea. You could argue that any position which allows for divorce, but not for any arbitrary reason, falls within the explicit confines given by scripture.

As for examples of stuff which we don't really know, I don't believe anybody actually knows the truth about things related to Transubstantiation or Christology. The only ways I think we could know these things would be if Jesus came down and told us, or if we could perform a scientific experiment on Jesus to find out. I gave the example that if I were ever to serve communion, I would say, "I don't know what is technically happening here, or its full significance in relation to salvation and our relationship to Jesus, but Jesus told us to do it, so we are going to do it."

There would be many more issues which you would have to take a stance on in order to run a functional church. But I think you'd have to admit that a lot of your policies are your "best guesses", and treat other churches with respect who came up with different best guesses that don't obviously violate scripture.

I wrote another post about how most of Jesus' teachings are psychological in nature. I have confidence to speak about that (although I can't claim to know that everything I say is 100% correct), because I have experienced it. I started my journey by reading ancient books such as the "Ladder of Divine Ascent" and "Unseen Warfare", so I'm confident that my experience is broadly similar to the experience of the ancient saints. I would not say that my teachings are dogma though, just my best guesses from my own experience which are consistent with ancient tradition.

While all of this sounds like a thoughtful approach, I think you might want to simply aver for an "ecumencial" sort of church rather than a "philosophical" one. If your new denomination isn't really open to explorations, discussions, or even disagreements about the conceptual structures of various doctrines, practices and outlooks within the Church, it can't really be specified clearly as being philosophical in nature.

Just my two cents. But the general idea sounds ok. Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing para-church organizations come about to provide a kind of cross-over for seekers and atheists to have a place in which to peacefully and thoughtfully interact with diverse Christians.

 

[Stephen3141]

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."

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.

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. I could speak a great deal on this, but I think that would make the post quite long.

An example of something very obvious that this church would have to do is kick people out of the church who get frivolous divorces. Jesus in the New Testament was asked if it was okay to get divorces for any which reason, and he said no. This is one of the few topics that Jesus spoke about in plain language. Therefore, no-fault divorce is obviously a no-no for Christians. It should be an obvious policy that if you get a no-fault divorce and have not made any attempt to repair your relationship with your ex-spouse (this would show sincerity of repentance), then you are not welcome in the church. 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. 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. Why should I go to church and put myself under the authority/teaching of a pastor who is obviously holds himself and his congregation to a much lower moral standard than I hold myself to? I am afraid if I went to church, it would harm my marriage because of the bad example that the churches set.


The church does not have as direct influence on most other areas of society, but there is a lot of evil they could be speaking out against that they do not mention. I looked up a bunch of stats once and calculated that about 40% of US GDP is spent on murder, theft, and gambling. This is because 100% of our wars for decades have been illegal because congress did not declare war, which makes them equivalent to murder even by secular standards. All government-mandated welfare is theft. Social security, for instance, takes food out of the mouths of the grandchildren so that the grandparents can be idle. Capital gains is a good measure for theft via inflation, since net capital gains would be impossible in an economic system that had
a steady currency supply. Also, alimony + involuntary no-fault divorce fits the literal definition of slavery. The USA is still practicing legal slavery. A lot of Christians focus on gay sex and abortion, but the people they are nagging are obviously not Christians, and therefore obviously don't care about what Christians have to say. But Christians are supporting murder, usury, theft, and slavery on a daily basis, and they don't even acknowledge that they are doing this. I don't know what an individual Christian can do about these things, but at least acknowledging them would be a good start.


If I were pastor of a church, I would pick a Bible passage or two and discuss how to practically apply it in one's life, and discuss its psychological significance (A LOT of what Jesus says is basically a kind of psychology). Then I would confess my recent sins to the congregation as we are asked to do in the New Testament, and have the congregation likewise confess whatever they are comfortable with confessing. Then we could say a prayer together (like the Lord's Prayer), sing some psalms according to the preferences of the congregation, and do the communion.

During the communion, I'd probably say something like, "I'm not sure what is technically happening during communion, or what its significance is, but you asked us to do it, so we are doing it." Then I'd read the passage in the Bible where Jesus talked about communion, and I'd give the congregation actual bread and actual wine, like it says in the Bible.

My church would not concern itself with topics that we can't actually know, such as transubstantiation or Christology.

So yea, basically I don't go to church because all the churches talk about a bunch of nonsense which they don't really know, but don't do the things that they ought to know to do.

I will almost certainly not actually start a church like this, because no one has ever listened to anything I've had to say since my earliest memories. I don't know a single person in real life who I think would understand why I think running a church like this is necessary. But I wanted to put it out there that I think the is how a church ought to be run, and I don't go to church because real churches don't look anything like this.

Your suggestion is interesting.


But, you need to decide a few things, up front.

-- You don't like Christology. But you are suggesting that the denomination
keep the commands of Jesus.
On what basis, should the denomination keep the commands of Jesus?
Is he a good man? Is he a philosopher? Is he a Jew?
Is he the messiah of the Jews. Is he the divine Son?
These are all questions addressed by Christology.

-- When you talk about "things that we do not know", this is undefined.
You need to describe this class of things, in a way that is clear.
Then, the denomination can avoid statements about "things that we
cannot know".
(Good luck, with that.)

 

[timothyu]

God has been working since the time of rebellious elohim before our creation to reverse the adversarial spirit of them and man. He's got it under control. Our part is to do as requested, not reverse engineer Him or His ways to mimic them as mini gods. Our part is to simply put His will ahead of our own (no more self absorbed ways) and love all as self. My idea of a church service would be to say Good morning. Go out and do good to someone daily where there is nothing in return for you. See you next week.