The Problem with Lack of Distinction

[SwordmanJr]

One can listen to just about any radio and/or internet broadcast from reputable outlets such as AFR, AFA, BOTT, etc., etc., and hear a classic statement such as "The (c)hurch is failing in her mission to influence and keep the evil in America at bay."

This kind of rhetorical, blanket accusation comes from very prominent, well-known, talking heads such as Jeremiah, Dobson, Hybels, Jakes, Land, Sekulow, Falwell, Stanley, MacArthur, Turek, Fischer, et al.

They all love talking about how the (c)hurch has failed, or is failing, and is in decline, is not doing what God has set forth to be done, has lost it's influence in the culture wars. On and on the drone of their litanous yammering goes without ever letting up. They assume that man-made (c)hurch organizations ever had the power to exercise over the culture. Never do they verbalize the distinction between the (C)hurch and the (c)hurch. The only power those (c)hurches out there could ever have had came from the Head of the (C)hurch. They routinely place the cart before the horse, and yet are viewed as leaders and giants in the faith by those who lack vision and discernment.

The continual lack of distinguishing between the The (C)hurch and all those man-made (c)hurches out there with buildings, lawns, parking lots, toilets, some with swimming pools and basketball courts, professional, hired staffing...all of which encompasses what most people call "the (c)hurch."

Frankly, it is understood that those man-made organizations have indeed failed to maintain the desired influence over the surrounding culture. They are powerless in and of themselves. Pull the money out from under them, and they collapse into a proverbial, smouldering heap of financial ruin. They are the places where even unbelievers can enter and exercise their influences. The world has indeed become a tightly embraced lover in many of them, rendering them no more than portals into the pits of Hell by way of warped theologies and corrupted values and creeds. Some lay claim to have been around for centuries, thinking that their antiquity legitimizes them as true representatives of the TRUE Christ portrayed within the Bible, when in fact they are no better than the other portals into the bowels of Hell for many of their followers.

What's the distinctive difference?

Simply stated: The (C)hurch is a beautiful, living, breathing being with Christ Jesus as her Head. Notice my emphasis upon the capital "C" versus the small, lower case "c" throughout this post. The (C)hurch lives on with or without the foundation of money. Pull the money away from her, and she continues living and breathing because of the Head, Who sustains her with His own Life and Power. There is no measure of unbelief, disobedience and corruption in her as there is within man-made (c)hurch organizations.

The (C)hurch has never failed, and has never become corrupted by any means nor measure. She possess the power given her by the Head. The culture is under the control of the Head, and any claim that the (C)hurch has failed is a false accusation against the Head from those who would dare to level that finger of accusation against the (C)hurch. It's fine to accuse the (c)hurches out there. Not a problem. The culture, the world, and also the entire universe, are all completely and totally under the control of the Head. If one wants to level an indictment against the Most High, then I step aside and let you have at it... those who "think" themselves qualified to accuse their Creator.

So, this goes to the fact that words have meaning, and failing to ensure the distinctions is an oversight that has been going on for FAR too long by alleged "leadership" within the (c)hurch communities, faith-based radio, television and internet broadcasts, across the nation and around the world.

What say you?

Jr

 

[Aussie Pete]

One can listen to just about any radio and/or internet broadcast from reputable outlets such as AFR, AFA, BOTT, etc., etc., and hear a classic statement such as "The (c)hurch is failing in her mission to influence and keep the evil in America at bay."

This kind of rhetorical, blanket accusation comes from very prominent, well-known, talking heads such as Jeremiah, Dobson, Hybels, Jakes, Land, Sekulow, Falwell, Stanley, MacArthur, Turek, Fischer, et al.

They all love talking about how the (c)hurch has failed, or is failing, and is in decline, is not doing what God has set forth to be done, has lost it's influence in the culture wars. On and on the drone of their litanous yammering goes without ever letting up. They assume that man-made (c)hurch organizations ever had the power to exercise over the culture. Never do they verbalize the distinction between the (C)hurch and the (c)hurch. The only power those (c)hurches out there could ever have had came from the Head of the (C)hurch. They routinely place the cart before the horse, and yet are viewed as leaders and giants in the faith by those who lack vision and discernment.

The continual lack of distinguishing between the The (C)hurch and all those man-made (c)hurches out there with buildings, lawns, parking lots, toilets, some with swimming pools and basketball courts, professional, hired staffing...all of which encompasses what most people call "the (c)hurch."

Frankly, it is understood that those man-made organizations have indeed failed to maintain the desired influence over the surrounding culture. They are powerless in and of themselves. Pull the money out from under them, and they collapse into a proverbial, smouldering heap of financial ruin. They are the places where even unbelievers can enter and exercise their influences. The world has indeed become a tightly embraced lover in many of them, rendering them no more than portals into the pits of Hell by way of warped theologies and corrupted values and creeds. Some lay claim to have been around for centuries, thinking that their antiquity legitimizes them as true representatives of the TRUE Christ portrayed within the Bible, when in fact they are no better than the other portals into the bowels of Hell for many of their followers.

What's the distinctive difference?

Simply stated: The (C)hurch is a beautiful, living, breathing being with Christ Jesus as her Head. Notice my emphasis upon the capital "C" versus the small, lower case "c" throughout this post. The (C)hurch lives on with or without the foundation of money. Pull the money away from her, and she continues living and breathing because of the Head, Who sustains her with His own Life and Power. There is no measure of unbelief, disobedience and corruption in her as there is within man-made (c)hurch organizations.

The (C)hurch has never failed, and has never become corrupted by any means nor measure. She possess the power given her by the Head. The culture is under the control of the Head, and any claim that the (C)hurch has failed is a a false accusation againstr the Head from those who would dare to level that finger of accusation against the (C)hurch. It's fine to accuse the (c)hurches out there. Not a problem. The culture, the world, and also the entire universe, are all completely and totally under the control of the Head. If one wants to level an indictment against the Most High, then I step aside and let you have at it... those who "think" themselves qualified to accuse their Creator.

So, this goes to the fact that words have meaning, and failing to ensure the distinctions is an oversight that has been going on for FAR too long by alleged "leadership" within the (c)hurch communities, faith-based radio, television and internet broadcasts, across the nation and around the world.

What say you?

Jr

Please note: Generalisation alert! Christians are supposed to be salt and light. Salt is a preservative. It will keep a food item in the state that is was in when salted. it will not, for example, make rotten meat good. I was born again in 1971. I've seen substantial changes in church life in that time. To honest, not a lot for the better. The rot was already setting in when I was saved. Somehow the simple gospel (that cut me to the heart) was not enough for a lot of churches. It needed to be upbeat, relevant, trendy - and have mass appeal. Somehow the idea of the cross being offensive was relegated to an old fashioned and obsolete concept. There never were any good old days, I am well aware of that. But we are so far from real church life that it is hardly worthy of the name "church". It is wonderful that we have escaped dead ritualism and pointless ceremonies. We replaced it with rock concert entertainment, Christ-less sermons, overemphasis on spiritual gifts and manifestations and individualism. Morality in church life is little different from the world, as many surveys show. Shallow preaching begets shallow Christians who fall away extremely easily. The real church exists, is glorious and triumphant. It is hidden within "christianism", a word I've coined to describe the modern, so-called church.

The root problem of western Christianity since the reformation is the leadership structure. The emphasis on the role of Pastor is not Biblical. What happened to the other gifts to the church? We are in desperate need of prophets to speak the rhema word of God. We need teachers (I am at your service) to expound what the prophet sees from God. We need evangelists and apostles also. We've diminished the apostolic role by calling them missionaries. Church government should be by elders - as it is in many denominations, I realise. But an elder should be a teacher also. The burden laid on the pastor is way too high, as the "burn-out" rate will confirm.
Pastors need to trust God with the responsibility that God has given him. Pastor, it is not "your" church. It is ok to let someone else preach, testify, prophecy or encourage. It should be happening routinely. I went to a church where this was normal. It was a place where everyone contributed. It stayed healthy for as long as that was happening. Sadly, it did not last. For whatever reason, the old ways triumphed over God's way and the church is a shadow of what it used to be. Home groups are a step in the right direction. But there is often a great deal of control (as opposed to oversight) from the leadership. The church is a body, not a one man band. Getting back to that basic would be a good start.

 

[childeye 2]

One can listen to just about any radio and/or internet broadcast from reputable outlets such as AFR, AFA, BOTT, etc., etc., and hear a classic statement such as "The (c)hurch is failing in her mission to influence and keep the evil in America at bay."

This kind of rhetorical, blanket accusation comes from very prominent, well-known, talking heads such as Jeremiah, Dobson, Hybels, Jakes, Land, Sekulow, Falwell, Stanley, MacArthur, Turek, Fischer, et al.

They all love talking about how the (c)hurch has failed, or is failing, and is in decline, is not doing what God has set forth to be done, has lost it's influence in the culture wars. On and on the drone of their litanous yammering goes without ever letting up. They assume that man-made (c)hurch organizations ever had the power to exercise over the culture. Never do they verbalize the distinction between the (C)hurch and the (c)hurch. The only power those (c)hurches out there could ever have had came from the Head of the (C)hurch. They routinely place the cart before the horse, and yet are viewed as leaders and giants in the faith by those who lack vision and discernment.

The continual lack of distinguishing between the The (C)hurch and all those man-made (c)hurches out there with buildings, lawns, parking lots, toilets, some with swimming pools and basketball courts, professional, hired staffing...all of which encompasses what most people call "the (c)hurch."

Frankly, it is understood that those man-made organizations have indeed failed to maintain the desired influence over the surrounding culture. They are powerless in and of themselves. Pull the money out from under them, and they collapse into a proverbial, smouldering heap of financial ruin. They are the places where even unbelievers can enter and exercise their influences. The world has indeed become a tightly embraced lover in many of them, rendering them no more than portals into the pits of Hell by way of warped theologies and corrupted values and creeds. Some lay claim to have been around for centuries, thinking that their antiquity legitimizes them as true representatives of the TRUE Christ portrayed within the Bible, when in fact they are no better than the other portals into the bowels of Hell for many of their followers.

What's the distinctive difference?

Simply stated: The (C)hurch is a beautiful, living, breathing being with Christ Jesus as her Head. Notice my emphasis upon the capital "C" versus the small, lower case "c" throughout this post. The (C)hurch lives on with or without the foundation of money. Pull the money away from her, and she continues living and breathing because of the Head, Who sustains her with His own Life and Power. There is no measure of unbelief, disobedience and corruption in her as there is within man-made (c)hurch organizations.

The (C)hurch has never failed, and has never become corrupted by any means nor measure. She possess the power given her by the Head. The culture is under the control of the Head, and any claim that the (C)hurch has failed is a a false accusation againstr the Head from those who would dare to level that finger of accusation against the (C)hurch. It's fine to accuse the (c)hurches out there. Not a problem. The culture, the world, and also the entire universe, are all completely and totally under the control of the Head. If one wants to level an indictment against the Most High, then I step aside and let you have at it... those who "think" themselves qualified to accuse their Creator.

So, this goes to the fact that words have meaning, and failing to ensure the distinctions is an oversight that has been going on for FAR too long by alleged "leadership" within the (c)hurch communities, faith-based radio, television and internet broadcasts, across the nation and around the world.

What say you?

Jr

I study semantics, particularly propaganda, sophistry, and psychological manipulation. Most words carry both positive and negative denotations and connotations which reverse according to opposing perspectives. I find that ultimately two contrary images of God/god is what defines a persons terms.

I would also note that the proposition that the Church is failing to keep evil at bay obscures the understanding of how a silent lamb slain ends up defeating a dragon. I believe we have to walk through the fire, not try to put out the fire.

 

[bèlla]

My sewing instructor often says that people assume sewing is easy to do until they sit down and try. In like fashion, it is easy to disparage a leader when you aren’t confronting the challenges and pressures they face on a daily basis.

“Talking heads” is very derisive.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

My sewing instructor often says that people assume sewing is easy to do until they sit down and try. In like fashion, it is easy to disparage a leader when you aren’t confronting the challenges and pressures they face on a daily basis.

“Talking heads” is very derisive.

Leadership, in many cases, is (an old military saying),

The unqualified,
leading the unwilling,
to do the unnecessary.

I have seen this in my church when ministers project their own weaknesses onto the entire congregation.

 

[SwordmanJr]

Leadership, in many cases, is (an old military saying),

The unqualified,
leading the unwilling,
to do the unnecessary.

I have seen this in my church when ministers project their own weaknesses onto the entire congregation.

Very good point.

That is why I wrote this treatise...in order to draw attention to the over-generalization in the average listener's mind when the elite stars fail to ensure an understanding of the distinctives that exist in reality, if not in their rudimentary thinking.

Jr

 

[SwordmanJr]

My sewing instructor often says that people assume sewing is easy to do until they sit down and try. In like fashion, it is easy to disparage a leader when you aren’t confronting the challenges and pressures they face on a daily basis.

“Talking heads” is very derisive.

Demonizing my meaning and use of that descriptor is a freedom you have, but the better path is to simply ask as to my meaning rather than to assume that your personal understanding governs my meaning.

Jr

 

[com7fy8]

yammering goes without ever letting up

I myself can yammer about the yammering. It can give me a feeling of superiority over the preachers with big names.

But I see this is not what you are doing, by talking about the yammering.

One thing I think of is how the Christian culture of the past . . . in the United States . . . has not continued; and now we can hear people saying, oh if only we could go back to how things used to be. But if something is of God, God brings more and better; He does not fail in all He is committed to doing.

So, if America's past culture really was of Jesus, it would still be working.

If people have done something and then it fails, this is because what they did is not what works.

But how ever could Christianity fail? ones would ask. Well, what they call Christian might really be outward and cultural, not of real change of character, in our heart. There possibly has been a lot of copy-cat church religion. But younger ones then have found out that copy-catting their parents does not deeply satisfy them with love. Even so > their peer-produced stuff also does not work. And so, ones can keep inventing new movements, which also don't work; so, in some way, maybe we could say, the younger ones in some way are continuing to have copy-cat tradition like their parents have done!

If something does not work, it can be because it does not work.

But God never fails to do what He is committed to doing.

 

[SwordmanJr]

I myself can yammer about the yammering. It can give me a feeling of superiority over the preachers with big names.

But I see this is not what you are doing, by talking about the yammering.

One thing I think of is how the Christian culture of the past . . . in the United States . . . has not continued; and now we can hear people saying, oh if only we could go back to how things used to be. But if something is of God, God brings more and better; He does not fail in all He is committed to doing.

Precisely. Thank you.

So, if America's past culture really was of Jesus, it would still be working.

If people have done something and then it fails, this is because what they did is not what works.

Excellent points.

But how ever could Christianity fail? ones would ask. Well, what they call Christian might really be outward and cultural, not of real change of character, in our heart. There possibly has been a lot of copy-cat church religion. But younger ones then have found out that copy-catting their parents does not deeply satisfy them with love. Even so > their peer-produced stuff also does not work. And so, ones can keep inventing new movements, which also don't work; so, in some way, maybe we could say, the younger ones in some way are continuing to have copy-cat tradition like their parents have done!

If something does not work, it can be because it does not work.

But God never fails to do what He is committed to doing.

You hit exactly on what I was stating about the (C)hurch, which never fails because she is a creation of God Himself, and has Him as the Head to direct her every step...disregarding, of course, that feministic nonsense about the neck turning the head. Mankind has every right to build communal facilities and hire all the hirelings he wants, and under whose authority he chooses to place himself, and even label those men with biblical titles, giving them position over that congregation; and even support distant, mausoleum style facilities and cities with horrendous opulence that house people walking around in funny robes and teaching strange teachings, but the REAL body Christ Jesus established is a body of people independent of things made with human hands and conceived in the minds of creative, human thinkers.

Mainly, I'm trying to get folks back to the realization that it's very easy to become blinded to the reality of Christ Jesus as the Builder. The expectations those talking heads place upon such a weak entity such as the vast array of institutional organzations that have indeed failed to measure up to man's subjective expectations, you are totally right in that God ALWAYS accomplishes what He sets out to perform, and no power in all of creation below, nor in Heaven above, will stand in His way.

Yep, (c)hurches individually and collectively fail to measure up the standard of maintaining the moral fiber of any culture. It is written that the gates of Hell shall not prevail against the (C)hurch, not (c)hurches.

Jr

 

[bèlla]

Demonizing my meaning and use of that descriptor is a freedom you have, but the better path is to simply ask as to my meaning rather than to assume that your personal understanding governs my meaning.

Jr

It was your decision to use the term. Not mine.

 

[Noxot]

To criticize criticism is to criticize. There are pros and cons to most things. The mystical Body of Christ stands because he kicks out those who do not belong. It's all written in the Shepherd of hermas. besides pure unadulterated hell this is the hardest world I can conceive of.

 

[SwordmanJr]

It was your decision to use the term. Not mine.

What escapes me is your decision to force a meaning into the words that you chose to not even ask me about MY meaning. Instead, you chose to assume the worst possible meaning.

So, yes, I chose those words, but YOU chose to demonize my actual meaning into some subjective interpretation based upon your own desires, which I consider a questionable practice. You obviously have an axe to grind here, so what's your problem? What really is behind you twisting something I said into some sort of dark and sinister meaning? Is someone holding a gun to your head, or is this just the way you are? I mean, you tell me, because I don't understand the basis for your twisting of my words. What are you after? What are you trying to prove here? Please enlighten me.

Jr

 

[SwordmanJr]

To criticize criticism is to criticize.

Hmm. Perhaps we can both agree that not all criticism is wrong or bad.

There are pros and cons to most things. The mystical Body of Christ stands because he kicks out those who do not belong.

So, please clarify your meaning? Are you saying that unbelievers can enter into the body of Christ Jesus in order to be kicked out? How is that possible? I did state that unbelievers darken the doorsteps and warm the pews of institutional churches all the time, but how do they get into what you call the "mystical" body?

It's all written in the Shepherd of hermas. besides pure unadulterated hell this is the hardest world I can conceive of.

I'm not sure how that literary work can pose any kind of merit when we consider it contradicts the plethora of other Christological writings in the Bible. Here is a short quote of what A. D. Howell-Smith wrote concerning the Shepherd of Hermas (Jesus Not a Myth, pp. 120-121):

"The Shepherd of Hermas, a strange allegory written sometime in the second century, had a great vogue in orthodox circles and was even included in some copies of the New Testament (it is found in the Sinaitic Codex). The theology of the Church must have been very elastic at a time when such a book could enjoy popularity and implicit, if not explicit, ecclesiastical sanction, for its Christology does not seem to square with any of the Christologies of the New Testament, or with those of contemporary theologians whose occasional documents have reached us. The Shepherd speaks of a Son of God; but this Son of God is distinguished from Jesus. "That Holy Spirit which was created first of all, God placed in a body, in which it should dwell, in a chosen body, as it pleased him."..."

Jr

 

[Noxot]

Hmm. Perhaps we can both agree that not all criticism is wrong or bad.



So, please clarify your meaning? Are you saying that unbelievers can enter into the body of Christ Jesus in order to be kicked out? How is that possible? I did state that unbelievers darken the doorsteps and warm the pews of institutional churches all the time, but how do they get into what you call the "mystical" body?



I'm not sure how that literary work can pose any kind of merit when we consider it contradicts the plethora of other Christological writings in the Bible. Here is a short quote of what A. D. Howell-Smith wrote concerning the Shepherd of Hermas (Jesus Not a Myth, pp. 120-121):

"The Shepherd of Hermas, a strange allegory written sometime in the second century, had a great vogue in orthodox circles and was even included in some copies of the New Testament (it is found in the Sinaitic Codex). The theology of the Church must have been very elastic at a time when such a book could enjoy popularity and implicit, if not explicit, ecclesiastical sanction, for its Christology does not seem to square with any of the Christologies of the New Testament, or with those of contemporary theologians whose occasional documents have reached us. The Shepherd speaks of a Son of God; but this Son of God is distinguished from Jesus. "That Holy Spirit which was created first of all, God placed in a body, in which it should dwell, in a chosen body, as it pleased him."..."

Jr

There is only contradiction in people, not in that holy book. The mystical Body of Christ is the real Church and the institutional church is the outer courts of the real Church. Yes, not all criticism is bad. God judges our hearts. Only by actually being his church are we his church. The flesh profits nothing and it's the spirit that gives life. All of the Saints have shown themselves to be The real Church of God. I listen to the best when I want to learn about Christianity and those people are often rejected by the outer courts of the church. But so what! they also rejected Jesus Christ.

 

[SwordmanJr]

Noxot made a good point. Those men who speak into microphones behind their pulpits, on radio or TV, they are indeed fallible. Therein is why it is written:

"But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him." (1 Jn, 2:27)

There comes a time when a believer reaches maturity in the faith and is eating the meat, and that to continue growing up into the stature of Christ Jesus, the Spirit must take over, and do what no other man can do for you.

In the previous verse of that same reference, "These things have I written unto you concerning them that seduce you." When it comes to the Spirit of the Lord, who will never teach a lie, all others are liars, as it is written in Roman 3:4, "God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged."

It's ok to continue going to those religious orchestrations, and to support the facility and its professional staffing, to dust the chandeliers (or even swing from them if you want), mow the lawn, babysit in the nursery, dust the "pastor's" office, whatever. We all have that freedom, but we must remember first and foremost that it is the Lord who is true. Men will teach us lies and deceits, sometimes without even knowing it. That man behind the pulpit you may have helped pay for, he will lie to you without even knowing it. Many of them teach a continued requirement for tithing according to God's word, which is a lie, and they will teach you that God is no longer doing miracles in this world, which is a lie, they will teach you about "elder rule", which is a lie, and some will say that I have lied in what I just said. It's inevitable, therefore my point.

What matters is that God is ALWAYS true rather than most of the time. He is absolute in all His thoughts and ways. His way is that He built the (C)hurch through His own power, where men build their (c)hurch from the ground up with mere gloved hands and man-made equipment using dead materials that will perish with this world.

Jr

 

[Gordon Wright]

My sewing instructor often says that people assume sewing is easy to do until they sit down and try. In like fashion, it is easy to disparage a leader when you aren’t confronting the challenges and pressures they face on a daily basis.

I have observed that leaders create their own problems.

I knew a pastor who was constantly putting out fires that a wiser man could easily have prevented. I've known many who micromanage their organizations, forcing underlings to make their mistakes for them, then blame the underlings for the consequences.

The trouble with leaders is that they have raging Dunning-Kruger: they don't know their own limitations.

And then they say to me "You have no idea how hard this job is!" And I say "I figured out how hard it was long before you did." And then they "why don't you try doing this if you think you're so smart?" And I say: "because I'm smart enough to realize most of what you tried to do didn't need to be done in the first place. Also, I'm only smart enough to avoid making this kind of mess in the first place, not smart enough to know how to fix it now that you've made the mess."

This does not go over well, but I don't care.

 

[bèlla]

I have observed that leaders create their own problems.

When I speak of leadership I’m referring to honest people following the Lord and operating in that gift who serve with humility and grace. I’m not referencing persons operating from the flesh, egomaniacs, or people who abuse their position or flock. That is not of God!

Godly leadership produces a benevolent concern for those in your care and influence. The sincerity isn’t feigned or hindered by challenges or stress. Because it doesn’t hail from you. It comes from His Spirit working through you.

No one leads in a vacuum. Surrounding yourself with godly men and women wholly committed is a must. And even so, we’re going to fail every now and then. That’s when grace and peace must override egos and bruised feelings.

The biggest problem is most view their positions (and work) in the wrong light. Its God’s. We are humble stewards He’s entrusted to its care for a time.

When you understand your role in relation to Him and the necessity of subordination to His will. You’re apt to extend the same regard and kindness that you’ve received.