Were you disappointed by your Christmas Service?

[hopeforhappiness]

It's all a bit sad, really. There was an ideal opportunity this Christmas to focus on the person and work of Christ, initiated on earth at his incarnation.
Our minister, who is a nice lady, felt she had to interpret the Christmas story in terms of the suffering of certain groups (mothers, the pregnant, the homeless, the refugee, the low-waged, the sufferer under dictatorship). For once, I thought, just once, could we not heed Christ's words that we will always have the poor with us (and we should help them) but Christ will not always be present physically); indeed it is right to break occasionally the alabaster jar of rich offerings and worship and just consider Him. And Christmas IS the time when Christ is "with us".
Are we seeking justice for Christ? Have we begun to understand the Cost to Him and His Father?
Since then I have had a chat with a subsequent preacher, who is very sympathetic. He says the denomination has been "captured by progressives". I asked him whether it was all worldly slippage/backsliding/accommodation/avoiding persecution or was it out of conviction. He went away to ponder.

 

[Vanellus]

But surely this is not a case of either ... or but both ... and. And there are other references to the poor in the gospels. Why consider only one?

Jesus replied, “Go back and report to John what you hear and see: 5The blind receive sight, the lame walk, those who have leprosy b are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the good news is proclaimed to the poor. Mt 11:4,5 no "in spirit" qualifier there
Why are the poor singled out here?

All these I have kept,” the young man said. “What do I still lack?”
21Jesus answered, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.” Mt 19:20,21

Looking at his disciples, he said:
“Blessed are you who are poor,
for yours is the kingdom of God Lk 6:20 again no "in spirit" qualifier

Then Jesus said to his host, “When you give a luncheon or dinner, do not invite your friends, your brothers or sisters, your relatives, or your rich neighbors; if you do, they may invite you back and so you will be repaid. 13But when you give a banquet, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind, 14and you will be blessed. Although they cannot repay you, you will be repaid at the resurrection of the righteous.” Lk 14:12,13

There was a rich man who was dressed in purple and fine linen and lived in luxury every day. 20At his gate was laid a beggar named Lazarus, covered with sores 21and longing to eat what fell from the rich man’s table. Even the dogs came and licked his sores. Lk 16:19,20
Since Lazarus was always there, and there are many Lazaruses, was the rich man right to ignore him given that "we will always have the poor with us"
"Are there no prisons, are there no workhouses"

 

[Hazelelponi]

It's all a bit sad, really. There was an ideal opportunity this Christmas to focus on the person and work of Christ, initiated on earth at his incarnation.
Our minister, who is a nice lady, felt she had to interpret the Christmas story in terms of the suffering of certain groups (mothers, the pregnant, the homeless, the refugee, the low-waged, the sufferer under dictatorship). For once, I thought, just once, could we not heed Christ's words that we will always have the poor with us (and we should help them) but Christ will not always be present physically); indeed it is right to break occasionally the alabaster jar of rich offerings and worship and just consider Him. And Christmas IS the time when Christ is "with us".
Are we seeking justice for Christ? Have we begun to understand the Cost to Him and His Father?
Since then I have had a chat with a subsequent preacher, who is very sympathetic. He says the denomination has been "captured by progressives". I asked him whether it was all worldly slippage/backsliding/accommodation/avoiding persecution or was it out of conviction. He went away to ponder.

Myself personally I would absolutely never sit under a female pastor.

The Pastor you spoke to is correct, all of our denominations are splitting into conservative (a traditional reading of Scripture on major issues like marriage etc) and liberal (female pastors, etc)

We are finding different focus here between the traditional and the more modern "social justice" silliness going on in some pulpits.

If I were you, I would look for the conservative branch of your denomination and give them a visit or two. (For example, for PCUSA is liberal, and PCA is conservative here in America, and I think there's a split like this in most denominations now)

Church is often just about finding a pastor you can relate to and easily learn from (nothing better than a good sermon,) so visit more than one church that's conservative if you have the opportunity.

Sometimes you might find an excellent church but the distance is such that maybe you can only visit once a month, so then you just determine to be at that church when your able, and a close church the rest of the time etc etc.

Keep contact with the pastor you spoke to, it's perhaps he can give you a suggestion or two for a church in your area.

And also, because the preaching is the reason, there can be male more conservative pastors even within the more liberal denominations. So start conservative pastor shopping, and see if you prefer the more traditional approach to Scripture.

 

[Vanellus]

It seems that the idea that the US is a polarised society has some merit given the above post #3 which seeks to divide even the church into us and them with a hard line of division between. Yet the basis for this view is flawed given that there is so much "social justice silliness" in the Bible!

e.g.

This is what the LORD says: “Go down to the palace of the king of Judah and proclaim this message there, 2saying, ‘Hear the word of the LORD, O king of Judah, who sits on the throne of David—you and your officials and your people who enter these gates. 3This is what the LORD says: Administer justice and righteousness. Rescue the victim of robbery from the hand of his oppressor. Do no wrong or violence to the foreigner, the fatherless, or the widow. Do not shed innocent blood in this place. Jer 22:1-3

Now why are the foreigner, the fatherless and the widow emphasised here and bracketed together?

There is no contradiction in reading the Bible traditionally and being concerned about social justice. Instead it is the case that a proper reading of the Bible leads to concerns about social justice which are definitely not silly.

 

[sir.dante.esq]

It's all a bit sad, really. There was an ideal opportunity this Christmas to focus on the person and work of Christ, initiated on earth at his incarnation.
Our minister, who is a nice lady, felt she had to interpret the Christmas story in terms of the suffering of certain groups (mothers, the pregnant, the homeless, the refugee, the low-waged, the sufferer under dictatorship). For once, I thought, just once, could we not heed Christ's words that we will always have the poor with us (and we should help them) but Christ will not always be present physically); indeed it is right to break occasionally the alabaster jar of rich offerings and worship and just consider Him. And Christmas IS the time when Christ is "with us".
Are we seeking justice for Christ? Have we begun to understand the Cost to Him and His Father?
Since then I have had a chat with a subsequent preacher, who is very sympathetic. He says the denomination has been "captured by progressives". I asked him whether it was all worldly slippage/backsliding/accommodation/avoiding persecution or was it out of conviction. He went away to ponder.

Quote: "Our minister, who is a nice lady" I personally would not attend a Church with a Woman pastor or any women in Authority over men. (Just saying) A few passages stand out that directly speak to the role of women in the church: 1 Corinthians 11:3-12, 14:34-35, 1 Timothy 2:11-15 and Titus 1, 2. These passages are the foundation for the conclusion that women cannot be lead pastors in churches.

 

[FireDragon76]

It's all a bit sad, really. There was an ideal opportunity this Christmas to focus on the person and work of Christ, initiated on earth at his incarnation.
Our minister, who is a nice lady, felt she had to interpret the Christmas story in terms of the suffering of certain groups (mothers, the pregnant, the homeless, the refugee, the low-waged, the sufferer under dictatorship).

That's not necessarily inappropriate.

According to the biblical story, Jesus was born into relative poverty in a barn, into an oppressed social class, the landless peasant. It's not wrong to see a preferential option for the poor and oppressed in that.

For once, I thought, just once, could we not heed Christ's words that we will always have the poor with us (and we should help them) but Christ will not always be present physically); indeed it is right to break occasionally the alabaster jar of rich offerings and worship and just consider Him. And Christmas IS the time when Christ is "with us".
Are we seeking justice for Christ? Have we begun to understand the Cost to Him and His Father?
Since then I have had a chat with a subsequent preacher, who is very sympathetic. He says the denomination has been "captured by progressives". I asked him whether it was all worldly slippage/backsliding/accommodation/avoiding persecution or was it out of conviction. He went away to ponder.

You're seeing a dichotomy where there isn't really one:

"If you do not find Christ in the beggar at the church door, you will most certainly not find him in the Chalice". - John Chrysostom

 

[hopeforhappiness]

But surely this is not a case of either ... or but both ... and. And there are other references to the poor in the gospels. Why consider only one?

Jesus replied, “Go back and report to John what you hear and see: 5The blind receive sight, the lame walk, those who have leprosy b are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the good news is proclaimed to the poor. Mt 11:4,5 no "in spirit" qualifier there
Why are the poor singled out here?

All these I have kept,” the young man said. “What do I still lack?”
21Jesus answered, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.” Mt 19:20,21

Looking at his disciples, he said:
“Blessed are you who are poor,
for yours is the kingdom of God Lk 6:20 again no "in spirit" qualifier

Then Jesus said to his host, “When you give a luncheon or dinner, do not invite your friends, your brothers or sisters, your relatives, or your rich neighbors; if you do, they may invite you back and so you will be repaid. 13But when you give a banquet, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind, 14and you will be blessed. Although they cannot repay you, you will be repaid at the resurrection of the righteous.” Lk 14:12,13

There was a rich man who was dressed in purple and fine linen and lived in luxury every day. 20At his gate was laid a beggar named Lazarus, covered with sores 21and longing to eat what fell from the rich man’s table. Even the dogs came and licked his sores. Lk 16:19,20
Since Lazarus was always there, and there are many Lazaruses, was the rich man right to ignore him given that "we will always have the poor with us"
"Are there no prisons, are there no workhouses"

I have worked 20 years in social concern, most noticeably in Fairtrade. The directing theology was of Shalom - the gospel covers eternal salvation and alleviation from poverty. I KNOW there is no dichotomy. I am NOT forcing my church to come down on one side or other in concern for the souls and bodies of people. But my church, Methodism, clearly HAS chosen one side. 365 days a year, the preachers on the rota have been instructed or decided NOT to challenge the people with the person and work of Christ. They never tell the people of the spiritual estrangement of us all by birth from our Father. An estrangement that was dealt with at great cost to Jesus, God's Son. And this wonderful reconciliation is sung about in the hymns of the denomination, read in the liturgy and expounded in the recorded sermons of the founders of the faith. I have asked preachers why they don't just expound on Wesley's hymns. I asked also why in the communion, the preachers will usually say "This is my body broken for you", while the liturgy and the scriptures say "given for you". The answer I was given was that the preacher didn't like the Atonement.
So my church leaders have not chosen 'both' 'and' but one side. In fact, it is not a 'side'. They talk of the social justice implications but never the Cost to Christ. In that they dishonour Jesus and cut away the foundations of our good works and indeed our faith.

 

[Vanellus]

This is not an argument for not being concerned about social justice. You can be concerned about social justice (as Jesus was) and preach the gospel of the kingdom as Jesus did.

 

[hopeforhappiness]

As a follow on to this. A sermon on the temptation of Christ ONLY focused on our duty and responsibility to God (OK, great), to others (justice, OK), and to creation (Ok). But in this period of Lent as Christ travelled towards the painful fulfilment of his ministry of the reconciliation of God to humankind, this temptation in the wilderness was Satan's effort to derail this Work. No mention of this or the importance of Christ's resistance.
It appears clearly that from now on in, the official concern of this denomination is US, not Christ. I am not choosing either/or, but our leaders are. My wife charitably says that they just don't know what Christ did on the cross and so can't preach it. I think this is too charitable.

 

[hopeforhappiness]

This is not an argument for not being concerned about social justice. You can be concerned about social justice (as Jesus was) and preach the gospel of the kingdom as Jesus did.

Agree totally. But don't you see what I am getting at?