Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => The Roundtable => Topic started by: MillCreek on August 23, 2014, 05:43:44 PM
-
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/23/us/mark-driscoll-is-being-urged-to-leave-mars-hill-church.html?_r=0
http://blog.seattlepi.com/seattlepolitics/2014/08/15/mark-driscoll-removed-as-closing-speaker-at-big-church-conference/#25601101=0
http://blog.seattlepi.com/seattlepolitics/2014/08/20/mark-driscoll-returns-sunday-mars-hill-churchgoers-told-bring-bibles/
Mars Hill church is a major player in the PNW church scene, and has affiliations and other churches in other areas of the country. The founder of the church, Mark Driscoll, has shot to fame on two primary elements of his theology: predestination, or the belief that God has already chosen those who will be saved; and that men and only men are the leaders of the church and home, and women are in support roles. His churches are not big on social justice or service to the community.
In the past, any criticism of his churches or teachings were dismissed as being from liberals. In recent months, his fellow conservative or evangelical Christians are now joining the critical chorus. He has been disinvited from many meetings and conventions and calls for his resignation are growing stronger. It will be interesting to see what happens to him.
-
This was God's plan all along ;)
-
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/23/us/mark-driscoll-is-being-urged-to-leave-mars-hill-church.html?_r=0
http://blog.seattlepi.com/seattlepolitics/2014/08/15/mark-driscoll-removed-as-closing-speaker-at-big-church-conference/#25601101=0
http://blog.seattlepi.com/seattlepolitics/2014/08/20/mark-driscoll-returns-sunday-mars-hill-churchgoers-told-bring-bibles/
Mars Hill church is a major player in the PNW church scene, and has affiliations and other churches in other areas of the country. The founder of the church, Mark Driscoll, has shot to fame on two primary elements of his theology: predestination, or the belief that God has already chosen those who will be saved; and that men and only men are the leaders of the church and home, and women are in support roles. His churches are not big on social justice or service to the community.
In the past, any criticism of his churches or teachings were dismissed as being from liberals. In recent months, his fellow conservative or evangelical Christians are now joining the critical chorus. He has been disinvited from many meetings and conventions and calls for his resignation are growing stronger. It will be interesting to see what happens to him.
Been following it.
Criticism from "fellow conservative or evangelical Christians" has been going on for a lot longer than "recent months". There's just a lot more coming to a head right now.
The founder of the church, Mark Driscoll, has shot to fame on two primary elements of his theology: predestination, or the belief that God has already chosen those who will be saved; and that men and only men are the leaders of the church and home, and women are in support roles.
"Predestination" is not his problem, nor at all unique to him. Ditto complementarianism.
Yes, it will be interesting.
-
Yeah, predestination is standard fare in a lot of churches, and nothing that will make one famous these days. Male leadership is also a fairly common teaching,* but I guess it is notable when a large, high-profile church will remain faithful to that particular view. If Mars Hill is seen as emergent/emerging, as the article suggests, that would turn a lot of conservatives right off, no matter what the church actually taught or did. I don't know anything about the church. Maybe lee could tell us whether or not it deserves that label.
His churches are not big on social justice...
=| "Social justice" is a term used almost exclusively by the left, so even if they ran the biggest soup kitchen and legal aid office in the country, they wouldn't necessarily be big on "social justice."
Just as a point of interest, Mars Hill is named for an episode in which the Apostle Paul evangelized to the pagan philosophers that gathered on Athens' Mars Hill.
*Complementarianism also has good Biblical support, although there is room for various interpretations on the role of women in the church, etc.
-
I thought the concept of predestination had been eschewed from Christianity several hundred years ago ... ???
-
I thought the concept of predestination had been eschewed from Christianity several hundred years ago ... ???
It was very important to the teachings of John Calvin a few hundred years ago, and has been a bedrock doctrine of many denominations since that time. Presbyterians, "Reformed" denominations, many Baptist groups, and the list goes on.
-
It was very important to the teachings of John Calvin a few hundred years ago, and has been a bedrock doctrine of many denominations since that time. Presbyterians, "Reformed" denominations, many Baptist groups, and the list goes on.
??? Ooooookaaay.... but it never made any sense to me.
-
Yeah, predestination is standard fare in a lot of churches, and nothing that will make one famous these days. Male leadership is also a fairly common teaching,* but I guess it is notable when a large, high-profile church will remain faithful to that particular view. If Mars Hill is seen as emergent/emerging, as the article suggests, that would turn a lot of conservatives right off, no matter what the church actually taught or did. I don't know anything about the church. Maybe lee could tell us whether or not it deserves that label.
=| "Social justice" is a term used almost exclusively by the left, so even if they ran the biggest soup kitchen and legal aid office in the country, they wouldn't necessarily be big on "social justice."
Just as a point of interest, Mars Hill is named for an episode in which the Apostle Paul evangelized to the pagan philosophers that gathered on Athens' Mars Hill.
*Complementarianism also has good Biblical support, although there is room for various interpretations on the role of women in the church, etc.
Quote from: MillCreek on Today at 16:43:44
His churches are not big on social justice...
First Baptist Dallas has run the largest and oldest homeless shelter in Dallas for decades. When the city of Dallas built a shelter, it was all over the news and trumpeted high and low. Despite the fact it services about half as many as FBD's. Never hear anything about FBD's shelter in the MSM. Fawning praise of the city's...and compassion & understanding when drunks steal from women or rough up kids. Absopositively NOT the fault of the shelter, nosiree.
FBD also started the Baylor hospital system, a pregnancy center, runs scholarship schools in rough neighborhoods, drug rehab programs, etc.etc.
But, FBD's pastor won't sign on to the LGBT & pseudo marriage freakshow so he is a "hater" and FBD's congregation is "not big on social justice" either.
Lots of the other churches do similar things, usually commensurate with their size.
FTR: Not a member of FBD.
Also, plenty of theologically conservative christians & denoms have been all over this from the get-go. Driscoll has been a proponent of the megachurch "seeker sensitive" approach, which has gotten plenty of criticism.
-
I thought the concept of predestination had been eschewed from Christianity several hundred years ago ... ???
You thought wrong.
-
You thought wrong.
You can say that again.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predestination_%28Calvinism%29#Double_predestination
-
??? Ooooookaaay.... but it never made any sense to me.
You're not of the elect. :angel:
FWIW, I agree with the Bible that God predestined those He foreknew. And He foreknew who would choose salvation. =). (So I'm not of the elect, either.)
-
You thought wrong.
Yea ... I sorta did figure that out ...... ;/
-
All I know about Driscoll is that when I was staying in Montana the locals I was hanging out with loved to hate Driscoll, but it was because of his antinomianism
-
This was God's plan all along ;)
What you did there, I foresaw that.
-
A couple data points:
A 2010 interview with Mr. Driscoll (http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justintaylor/2010/05/06/an-interview-with-mark-driscoll-on-the-book-that-cost-mars-hill-a-thousand-church-members-and-gave-him-an-intestinal-ulcer%E2%80%94and-whether-or-not-the-new-calvinist-coalition-will-hold-together/), in which he says
I wanted to do all I could to ensure doctrinal fidelity and clarity for our church. As the tree grows and the fruit increases, the roots need to sink deep as well. So, when our attendance was at about six thousand people a few years ago, we did something unprecedented. We canceled out the membership of everyone in our church and I preached the Doctrine series for thirteen weeks. Each sermon was well over an hour and included me answering text-messaged questions from our people.
Those who made it through the entire series were interviewed, and those who evidenced true faith in Christ and signed our membership covenant were installed as new members.
Note that comments are gone. I thought the thing with the cancelled membership was weird, and a lot of other people did too. A hundred or more comments accumulated, mostly about that, before the whole thing was yanked. (I'd commented, and checked off a box to email me new comments, so I have a bunch of them.)
A recent piece (http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/why-the-mars-hill-faithful-have-started-to-question-mark/Content?oid=20257920) reveals some details Driscoll did not mention, and puts it in context with some behind the scenes political wrangling:
“I am all about blessed subtraction,” Driscoll told a team of pastors and potential pastors the morning after Petry and Meyer were fired. “There is a pile of dead bodies behind the Mars Hill bus, and by God’s grace it’ll be a mountain by the time we’re done. You either get on the bus or get run over by the bus. Those are the options… yesterday we fired two elders for the first time in the history of Mars Hill—last night. They’re off the bus, under the bus. They were off mission, so now they’re unemployed. This will be the defining issue as to whether or not you succeed or fail. I’ve read enough of the New Testament to know that occasionally Paul puts somebody in the wood chipper. You know?” (The audio of this talk is available on Petry’s website, joyfulexiles.com.)
Agathos survived, but the episode was eye-opening for many church insiders, and some of them quietly began to back away. After the dustup, Driscoll canceled the entire congregation’s memberships and told them they had to reapply with a special addendum specifically agreeing to the new bylaws he was proposing. He’d seen how inconvenient dissent could be. Petry and Smith say roughly 1,000 of the 1,600 members refused to re-up, but, even as Mars Hill hemorrhaged its old guard membership, new people kept arriving, drawn by Driscoll’s flash but ignorant of what he had just done to consolidate his power.
So, a "make it up as you go" ecclesiology, with an abrupt change in polity in the mid 2000s.
The audio of the "pile of dead bodies" talk is not difficult to find.
-
“I am all about blessed subtraction,” Driscoll told a team of pastors and potential pastors the morning after Petry and Meyer were fired. “There is a pile of dead bodies behind the Mars Hill bus, and by God’s grace it’ll be a mountain by the time we’re done. You either get on the bus or get run over by the bus. Those are the options… yesterday we fired two elders for the first time in the history of Mars Hill—last night. They’re off the bus, under the bus. They were off mission, so now they’re unemployed. This will be the defining issue as to whether or not you succeed or fail. I’ve read enough of the New Testament to know that occasionally Paul puts somebody in the wood chipper. You know?”
I see his Bible has but one Corinthian letter. =(
-
I find the whole thing mildly amusing :P
-
Yea ... I sorta did figure that out ...... ;/
T.U.L.I.P.
3 minute explainer from George C. Scott
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/returntorome/2014/01/george-c-scott-explains-calvinism/
-
Calvinism at its very root denies free will.
So does does the block universe view of time/reality.
I find both philosophies fatalistic and wanting regarding the actual nuts and bolts of living life.
-
The founder of the church, Mark Driscoll, has shot to fame on two primary elements of his theology: predestination, or the belief that God has already chosen those who will be saved; and that men and only men are the leaders of the church and home, and women are in support roles.
That's an interesting view of what predestination means, and the first time I have ever encountered it. Predestination has always been explained to me as meaning that God has pre-determined for us the major events in our lives, in order to ensure that we have proper opportunities to learn life's lessons. In this view of predestination, who gets saved is absolutely NOT predestined. Our salvation is determined by how we respond to the pre-ordained major events in our lives.
-
It's a sad affair. Driscoll has long had a target on his back from the liberal wing because he refuses to compromise doctrinally on things like the sinfulness of homosexuality and complementarianism. The conservative wing has never liked him because he doesn't wear a suit, drinks alcohol, and doesn't conform to the cultural (not Biblical) standards of what they think a pastor should look like. They've had to grudgingly accept him because his theology is generally solid, but they've never liked him and have imho always been on the lookout for reasons to turn in him.
They have a strong system to help addicts and those struggling with sexual immorality in place in the church, and started a group that rescues women who've been forced into sexual slavery and trafficked. I believe they support a lot of the homeless ministries in the area. I guess that's not "social justice" enough for the liberals.
Whoever said MHC was one of the "seeker sensitive" lot could not be more wrong. Unless you think having loud worship music means you're seeker sensitive. Of course the various Orthodox denominations probably think your hymns are too modern and seeker sensitive so...
I don't go to Mars Hill, but I have a lot of friends who do and I've seen the tremendous difference they have made. Driscoll certainly isn't perfect and he's always been very upfront about his failings. It's sad to see so many people turning on him instead of drawing alongside to help. A lot of jealousy and placing cultural norms as equivalent to Biblical standards imho.
-
The problem with modern (or even ancient) churches, especially mega churches is that they are human institutions run by fallible human beings. They are corporations and are run like corporations. Most of the successful mega churches are run by very driven people who exhibit all the positive and negative traits we see in those who run successful corporations throughout the economic market. Personally I question how much of their success is the moving of Gods spirit vs a great business plan or formula for growth.
Once you have a framework, a corporate structure to administer 'good works' it doesn't really matter what the spiritual or moral condition of the individuals are you plug into the various positions. The machine will continue to run regardless. It might run better with committed and devout individuals but in a human institution that isn't a necessity.
Now following Jesus is a spiritual, individual matter of the heart that governs how one relates to other individuals as well as God. I'm not sure how you can institutionalize something so metaphysical without losing the true essence.
-
That's an interesting view of what predestination means, and the first time I have ever encountered it. Predestination has always been explained to me as meaning that God has pre-determined for us the major events in our lives, in order to ensure that we have proper opportunities to learn life's lessons. In this view of predestination, who gets saved is absolutely NOT predestined. Our salvation is determined by how we respond to the pre-ordained major events in our lives.
Your view is not at all correct. The Calvinist/Reformed view is that man is so depraved that he cannot by himself choose salvation, and also that there is nothing better/smarter in a person for having chosen to believe. It is entirely God's work on all accounts.
I may have "escaped" but I still know my theology ;)
-
My understanding was always that the predestined were predestined and those who were not were not. But then I've never been a member of a church that teaches it.
As for mega churches (not to be confused with churches that are simply really big), I've never encountered one that I've cared for. Most of them grow through gravitas of the pastor or by sticking to a sweet feel good message and rock concerts every Sunday. It's great that they get people out to worship, on that point and that point alone IMO they are good, but they often set people up with some pretty shakey theology.
-
As a believer in Christ, I abandoned "organized religion" 30 years ago for many of the reasons being expressed in this thread.
There is my sermon for you for today, fellow campers. :angel: =D
-
Mr. Driscoll to take a few weeks off. (http://www.patheos.com/blogs/warrenthrockmorton/2014/08/24/announcement-mark-driscoll-will-take-time-off-while-charges-against-him-are-investigated/)
-
Hmm, drama, intrigue and power struggles. Who will control the vast wealth and wield the power of the institutions authority? How will the Mars Hill cult of personality remake itself?
The stakes are high. Some eggs may have to get broken to remake this omelet. The end justifies the means.
Doesn't look a bit like the loosely organized assembly of believers of Jesus I've read about.
-
??? Ooooookaaay.... but it never made any sense to me.
Predestination takes some theological standing from numerous verses in the Bible, such as Jeremiah 1:5 -- "Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations."
The Bible is peppered with similar references, all pointing to a life course already mapped out in totality. It's a concept that is almost as old as Christianity itself.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=drMMBE6KRbI (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=drMMBE6KRbI)
-
Hmm, drama, intrigue and power struggles. Who will control the vast wealth and wield the power of the institutions authority? How will the Mars Hill cult of personality remake itself?
The stakes are high. Some eggs may have to get broken to remake this omelet. The end justifies the means.
Doesn't look a bit like the loosely organized assembly of believers of Jesus I've read about.
I don't know where you read about that, but it certainly wasn't the Bible. Where we are both called to not forsake gathering together, told to do it in an ordered manner, and given ionstructions on what that looks like.
-
Here's the actual statement for those that missed it in the link Lee posted. http://marshill.com/2014/08/24/an-update-from-pastor-mark?
The various leftist anti-theist outfits are frothing in joy at being able to take him down in the court of public opinion. Even though most folks will never really dig in to see the merit of the accusations (14 years ago he said something mean on an internet message board? Teh horrors!) his name will be tarnished because of it. Sad how many Christians are joining in with the internet outrage machine to take down one of their own.
-
^^^ I think he wrote a great message.
-
Having examined Driscoll's message and the sort of people he surrounds himself with, I can safely say that I am not a fan. He seems to spend a lot of time trying to get the limp-wrists in his congregation (real or perceived) to "man up" in various ways. Having avoided people who have tried to tell me how to be their version of an adult for most of my adult life, this rubbed me exactly the wrong way.
Is he guilty of all he's accused of? Probably not. But I absolutely believe he has created this environment for himself. There was an episode two or three years ago where one of the senior staff had a disagreement with Driscoll, resigned without rancor, then was ostracized by the rest of the church. That doesn't happen by accident and it's nearly always caused by toxic leadership.
-
Having examined Driscoll's message and the sort of people he surrounds himself with, I can safely say that I am not a fan. He seems to spend a lot of time trying to get the limp-wrists in his congregation (real or perceived) to "man up" in various ways. Having avoided people who have tried to tell me how to be their version of an adult for most of my adult life, this rubbed me exactly the wrong way.
Is he guilty of all he's accused of? Probably not. But I absolutely believe he has created this environment for himself. There was an episode two or three years ago where one of the senior staff had a disagreement with Driscoll, resigned without rancor, then was ostracized by the rest of the church. That doesn't happen by accident and it's nearly always caused by toxic leadership.
1. Men refusing to follow the Biblical precepts laid out for them is a huge problem everywhere, and especially so in around here. You can criticize how he went about it, but trying to get men to man the hell up is a very needed effort.
2. re the bolded part, what are you basing that broad and sweeping accusation on? The incidents I've seen (both in Mars Hill and in other churches that had a similar situation) is usually someone who gets caught in sin or heresy, is disciplined in an appropriate way, and then posts a childish and inflammatory screed on a blog about how awful and evil and unfair the church in question was to them. You get one (highly biased) side of an interpersonal dispute, and then take it as gospel and impugn the thousands of folks at a church? Lol.
Like I said, I have no affiliation with MHC aside from having a lot of friends that attend there. But I saw this same sort of thing happen at the church I got married at (long after I had moved out of state and no longer attended there) and I am very, very cynical about all of the accusations when they are not directly provable and actionable. When it's just "Pastor X hurt my feels so I'm going to assassinate his character on the internet" then there is a pretty high chance it's BS. Remember that the Gospel is frequently called offensive, so it never surprises me when someone who is faithful to it is hated on.
-
I've seen this kind of drama unfold before. It seems to occur when church leadership (men) demands more attention than the word of god. The attrition is healthy.
-
1. Men refusing to follow the Biblical precepts laid out for them is a huge problem everywhere, and especially so in around here. You can criticize how he went about it, but trying to get men to man the hell up is a very needed effort.
2. re the bolded part, what are you basing that broad and sweeping accusation on? The incidents I've seen (both in Mars Hill and in other churches that had a similar situation) is usually someone who gets caught in sin or heresy, is disciplined in an appropriate way, and then posts a childish and inflammatory screed on a blog about how awful and evil and unfair the church in question was to them. You get one (highly biased) side of an interpersonal dispute, and then take it as gospel and impugn the thousands of folks at a church? Lol.
Like I said, I have no affiliation with MHC aside from having a lot of friends that attend there. But I saw this same sort of thing happen at the church I got married at (long after I had moved out of state and no longer attended there) and I am very, very cynical about all of the accusations when they are not directly provable and actionable. When it's just "Pastor X hurt my feels so I'm going to assassinate his character on the internet" then there is a pretty high chance it's BS. Remember that the Gospel is frequently called offensive, so it never surprises me when someone who is faithful to it is hated on.
Regarding the specific instance that I referenced--if I could provide better details, I would, but I don't even remember enough specifics for a decent google. That said, having grown up in Fundamentalism (Bob Jones University and its affiliated churches specifically*) I can recognize a cult of personality from a long way off and I'm pretty sure Driscoll has it, or thinks he does (or perhaps used to).
There's no way to make that seem any less personal against your friends who attend there (who I'm sure are good folks), and I perfectly understand your disdain for my opinion from afar. But from my experience deep inside the Bible Belt, where there's smoke, there's almost certainly fire.
And for the record, I am against character assassinations and bitter ex-church members in general. They tend to be loud, obnoxious, utterly biased, and mean-spirited. They also, at times, presenting information that must be dealt with in the cold light of day.
I hope whatever issues are going on, real or imagined, that Driscoll and his church deals with them in a biblical way and that he hones his pastoral craft and keeps doing the Lord's work. I don't want him gone, or destroyed. But I think there are some serious things he needs to change.
* I freely admit that my point of view in such matters is influenced by the fact that I was a member of a functional cult back in the 90's and I am having a bit of a delayed adverse reaction.
-
Regarding the specific instance that I referenced--if I could provide better details, I would, but I don't even remember enough specifics for a decent google. That said, having grown up in Fundamentalism (Bob Jones University and its affiliated churches specifically*) I can recognize a cult of personality from a long way off and I'm pretty sure Driscoll has it, or thinks he does (or perhaps used to).
There's no way to make that seem any less personal against your friends who attend there (who I'm sure are good folks), and I perfectly understand your disdain for my opinion from afar. But from my experience deep inside the Bible Belt, where there's smoke, there's almost certainly fire.
And for the record, I am against character assassinations and bitter ex-church members in general. They tend to be loud, obnoxious, utterly biased, and mean-spirited. They also, at times, presenting information that must be dealt with in the cold light of day.
I hope whatever issues are going on, real or imagined, that Driscoll and his church deals with them in a biblical way and that he hones his pastoral craft and keeps doing the Lord's work. I don't want him gone, or destroyed. But I think there are some serious things he needs to change.
* I freely admit that my point of view in such matters is influenced by the fact that I was a member of a functional cult back in the 90's and I am having a bit of a delayed adverse reaction.
Meh, I grew up in a real, no-sht, "let's all move across the country and give all our money to the leader" kind of cult. I knew lots of folks who went to Bob Jones when I still lived in AZ. To compare this situation to either of those things is projection, pure and simple. I get where you're coming from and I'll be the first to agree if the situation warrants it, but there really is no comparison.
I think there's a tendency to see a headline like "Pastor embroiled in scandal!" and jump to conclusions, which is why this sort of character attack is so effective.
Also, if you actually read the stuff Driscoll/MHC has put out there, he/they have been very very forthright in acknowledging that many mistakes were made and in trying to apologize and make atonement for them. I really do believe this is just a result of the church being large and effective in a very anti-God area (last I saw we were either the most un-churched part of the country or in the top 3).
-
They have a strong system to help addicts and those struggling with sexual immorality in place in the church, and started a group that rescues women who've been forced into sexual slavery and trafficked. I believe they support a lot of the homeless ministries in the area. I guess that's not "social justice" enough for the liberals.
Whoever said MHC was one of the "seeker sensitive" lot could not be more wrong. Unless you think having loud worship music means you're seeker sensitive. Of course the various Orthodox denominations probably think your hymns are too modern and seeker sensitive so...
I don't go to Mars Hill, but I have a lot of friends who do and I've seen the tremendous difference they have made. Driscoll certainly isn't perfect and he's always been very upfront about his failings. It's sad to see so many people turning on him instead of drawing alongside to help. A lot of jealousy and placing cultural norms as equivalent to Biblical standards imho.
I have seen churches that, like the Mars Hill you describe, God uses to help people. Some of those same churches have had real problems, some as bad or worse than what is being said of Mark Driscoll. So I can believe there is much good being done by Mars Hill, and at the same time, I don't find it unbelievable that the senior pastor of such a church could be such a problem, that he ought to step down. Not that I'm saying that Driscoll is, or ought to. But the two conditions could exist in the same church.
-
I have seen churches that, like the Mars Hill you describe, God uses to help people. Some of those same churches have had real problems, some as bad or worse than what is being said of Mark Driscoll. So I can believe there is much good being done by Mars Hill, and at the same time, I don't find it unbelievable that the senior pastor of such a church could be such a problem, that he ought to step down. Not that I'm saying that Driscoll is, or ought to. But the two conditions could exist in the same church.
The first part was addressing the characterization that they didn't do much "social justice" stuff.
I don't find the idea that a pastor could be doing bad things and need to step down hard to believe at all. I am merely speaking about the specific charges leveled about this specific pastor, and the pre-existing attitudes towards him among both the liberal and conservative wings of modern American "evangelical" Christendom.
-
I don't know where you read about that, but it certainly wasn't the Bible. Where we are both called to not forsake gathering together, told to do it in an ordered manner, and given instructions on what that looks like.
After having spent plenty of years in a mega church, in a very large church and then in some smaller churches I can say one thing for sure.
Nothing about mega church American corporations compare to the NT 'ordered manner' except maybe in the use of some of the same terms.
As far as all the drama etc... I stand by what I said. Granted all I have are news and blog reports but I'm not seeing or sensing any of this as being from God. Bunch of A type corporate types in a power struggle defined by our weird merging of corporate structure and Christianity and calling them churches.
Has or is God using Mars Hill? No doubt, Samson used the jawbone of an ass to slay a thousand, with God all things are possible.
Personally I prefer small assemblies, elder controlled and that aren't held together by the cult of personality.
Been there done that, no more.
-
After having spent plenty of years in a mega church, in a very large church and then in some smaller churches I can say one thing for sure.
Nothing about mega church American corporations compare to the NT 'ordered manner' except maybe in the use of some of the same terms.
As far as all the drama etc... I stand by what I said. Granted all I have are news and blog reports but I'm not seeing or sensing any of this as being from God. Bunch of A type corporate types in a power struggle defined by our weird merging of corporate structure and Christianity and calling them churches.
Has or is God using Mars Hill? No doubt, Samson used the jawbone of an ass to slay a thousand, with God all things are possible.
Personally I prefer small assemblies, elder controlled and that aren't held together by the cult of personality.
Been there done that, no more.
For a guy with nothing to go on but bitterness over past experiences and character assassination news reports, you sure are eager to slander many thousands of good people with your silly "cult of personality" accusations.
-
For a guy with nothing to go on but bitterness over past experiences and character assassination news reports, you sure are eager to slander many thousands of good people with your silly "cult of personality" accusations.
I call them like I see them.
If you don't think there is a cult of personality around these guys who build mega churches then we can agree to disagree.
I don't think for one moment "preacher knows best".
The music and fellowship (accountability) are the main draws for me regarding church. Service projects are nice also but serving others really is supposed to be a lifestyle, not an occasional event.
-
I call them like I see them.
If you don't think there is a cult of personality around these guys who build mega churches then we can agree to disagree.
I don't think for one moment "preacher knows best".
I'm not talking about "these guys" I am talking about this one particular guy, and my friends who attend there that you are so casually slandering.
-
I'm not talking about "these guys" I am talking about this one particular guy, and my friends who attend there that you are so casually slandering.
I don't know any individuals heart so I'm not slandering anyone. I attended for the the better part of a decade a mega church and never bought into the cult of personality. Yet I witnessed it back then and can spot it easily today.
We were not commissioned to go out and build rich, grand, influential and powerful movements.
Is it the work of God or of a great corporate structure and business model?
If any work of God is being done it is being done through individuals who reflect Gods love in their actions despite their church. The corporate framework or human leader is secondary and in many if not most cases a hindrance IMHO.
-
I'm not talking about "these guys" I am talking about this one particular guy, and my friends who attend there that you are so casually slandering.
:rofl:
-
I don't know any individuals heart so I'm not slandering anyone. I attended for the the better part of a decade a mega church and never bought into the cult of personality. Yet I witnessed it back then and can spot it easily today.
We were not commissioned to go out and build rich, grand, influential and powerful movements.
Is it the work of God or of a great corporate structure and business model?
If any work of God is being done it is being done through individuals who reflect Gods love in their actions despite their church. The corporate framework or human leader is secondary and in many if not most cases a hindrance IMHO.
Ron, I'm trying to understand your criticism. I have little experience with very large churches. From reading the New Testament, it is clear to me that the church is to be led by "human leaders," who are to be respected and valued. (And, of course, held accountable.) It is likewise clear that there is to be a certain structure of elders/overseers/bishops (however you choose to translate it), and deacons. Where do you think the mega-church departs from the Biblical model?
I have not found any admonition against churches having wealth or influence, aside from the obvious consideration that the wealth should be used for God's purposes.
I would also point out that the New Testament says nothing about churches having music programs, but does say that they fed widows. Which would seem to indicate that service programs might be at least as important as the musical portion of the worship service.
-
Ron, I'm trying to understand your criticism. I have little experience with very large churches.
That may hinder your ability to understand where I'm coming from for sure.
Large or mega-Churches frequently suffer from the same human failings that government does.
Too much power and authority vested in a leader or oligarchy.
Too much centralized authority.
At some point protecting or promoting the institution becomes the purpose regardless of the human "casualties".
The Roman Catholic Church and the preponderance of protestant denominations bear that out.
Government, corporations, churches all exhibit the same dynamics of human failings.
Churches are not exempt.
Regarding service projects you don't get brownie points from God for belonging to an institution that does good works.
The individuals doing good works out of love for their fellow humans are practicing true religion. Service projects are a great vehicle for that inclination but unfortunately are often a sign of compartmentalization of a virtue that should be practiced regularly. Think service project lifestyle.
Smaller, decentralized and more personal has a better chance of being authentic. A better chance to actually get to know folks and learn their needs as well as being part of an assembly that will love you and hold you/others accountable.
Even in mega churches they see that reality and have pursued small group meetings.
-
The Driscoll deal looks like a lack of accountability and/or failure of governance to rein in a man who believed his own press. (He declared himself the Mars Hill "brand?" Really?) Doesn't really matter his theology at that point. The inflection point (it looks like) was 2007, when Driscoll pulled a coup de main by expelling those who would hold him accountable, replacing them with yes-men, and changing the church by-laws to vest him with greater authority.
I have attended charismatic speaking-in-tongues, flopping in the aisles, holy-roller, near pandemonium services with objectively better governance and accountability than what can be seen at Mars Hill. The elders in the church had real authority to keep a pastor from going off the rails or aggrandizing power to himself or abusing his authority. The church was also part of an association that also kept a gimlet eye on things. I am not the least bit charismatic, but it was kind of impressive to see some of the inner workings. Most those big church scandals seem to be from independent churches, not The First Baptist Megachurch of Sometown (Southern Baptist Convention).
No accountability within the church, no accountability from without. Driscoll doesn't have to be a demon or an ogre, just a man. How many could resist the perks and little corruptions if one's abilities had brought such success? Those little corruptions lead to larger abuses of trust and then of authority--all justifiable by the wildfire success of the church, books, etc. Look at the Jaques Barzun quote in my sig. "The world has long observed that small acts of immorality, if repeated, will destroy character."
Anyways, that is how I see it. We are all fallible and almost all of us have an earthly price. Without accountability from within and from above, it seems just a matter of time until Screwtape and Wormwood twist mad success into a trap.
-
And it is not as if Mars Hill church can not go on without Driscoll. I just looked up Ted Haggard, who bought meth off a male prostitute with whom he had intercourse. His church in colorado springs has seen its attendance drop 20% and revenues drop 10% since Haggard's departure. Most everything that church was doing is still getting done, even without Haggard.
Because it is not about the pastor, or the buildings, or the books, or the super-speshul outreach program.
-
Predestination takes some theological standing from numerous verses in the Bible, such as Jeremiah 1:5 -- "Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations."
The Bible is peppered with similar references, all pointing to a life course already mapped out in totality. It's a concept that is almost as old as Christianity itself.
This whole thread is describing a sort of "predestination'' I've never heard of.
What I was told, not in theology school but in history class, was "predestination" meant it had already been decided that you would wind up in heaven or hell. It didn't matter if you were Mother Theresa or Ghenghis Khan or Hitler.
Jehovah God claiming that he knew Jeremiah "Before I formed ...(him) in the belly I knew ...(him)" is not QUIT the same as saying he'd mapped out the life of everyone who wasn't a prophet.
-
But its so much harder to control people with that liberal (and Im sure absolutely wrong cuzjohncalvintoldmeso [barf]) version of predestination.
-
I don't know any individuals heart so I'm not slandering anyone. I attended for the the better part of a decade a mega church and never bought into the cult of personality. Yet I witnessed it back then and can spot it easily today.
We were not commissioned to go out and build rich, grand, influential and powerful movements.
Is it the work of God or of a great corporate structure and business model?
If any work of God is being done it is being done through individuals who reflect Gods love in their actions despite their church. The corporate framework or human leader is secondary and in many if not most cases a hindrance IMHO.
The church in Acts was thousands of people. ZOMG the apostles formed a mega-church!
You had a bad experience with a certain type of church, and have now decided to call all churches of a certain size cults (and by extension, those who attend cultists). That's sad and unfortunate.
-
This whole thread is describing a sort of "predestination'' I've never heard of.
What I was told, not in theology school but in history class, was "predestination" meant it had already been decided that you would wind up in heaven or hell. It didn't matter if you Mother Theresa or Ghenghis Khan or Hitler.
Jehovah God claiming that he know Jeremiah "Before I formed ...(him) in the belly I knew ...(him)" is not QUIT the same as saying he'd mapped out the life of everyone who wasn't a prophet.
Predestination, in Christian theology, usually means both. Mike was just citing an example of where predestination is supported by scripture. To the Calvinist, God has already determined whether He will save your soul; and He also predestines the events of everyone's lives. That's a simplistic explanation, of course.
I'm not sure where Hawkmoon came by his version of it. Usually, people are talking about a Calvinistic view of predestination, which would bear some resemblance to what I described above.
-
Settle down Balog, 'cult of personality' has a specific meaning and I wasn't implying doctrinal heresy. I'm not calling anyone a cultist. ;/
I was just drawing similarities between megachurches built by charismatic preachers and the well understood concept.
Like rooster said, too much authority at the top with too little accountability.
Driscoll bears no blame, it was all mapped out and foreordained to happen anyway... :P
-
It seems to me that Christian Predestination is the believers analogue to non Christians who believe in materialistic determinism.
God exists outside the created universe of time and sees the whole thing beginning to end in his present.
Philosophically I think the concept is called 'eternalism' and in physics is related to the 'block universe' theory.
-
Predestination, in Christian theology, usually means both. Mike was just citing an example of where predestination is supported by scripture. To the Calvinist, God has already determined whether He will save your soul; and He also predestines the events of everyone's lives. That's a simplistic explanation, of course.
I'm not sure where Hawkmoon came by his version of it. Usually, people are talking about a Calvinistic view of predestination, which would bear some resemblance to what I described above.
I seem to recall Hawkmoon mentioned being affiliated with the Unitarians or similar denomination a while back. Which might explain why his theological understanding in a lot of these threads seem somewhat heterodox.
Settle down Balog, 'cult of personality' has a specific meaning and I wasn't implying doctrinal heresy. I'm not calling anyone a cultist. ;/
I was just drawing similarities between megachurches built by charismatic preachers and the well understood concept.
Like rooster said, too much authority at the top with too little accountability.
Driscoll bears no blame, it was all mapped out and foreordained to happen anyway... :P
You're using news reports with the accuracy of MSNBC's early reporting of the Trayvon Martin shooting in order to feel self righteous and better than a group of people you've never met and know nothing about. It's shameful.
MHC has loads of problems, and made lots of mistakes. It's a human institution, so that's inevitable. The malicious glee you're taking in making ignorant slanders is disgusting.
-
So is this thread predestined to get locked ???
;/
-
There's no malicious glee in this at all.
I was just pointing out how predictable a mega church going through this type of turmoil is, based on my history and experience.
Even the Roman Catholic Church with millennia of practice hasn't got it dialed in...
-
There's no malicious glee in this at all.
I was just pointing out how predictable a mega church going through this type of turmoil is, based on my history and experience.
Even the Roman Catholic Church with millennia of practice hasn't got it dialed in...
No human institution of any size, with any form of polity or leadership, is going to avoid having scandal and failings.
-
There's no malicious glee in this at all.
I was just pointing out how predictable a mega church going through this type of turmoil is, based on my history and experience.
Even the Roman Catholic Church with millennia of practice hasn't got it dialed in...
Modern corporate leadership principles, in action.
-
This whole thread is describing a sort of "predestination'' I've never heard of.
What I was told, not in theology school but in history class, was "predestination" meant it had already been decided that you would wind up in heaven or hell. It didn't matter if you were Mother Theresa or Ghenghis Khan or Hitler.
Jehovah God claiming that he knew Jeremiah "Before I formed ...(him) in the belly I knew ...(him)" is not QUIT the same as saying he'd mapped out the life of everyone who wasn't a prophet.
That's a SINGLE Bible quote. As I said, there are many that formed a supporting structure, as it were, for the concept of predestination.
Predestination is a very complex concept in Christian theology. John Calvin's interpretation of predestination is what's taught in history classes, but it differs greatly from the thoughts of Augustine of Hippo.
I mean hell, look at all of the different interpretations of predestination theology that are referenced in Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predestination#History_of_the_doctrine
I'd never heard of, oh, say, 95% of them, and it looks like each one of them has a pretty significant set of views on what predestination is based on the founder's own interpretation of what the Bible has to say...
-
Predestination, in Christian theology, usually means both. Mike was just citing an example of where predestination is supported by scripture. To the Calvinist, God has already determined whether He will save your soul; and He also predestines the events of everyone's lives. That's a simplistic explanation, of course.
I'm not sure where Hawkmoon came by his version of it. Usually, people are talking about a Calvinistic view of predestination, which would bear some resemblance to what I described above.
Doesn't the doctrine of predestination mainly come from Ephesians chapter 1 (which has a certain tension with the "whosoever" in John 3:16) rather than the Psalms and several examples of OT prophets and John the Baptist?
I think the truth lies somewhere between Calvin and Armenius. Man has freewill, but is depraved -- so that nonesoever believeth unless God makes an overture first. That still doesn't fully explain Eph 1...
Perhaps another way to put it (I just thought of this) is that all invited and have a preplanned destiny, but as free moral agents we can reject that destiny. Many are called but few are chosen.
-
Doesn't the doctrine of predestination mainly come from Ephesians chapter 1 (which has a certain tension with the "whosoever" in John 3:16) rather than the Psalms and several examples of OT prophets and John the Baptist?
I think the truth lies somewhere between Calvin and Armenius. Man has freewill, but is depraved -- so that nonesoever believeth unless God makes an overture first. That still doesn't fully explain Eph 1...
Perhaps another way to put it (I just thought of this) is that all invited and have a preplanned destiny, but as free moral agents we can reject that destiny. Many are called but few are chosen.
I'd rephrase the bolded to "all are invited, but few accept."
-
I tend to think of the doctrine of predestination vs free will like the Trinity: we can sort of analogize it but can't really grok it properly. Sort of a Deut 29:29 thing.
-
If God hasn't seen fit to make it obvious and clear then I'm not focusing on the issue.
Not to say that it isn't an interesting subject as mental masturbation [popcorn]
One of my good friends I ride with attends a mega church and we've bounced around the mega church topic and I managed to not be abrasive or insulting to him as I was to some in this thread.
So I guess my thoughts about Calvinist brothers and sisters theology regarding predestination will be left unsaid so as not to offend anyone :P
I'll just say that God is love and offers mercy and grace to all. Even us opinionated embittered Christians :angel:
-
That's a SINGLE Bible quote. As I said, there are many that formed a supporting structure, as it were, for the concept of predestination.
Predestination is a very complex concept in Christian theology. John Calvin's interpretation of predestination is what's taught in history classes, but it differs greatly from the thoughts of Augustine of Hippo.
I mean hell, look at all of the different interpretations of predestination theology that are referenced in Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predestination#History_of_the_doctrine
I'd never heard of, oh, say, 95% of them, and it looks like each one of them has a pretty significant set of views on what predestination is based on the founder's own interpretation of what the Bible has to say...
???
When you get into what different denominations say about the Bible and what it says/means .......
Take the idea of the Trinity, for example. God, Jesus, and the "Holy Ghost." This is apparently Christian doctrine in many denominations. I was raised in the Episcopalian Denomination and we believed it; in fact the church I attended growing up was the "Christ and Holy Trinity Church" in Westport, Connecticut.
But take Jehovah's Witnesses. They were originally refered to as "Bible Students" and study the Bible (hence their original name) and take their doctrine from direct study of what the scriptures say. They do not believe in the Holy Trinity concept. They don't believe humans have souls, they believe humans are souls. And the soul is not immortal, being "remembered" by God depends on what one does in one's life. They don't celebrate Christmas as do other denominations.
I don't wish to get into a deep theological debate with anyone here. I respect all beliefs be they Protestant, Catholic, Presbyterian, Baptist, Zoaastrian, even athiest. Although I don't understand that last .... =D (Ha! like I really understand any or 'em....).
There may be numerous statements made in the bible that might be interpreted to support predestination.
I just can't "buy" it.
If Hitler was "predestined" to go into Heaven, then what does that say about God's righteousness?
-
JW's aren't Christians, they're a separate religion.
-
http://www.jw.org/en/jehovahs-witnesses/faq/are-jehovahs-witnesses-christians/
Hmm, the official body of the JW's say that they are Christians.
-
http://www.jw.org/en/jehovahs-witnesses/faq/are-jehovahs-witnesses-christians/
Hmm, the official body of the JW's say that they are Christians.
They say that they are Christians. But none of the non-JW groups are.
So, they admit that they are not part of the belief system that the world knows as "Christian." They're just trying to co-opt the term.
-
That's what the protestants say about catholics.
-
That's what the protestants say about catholics.
What protestants, exactly?
-
That's what the protestants say about catholics.
Some Protestants may say that.
-
JW's aren't Christians, they're a separate religion.
???
They accept Jesus Christ as the Son of God.
Not that I am trying to start a fight .... but what else do you require?
???
-
No, they don't. At least not anymore than you or I are a "son of God." They also don't believe He is God.
There's a start for why they are not Christian.
-
No, they don't. At least not anymore than you or I are a "son of God." They also don't believe He is God.
There's a start for why they are not Christian.
Oh, yes, they do.
You don't know what you're talking about, me thinks.
-
Oh, yes, they do.
You don't know what you're talking about, me thinks.
http://www.jw.org/en/publications/books/good-news-from-god/who-is-jesus-christ/
I don't? He's a created being, according to their religion. They call Him the "Son of God" so that they are using the same terminology but it doesn't mean what a Christian means when he says that. Hence, not Christian.
-
Oh, yes, they do.
You don't know what you're talking about, me thinks.
Christians believe that Jesus is God. JW's believe he was created by God. They're no more Christians than Mohammed was a Christian because he acknowledged Jesus as a prophet.
-
No, they don't. At least not anymore than you or I are a "son of God." They also don't believe He is God.
There's a start for why they are not Christian.
Jesus is not God, he is God's son.
http://www.jw.org/en/publications/books/good-news-from-god/who-is-jesus-christ/
I don't? He's a created being, according to their religion. They call Him the "Son of God" so that they are using the same terminology but it doesn't mean what a Christian means when he says that. Hence, not Christian.
WHO is a created being, according to "their" religion?
JWs believe Jesus existed as a spirit creature before being incarnated as a human. He, like the rest of the universe, and all the angels, were created by God. This disqualifies JWs from being Christians?
I don't think so.
If you wish to believe otherwise, fine.
We'll have to agree to disagree. ;)
-
Christians believe that Jesus is God. JW's believe he was created by God. They're no more Christians than Mohammed was a Christian because he acknowledged Jesus as a prophet.
There are ample examples in the Bible about Jesus carrying out the will of his father (God) or his father being pleased with Jesus. If Jesus and God were the same these passages would make no sense.
-
Tommy,
I want to reassure you that it is no insult or slight to the JWs to observe as a fact that JWs, by their doctrine, follow a non-Christian faith. Christians have always (for 2000 years) insisted that Jesus Christ is both God and Son of God, uncreated, always existing in a triune Being, consisting of three Persons in one God. That's always been central to the faith. Not optional; central, necessary.
The passages you mention above are evidence that the Bible teaches a Trinitarian (non-JW) view of God. While in other passages, both Father and Son are spoken of as if they are God, yet (as you point out) they are clearly different persons. Jesus Himself said that He and the Father are one, and that God is one. That's why, although it defies our human understanding, Christians must accept that God is composed of three Persons in one Essence. And if Jesus were not God Himself, His death on the cross would not have the same meaning.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity
Oh, I almost forgot. Because certain doctrines are so clear in the Bible, the JWs have their own "translation," that helps them avoid such issues. See especially the first chapter of John's Gospel.
-
There are ample examples in the Bible about Jesus carrying out the will of his father (God) or his father being pleased with Jesus. If Jesus and God were the same these passages would make no sense.
Are you a JW? Or just really unfamiliar with the concept of the Trinity?
-
Are you a JW? Or just really unfamiliar with the concept of the Trinity?
If I may, I'm guessing the latter. It's not as uncommon as one might think.
-
That's what the protestants say about catholics.
Foundational to Protestantism are the Latin phrases, "solo Christo" - "by Christ alone;" "sola fide" - "by faith alone;" and "sola gratia" - "by grace alone." The Protestants rejected Rome's doctrine that the church determined who had salvation. So, for a Protestant, it doesn't really compute to say that Catholics are automatically non-Christians. The way I've heard Protestants and/or evangelicals express this, is that many Catholics truly trust in Christ for their salvation, by grace, through faith. They are thus Christians, who are saved by grace, through faith. But many Catholics, like many Protestants, do not truly trust Christ for their salvation by grace, through faith.
-
Jw is a contemporary manifestation of the arian heresy. Fistful described in some detail one of the small o orthodox christian nonnegotiables. Arianism goes back to before the council of nicea. Matter of fact the nicene creed was drafted to deal with word bending arian clerics who were claiming orthodoxy by changing word meanings.
Every couple of centuries some dude thinks he is the first guy to go off on this tangent.
-
Every couple of centuries some dude thinks he is the first guy to go off on this tangent.
Is it such a surprise that the question comes up so often? It is probably heretical to even suggest, but I have always thought that the doctrine of the Trinity is a decidedly unsatisfying answer to the extraordinarily complex question of the nature of the Christian God. It is, as an answer to that great question, like a bumper sticker is to a philosophical debate: simplistic, presumptive, and polarizing.
"They're the same (because Old Testament), but different (because New Testament). You can't fully understand it, it is - at best - a relationship that is merely hinted at in scripture, but if you don't accept our little diagram in toto then you aren't even a Christian no matter what else you believe."
As far as the rest of the thread, Matthew 23 should be a regular read for every leader of a church that professes to follow the Bible - whether orthodox or no. Better still, it should be read to them.
-
Is it such a surprise that the question comes up so often? It is probably heretical to even suggest, but I have always thought that the doctrine of the Trinity is a decidedly unsatisfying answer to the extraordinarily complex question of the nature of the Christian God. It is, as an answer to that great question, like a bumper sticker is to a philosophical debate: simplistic, presumptive, and polarizing.
"They're the same (because Old Testament), but different (because New Testament). You can't fully understand it, it is - at best - a relationship that is merely hinted at in scripture, but if you don't accept our little diagram in toto then you aren't even a Christian no matter what else you believe."
As far as the rest of the thread, Matthew 23 should be a regular read for every leader of a church that professes to follow the Bible - whether orthodox or no. Better still, it should be read to them.
Well, if by "hinted at in scripture" you mean "about a dozen instances of multi-fold personalities of God from one essence in the NT alone" I tend to agree. As for fitting on a bumper sticker, not so much. "Not bumperstickery" to the point where they developed three creeds explaining it in ever greater detail: Apostle's, Nicene, Athanasian. I would like to see the Athanasian creed on a bumper sticker, though.
Your "because/different" explanation is not an explanation used by any minister worth a hoot, other than as a straw man used by non-trinitarians to slap about. As a Christian, one reads all the whole Bible (OT & NT) through the lens of Christ. Given the assumption of Christ, there is plenty of evidence. If one assumes that the books of the OT and NT tell different stories or have different objectives, it is easier to deny the doctrine of the trinity.
And as a concept, the trinity is no more difficult to understand than many non-theological concepts. Quantum mechanics, for example, and how the nature of energy and matter both have wave and particle-like behaviors. Dual nature of real things? Decidedly non-intuitive, that is.
-
Tommy,
I want to reassure you that it is no insult or slight to the JWs to observe as a fact that JWs, by their doctrine, follow a non-Christian faith. Christians have always (for 2000 years) insisted that Jesus Christ is both God and Son of God, uncreated, always existing in a triune Being, consisting of three Persons in one God. That's always been central to the faith. Not optional; central, necessary.
The passages you mention above are evidence that the Bible teaches a Trinitarian (non-JW) view of God. While in other passages, both Father and Son are spoken of as if they are God, yet (as you point out) they are clearly different persons. Jesus Himself said that He and the Father are one, and that God is one. That's why, although it defies our human understanding, Christians must accept that God is composed of three Persons in one Essence. And if Jesus were not God Himself, His death on the cross would not have the same meaning.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity
Oh, I almost forgot. Because certain doctrines are so clear in the Bible, the JWs have their own "translation," that helps them avoid such issues. See especially the first chapter of John's Gospel.
How can passages that show Jesus was obeying the will of his father support the idea of trinity?
You're gonna have to remind me where Jesus said "He and the Father are one, and that God is one."
"And if Jesus were not God Himself, His death on the cross would not have the same meaning." ???
So, God/Jesus died on the cross and then Jesus was resurrected by...............what?
:facepalm:
Perhaps I am trying to apply logic where it simply does not work.
Anyhow, off to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity to see what I can make out of that splendiferous source..... ;/
-
Regardless of whether or not you find it a satisfying explanation of Scripture, the concept of the Trinity has been a bedrock, non-negotiable, first tier necessary belief of the faith known as Christianity since the time of Christ. You may find groups that oppose that doctrine better suited to your personal philosophical framework, and I'm not going to argue with you about that. But they are not, by definition, Christian. Just like the groups who claim to be Christian while denying that Christ was anything more than a smart guy who had some good wisdom to impart (if you ignore the bits you don't like).
-
Foundational to Protestantism are the Latin phrases, "solo Christo" - "by Christ alone;" "sola fide" - "by faith alone;" and "sola gratia" - "by grace alone." The Protestants rejected Rome's doctrine that the church determined who had salvation. So, for a Protestant, it doesn't really compute to say that Catholics are automatically non-Christians. The way I've heard Protestants and/or evangelicals express this, is that many Catholics truly trust in Christ for their salvation, by grace, through faith. They are thus Christians, who are saved by grace, through faith. But many Catholics, like many Protestants, do not truly trust Christ for their salvation by grace, through faith.
But these denominations can disagree while still being Christian .... but if JWs disagree they're NOT Christian?
Really .... all denominations must have disagreements or what would the logic in their being so many denominations?
I don't know if JWs are right, or Catholics, or Protestants or Episcopalians.
The concept of the Trinity constitutes some type of major dividing line? .... I don't think so.
Modern nontrinitarian groups or denominations include Christadelphians, Christian Scientists, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Dawn Bible Students, Friends General Conference, Iglesia ni Cristo, Jehovah's Witnesses, Living Church of God, Oneness Pentecostals, Members Church of God International, Unitarian Universalist Christians, the United Church of God and the Church of God (Seventh Day).
There's Wiki's list of denominations that don't believe in trinitarianism. One thing I note is they are still called Christians.
Perhaps I am being generous. But I think JW are Christians. Maybe it's just me. They believe in Christ as the Son of God, like the denomination I was brought up in. That seems sufficient, in my Most Humble (and maybe not that well informed =| ) Opinion.
-
"When you get into what different denominations say about the Bible and what it says/means ......."
Yeah.
And that's why you have different interpretations as to the hows and whys of predestination, because you have different people at different points in history who have grown up with different secular and religious influences reading essentially the same information and arriving at very different interpretations.
The estimated 30,000 or so different Protestant denominations that have risen and fallen since the time of Martin Luther had to come from somewhere, and it certainly wasn't from reading the Saturday Evening Post while sitting on the throne.
Just for the hell of it, another verse about predestination, and this one not directed at a prophet, but at a whole city of people, the Ephesians.
"Even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love he predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will."
As with anything, open to interpretation as to what it truly means, but I don't think it's really a stretch that someone could look at that, and the many other passages, and come to a conclusion that God knew our path long before we were ever born and, because God is God, there's no changing the outcome.
-
Jw is a contemporary manifestation of the arian heresy. Fistful described in some detail one of the small o orthodox christian nonnegotiables. Arianism goes back to before the council of nicea. Matter of fact the nicene creed was drafted to deal with word bending arian clerics who were claiming orthodoxy by changing word meanings.
Just had to Godwin the thread, didn't ya?
It is probably heretical to even suggest, but I have always thought that the doctrine of the Trinity is a decidedly unsatisfying answer to the extraordinarily complex question of the nature of the Christian God.
I can't see that raising any eyebrows. Obviously, no one's really satisfied with an answer of, "It's like this. We can't understand how it can be like this, but it is."
-
But these denominations can disagree while still being Christian .... but if JWs disagree they're NOT Christian?
Really .... all denominations must have disagreements or what would the logic in their being so many denominations?
I don't know if JWs are right, or Catholics, or Protestants or Episcopalians.
The concept of the Trinity constitutes some type of major dividing line? .... I don't think so.
There's Wiki's list of denominations that don't believe in trinitarianism. One thing I note is they are still called Christians.
Perhaps I am being generous. But I think JW are Christians. Maybe it's just me. They believe in Christ as the Son of God, like the denomination I was brought up in. That seems sufficient, in my Most Humble (and maybe not that well informed =| ) Opinion.
Getting your theological information from wiki is one step above getting it from /r/atheist.
You need to ponder the concept of primary, secondary, and tertiary issues. Christians disagree about all sorts of things (as you've seen in this thread) but there are some bright sharp lines that one cannot cross without straying from orthodoxy and thus no longer being a part of the larger body of Christendom. Jesus as both fully God and fully man is one of them.
Roo listed some of the creeds that have been developed over the years. Reading through them would be a good start.
-
Getting your theological information from wiki is one step above getting it from /r/atheist.
Tell Fistful -- he's the one who provided the link.
As for me, I think this thread has dead-ended. I've had my say. I never claimed I was an expert in theology -- in fact I would probably make the world's worst theologin if I were to try for it.
And to think of it, I wonder why I should care who thinks WHAT denomination is Christian .... or not? [popcorn] =| =|
-
Just had to Godwin the thread, didn't ya?
Oh, geez. I had a mod at Freerepublic yank a thread I started, thinking Arian was Aryan. :facepalm:
-
Tell Fistful -- he's the one who provided the link.
As for me, I think this thread has dead-ended. I've had my say. I never claimed I was an expert in theology -- in fact I would probably make the world's worst theologin if I were to try for it.
And to think of it, I wonder why I should care who thinks WHAT denomination is Christian .... or not? [popcorn] =| =|
I'm always interested in accurate terminology.
-
Getting your theological information from wiki is one step above getting it from /r/atheist.
Yes, I recommended that one. I skimmed it, and it seemed to give a decent overview for one totally unversed in the concept. It's not exactly from a Christian perspective, but it is at least educational.
-
You need to ponder the concept of primary, secondary, and tertiary issues. Christians disagree about all sorts of things (as you've seen in this thread) but there are some bright sharp lines that one cannot cross without straying from orthodoxy and thus no longer being a part of the larger body of Christendom. Jesus as both fully God and fully man is one of them.
This. Without the the doctrine Trinity, you've holed Christianity below the waterline. John Ch 1 becomes meaningless gibberish, among other great swaths of the Bible (Which is why "non-trinitarian Christian" sects often have materials that supplement or supplant the Bible. In the case of the JWs, they have their own odd (mis)translation of the Bible.)
The doctrine of the Trinity is not a "women keep their head covered in church" or "church should not have air conditioning" or "missionaries ought to be centrally vs church-level funded" level issues(1). Heck, the doctrine of the Trinity even overshadows the meaning of Communion. Facets of the doctrine of the Trinity give real meaning and power to Jesus's death on the cross that it does not have unless Jesus is both equally God and equally man.
Non-trinitarian sects may be made of fine folk that make good neighbors, no doubt. But I would rather have clarity of thought with disagreements than ecumenical goo and mutual self-deception.
(1) Yes, churches/denominations have busted up over these issues.
-
Just had to Godwin the thread, didn't ya?
So sad to see such a niggardly estimation of our moderators' and interlocutors' understanding of the English language.
-
So sad to see such a niggardly estimation of our moderators' and interlocutors' understanding of the English language.
:lol:
-
A poor metaphor, but maybe it will help: Think of the Trinity as 3 different views of a being that has more dimensions than we can see. Like a cylinder casts a circle or rectangle shadow, depending on where the light source is; they are both accurate 2d views of the same 3d object.
I don't have enough advanced geometry to know what you get when you project a 4d object into 3 dimensions, or a 5d into 4...
So perhaps the Son is God in bodily form (both as NT Jesus and the OT "The Angel of the LORD"), the Spirit is the non-physical "soul" of God, and the Father is... I dunno, the Chairman of the Board. And they are all the same thing, just with different hats.
(I probably shouldn't even post this cuz it sounds stupid now that I read it)
-
In "common" Christianity, the shield of the Trinity has been used for hundreds of years to explain the relationships between the elements.
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F0lem.files.wordpress.com%2F2012%2F06%2Ftrinity.gif&hash=0f78a85493bebbdd08c2e71fb75a1d817dd82251)
-
And while we're at it....Exactly how many angels (if they exist) can dance on the head of a pin?
:P :P :P
-
You'd have to ask the staff at Dancing with the Stars, or whatever that piece of crap is.
-
:rofl:
What protestants, exactly?
I've heard it from quite a few different directions over the last 40 plus years, here in the upper Midwest/ great lakes region of the USA. Seems to primarily originate from members of the Christian Reformed Church, and was one of the reasons I left a nondenominational church (sure it was) that was seeded by a Baptist church, although it's unclear which body. In my experience, it's a conversation killer, and I rarely have any curiosity as to why one would believe that. Like hating Hoosiers, I've no time to entertain why I shouldn't.
-
In "common" Christianity, the shield of the Trinity has been used for hundreds of years to explain the relationships between the elements.
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F0lem.files.wordpress.com%2F2012%2F06%2Ftrinity.gif&hash=0f78a85493bebbdd08c2e71fb75a1d817dd82251)
But the maths!!!
Don't tell my my creator transcends the transitive proprty of equality. The head, it basplodes!!!
-
:rofl:
I've heard it from quite a few different directions over the last 40 plus years, here in the upper Midwest/ great lakes region of the USA. Seems to primarily originate from members of the Christian Reformed Church, and was one of the reasons I left a nondenominational church (sure it was) that was seeded by a Baptist church, although it's unclear which body. In my experience, it's a conversation killer, and I rarely have any curiosity as to why one would believe that. Like hating Hoosiers, I've no time to entertain why I shouldn't.
Always important to distinguish Catholics (as in people who so identify for whatever reason) and the formal doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church. I think many criticisms of one are taken as criticism of the other.
-
Always important to distinguish Catholics (as in people who so identify for whatever reason) and the formal doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church. I think many criticisms of one are taken as criticism of the other.
Thank you. It's easy to do, and today I can see it for what it is. Im guilty of doing the same with Calvinism.
The Catholic church gave me a number of priceless gifts, the greatest being a genuine awe of the power of God. A healthy distrust of centralized power is a close second, followed by a vile contempt of hypocrites. :O
-
Thank you. It's easy to do, and today I can see it for what it is. Im guilty of doing the same with Calvinism.
The Catholic church gave me a number of priceless gifts, the greatest being a genuine awe of the power of God. A healthy distrust of centralized power is a close second, followed by a vile contempt of hypocrites. :O
Since we dogpiling here, I wish I could say the first about fundamentalism, but came away with a tinny and inconsistent view of God, a overwhelming loathing of authority that drove me to libertarianism, and an ability to spot hypocrites in the wild.
I was lucky. A lot of other former fundies trade the old religion for the new--full blown liberal progressivism.
-
A poor metaphor, but maybe it will help: Think of the Trinity as 3 different views of a being that has more dimensions than we can see. Like a cylinder casts a circle or rectangle shadow, depending on where the light source is; they are both accurate 2d views of the same 3d object.
I don't have enough advanced geometry to know what you get when you project a 4d object into 3 dimensions, or a 5d into 4...
So perhaps the Son is God in bodily form (both as NT Jesus and the OT "The Angel of the LORD"), the Spirit is the non-physical "soul" of God, and the Father is... I dunno, the Chairman of the Board. And they are all the same thing, just with different hats.
(I probably shouldn't even post this cuz it sounds stupid now that I read it)
I could point some weaknesses with your extended metafur (you sound more educated if you pronounce it "metafur."), but that would bore. I think you start in a good place, in that it would be odd if the sort of transcendent God described in the Bible would be readily grasped by our comparatively narrow intellects. He may extend into dimensions we know not how to imagine.
-
Mars Hill church still in turmoil: http://www.religionnews.com/2014/08/28/mars-hill-pastors-letter-mark-driscoll-step-down-ministry-leadership/ (http://www.religionnews.com/2014/08/28/mars-hill-pastors-letter-mark-driscoll-step-down-ministry-leadership/)
-
This. Without the the doctrine Trinity, you've holed Christianity below the waterline. John Ch 1 becomes meaningless gibberish, among other great swaths of the Bible (Which is why "non-trinitarian Christian" sects often have materials that supplement or supplant the Bible. In the case of the JWs, they have their own odd (mis)translation of the Bible.)
The doctrine of the Trinity is not a "women keep their head covered in church" or "church should not have air conditioning" or "missionaries ought to be centrally vs church-level funded" level issues(1). Heck, the doctrine of the Trinity even overshadows the meaning of Communion. Facets of the doctrine of the Trinity give real meaning and power to Jesus's death on the cross that it does not have unless Jesus is both equally God and equally man.
Non-trinitarian sects may be made of fine folk that make good neighbors, no doubt. But I would rather have clarity of thought with disagreements than ecumenical goo and mutual self-deception.
(1) Yes, churches/denominations have busted up over these issues.
Modern nontrinitarian groups or denominations include Christadelphians, Christian Scientists, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Dawn Bible Students, Friends General Conference, Iglesia ni Cristo, Jehovah's Witnesses, Living Church of God, Oneness Pentecostals, Members Church of God International, Unitarian Universalist Christians, the United Church of God and the Church of God (Seventh Day).
I do sorta "get" how important the concept is and am still looking for some unequivical support of it in the scriptures -- which may be an awful long time at the rate I go.
Wouldn't wanna "hole" any "ship" beneath the waterline, but judging from the Wiki article 'tain't me that did it, some other people came and did unto it before I got there .... [popcorn]
-
I do sorta "get" how important the concept is and am still looking for some unequivical support of it in the scriptures -- which may be an awful long time at the rate I go.
I'll try and post some things later. It's all over the Bible, really, but especially dense in the New Testament. The Father, Son, and Spirit are clearly separate, but clearly one. Distinct persons, in one God.
-
http://crosscut.com/religion/
has been doing a series of stories on the Mars Hill issue.
-
Well, if by "hinted at in scripture" you mean "about a dozen instances of multi-fold personalities of God from one essence in the NT alone" I tend to agree.
By "hinted at in scripture" I mean just that. As far as the Trinity, Scripture says:
1. That there is only one true God.
2. That there is a Father, a Son and a mostly unexplained Holy Spirit.
3. That the Son claimed divinity and indeed invited comparison to the Father.
Beyond that is conjecture. That doesn't mean the concept of the Trinity is wrong, but is an extra-Biblical attempt at rationalization of an apparent Biblical contradiction. Although the concept of the Trinity was formalized at the Council of Nicaea in an attempt at stamping out a variety of heresies (which, I suspect, was organized by Constantine out of pragmatism more than holiness), it is a mistake to assume that everyone who doesn't accept the Trinity as a whole is in some way advocating polytheism or is denying the divinity of Christ and should therefore not be considered a "real Christian." As though you or I are qualified to make that judgement!
And as a concept, the trinity is no more difficult to understand than many non-theological concepts. Quantum mechanics, for example, and how the nature of energy and matter both have wave and particle-like behaviors. Dual nature of real things? Decidedly non-intuitive, that is.
Perhaps - and I mean this without any intent to be smarmy - you have a better understanding (who knows, maybe even a divinely revealed understanding) of this subject that I lack. Even so, I see a significant difference between something showing a few properties of dissimilar things, and something that is a contradiction by its very definition. And as far as understanding it goes, I thought that most of the great Trinitarian philosophers were clear that the Trinity could not be understood by humans. Given that, why not leave it at what is stated explicitly in scripture?
-
Your number 3 is inaccurate.
-
Your number 3 is inaccurate.
Which part of his number 3? As far as claiming divinity, he forgave sins and saved souls. As for inviting comparisons to the Father, I can't think of anything at the moment. He did ask "who do you say that I am?"
-
The religious leaders of the day understood the ramification of what Jesus was claiming by calling himself both the Son of God and son of man not to mention allowing himself to be worshiped as the messiah. The lordship and godhead of the messiah was not an unfamiliar concept to the Jews.
From John chapter 10
Jesus answered them, “I told you, and you don’t believe. The works that I do in my Father’s name, these testify about me. But you don’t believe, because you are not of my sheep, as I told you. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. I give eternal life to them. They will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all. No one is able to snatch them out of my Father’s hand. I and the Father are one.”
Therefore Jews took up stones again to stone him. Jesus answered them, “I have shown you many good works from my Father. For which of those works do you stone me?”
The Jews answered him, “We don’t stone you for a good work, but for blasphemy: because you, being a man, make yourself God.”
Jesus answered them, “Isn’t it written in your law, ‘I said, you are gods?’ If he called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture can’t be broken), do you say of him whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, ‘You blaspheme,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God?’ If I don’t do the works of my Father, don’t believe me. But if I do them, though you don’t believe me, believe the works; that you may know and believe that the Father is in me, and I in the Father.”
They sought again to seize him, and he went out of their hand. He went away again beyond the Jordan into the place where John was baptizing at first, and there he stayed. Many came to him. They said, “John indeed did no sign, but everything that John said about this man is true.” Many believed in him there.
John 14:8-11
Philip said to him, “Lord, show us the Father, and that will be enough for us.”
Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you such a long time, and do you not know me, Philip? He who has seen me has seen the Father. How do you say, ‘Show us the Father?’
Don’t you believe that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? The words that I tell you, I speak not from myself; but the Father who lives in me does his works. Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me; or else believe me for the very works’ sake.
-
The trinity is a mystery.
It is implied by the assertions of Christs divinity as well descriptions of the Holy Spirit as being distinct from both the father and Christ yet being God working in you, Christ in you etc...
God is big.
Really big.
You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mindbogglingly big God is. :angel:
God is not only present in all time and space of the creation but God exists independently of the creation.
God is Spirit.
Jesus is the glory of and expressed image of the invisible God.
-
:rofl:
I've heard it from quite a few different directions over the last 40 plus years, here in the upper Midwest/ great lakes region of the USA. Seems to primarily originate from members of the Christian Reformed Church
Yep. Same here. CRC is big in my area and I recall hearing one youth (probably 17) trying to explain to others that Catholics weren't Christians because of whatever his grandma told him. Long time ago, didn't care about what nonsense he was talking about, didn't pay attention.
Back in 1980-81 a family I know moved into the area and had a house warming party. When it was discovered they were Catholic everybody left immediately.
-
Yep. Same here. CRC is big in my area and I recall hearing one youth (probably 17) trying to explain to others that Catholics weren't Christians because of whatever his grandma told him. Long time ago, didn't care about what nonsense he was talking about, didn't pay attention.
Back in 1980-81 a family I know moved into the area and had a house warming party. When it was discovered they were Catholic everybody left immediately.
Do folks think the 17th century Anglican Church vs. Rome squabble is still going on?
-
Yep. Same here. CRC is big in my area and I recall hearing one youth (probably 17) trying to explain to others that Catholics weren't Christians because of whatever his grandma told him. Long time ago, didn't care about what nonsense he was talking about, didn't pay attention.
Back in 1980-81 a family I know moved into the area and had a house warming party. When it was discovered they were Catholic everybody left immediately.
Yes
I had similar encounters as a kid. Catholicism upset some. Interestingly enough more so than mom being a Buddhist . I think they saw her as a heathen ripe for conversion whereas as catholic we were just heritics
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
In fundamentalist circles antipathy towards Roman Catholic doctrine and influence was/is pretty typical.
Usually Rome and by extension the Vatican/Roman Catholicism was associated with the "whore of Babylon" in Revelation.
Of course not only is there the ancient Anglican/Rome thing going on but there is the whole Irish Catholic/Protestant thing going on to this day. I actually saw Ian Paisley preach at my (Baptist) college back in the 80's.
-
Usually Rome and by extension the Vatican/Roman Catholicism was associated with the "whore of Babylon" in Revelation.
That goes back to Martin Luther, and it actually makes a lot of sense from his perspective. The whore sits on seven hills, and the seven hills is usually seen as an allusion to Rome. She commits adultery with kings, which could be seen as a reference to the church's involvement in the political power struggles of the period. And so on. With all due respect to our Catholic friends, it's probably not an entirely unreasonable interpretation today, from a non-Catholic viewpoint.
The Protestant/Evangelical abhorrence to the Roman Church should be seen in perspective. It's been handed down from several generations ago, when the Church had a great deal of power, and jailed and tortured and killed dissenters. (Which is not to imply that Protestant hands are clean, on that score.) One of the conspiracy theories which gave birth to the American Revolution centered on the British allowing Catholics to retain their religion in French Canada. 'Cause it meant the bishops were coming to get us! To many Americans, the Catholic Church has seemed like a mysterious, foreign threat, with it's unfamiliar rituals and Latin services. Veneration of saints, and prayers to the saints have been seen as idolatry.
Today, it's kept in play by current events that can be played up, even if improbably, as Catholic plots. I once heard some sermons from an old preacher who kept warning us of ways that the Catholics were trying to "get us back into the Church." All of those "modern versions" of the Bible are a Catholic plot, you know. Also, I once met this guy: http://thefreepressonline.co.uk/news/1/1032.htm He's a cousin of my parents' neighbor, or something.
-
The argument I sometimes see is, when the council of Trent issued anathemas against the Protestant understanding of justification, they wrote themselves out. Those anathemas have never been rescinded.
-
The argument I sometimes see is, when the council of Trent issued anathemas against the Protestant understanding of justification, they wrote themselves out. Those anathemas have never been rescinded.
You mean it was the RCC admitting that their church was heretical?
-
The Catholic church does have some pretty bad heresies. I've also known some Catholics (laypeople) who I know are Christians. I've heard several priests that I'm pretty sure are Christians.
-
You mean it was the RCC admitting that their church was heretical?
no.
-
http://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/blog/2014/10/seattle-megachurch-mars-hill-to-disband-amid.html?ana=e_sea_bn_breakingnews&u=G/vun7sJocZR54r4qTedGQ00c85a73&t=1414793231
This just in: Mars Hill is dissolving, at least as a single church with multiple locations.
-
http://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/blog/2014/10/seattle-megachurch-mars-hill-to-disband-amid.html?ana=e_sea_bn_breakingnews&u=G/vun7sJocZR54r4qTedGQ00c85a73&t=1414793231
This just in: Mars Hill is dissolving, at least as a single church with multiple locations.
Interesting. And probably a good idea. I knew at least one of the franchise locations got cut loose earlier, and decided to go it on their own.
rather than remaining a centralized multi-site church with video-led teaching distributed to multiple locations, the best future for each of our existing local churches is for them to become autonomous self-governed entities,"
-
I didn't see that coming.
-
I didn't see that coming.
My friends who attend a couple of the branches on the Eastside have told me that attendance and tithing have been dropping like a stone in recent weeks, and this was the Board's idea to try and keep some of the branches afloat. It is expected that some of the branches will not have sufficient attendance and finances to remain going concerns.
-
http://blog.seattlepi.com/seattlepolitics/2014/10/31/mars-hill-will-dissolve-into-individual-self-governed-churches/ (http://blog.seattlepi.com/seattlepolitics/2014/10/31/mars-hill-will-dissolve-into-individual-self-governed-churches/)
The Bruskas letter outlined a transformation due to be in place by the beginning of 2015. It said:
–”All of Mars Hill’s existing church properties will either be sold or the loans on the individual properties will be assumed by the independent church.” The lenders, of course, must agree.
–”All central staff will be compensated for their work and then released from their employment.”
–”If any funds remain after the winding down and satisfaction of Mars Hill business affairs, they will be gifted as seed money to the newly independent churches.”
–”The existing Mars Hill Church organization will be dissolved.”
As well, Driscoll pledged to “reset my life” and cease making provocative statements on his Twitter account. Driscoll told the faithful that his “angry young prophet days are over to be replaced by a Bible-teaching spiritual father.”
Uhhh. Well.
Driscoll has espoused a stern Calvinism, preached male dominance in the family and condemned homosexuality. ... “If you are not a Christian, you are going to Hell. It’s not unloving to say that.”
Oh, Teh Horrors.
-
Maybe it will be easier to find a parking space at the Bellevue Barnes & Noble. >:D
But seriously, I find the whole thing to be quite sad but not all that surprising.
-
http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/evangelical-leaders-give-fallen-mars-hill-pastor-mark-driscoll-a-new-forum/
Mr. Driscoll is preaching again. I would not be surprised if he starts another church, probably in a more conservative area than Seattle and away from all the lawsuits and memories here. Texas or someplace else in the South would be a good fit for him.
-
Saw that. Not unexpected. Does he know how to do anything else?
-
http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/evangelical-leaders-give-fallen-mars-hill-pastor-mark-driscoll-a-new-forum/
Mr. Driscoll is preaching again. I would not be surprised if he starts another church, probably in a more conservative area than Seattle and away from all the lawsuits and memories here. Texas or someplace else in the South would be a good fit for him.
Dudes problem was not excessive theological conservatism. Also he had little difficulty attracting lots of folk in seattle willing to buy what he was selling. Enough so that he set up a sorta franchise system.
-
http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/evangelical-leaders-give-fallen-mars-hill-pastor-mark-driscoll-a-new-forum/
Mr. Driscoll is preaching again. I would not be surprised if he starts another church, probably in a more conservative area than Seattle and away from all the lawsuits and memories here. Texas or someplace else in the South would be a good fit for him.
It looks like he is accused of fraudulent mismanagement of funds, and being mean to people. I didn't know those qualities were in demand down south.
-
http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/evangelical-leaders-give-fallen-mars-hill-pastor-mark-driscoll-a-new-forum/
Mr. Driscoll is preaching again. I would not be surprised if he starts another church, probably in a more conservative area than Seattle and away from all the lawsuits and memories here. Texas or someplace else in the South would be a good fit for him.
That's pretty unbalanced and vindictive even for a Seattle Times hit piece.
-
It looks like he is accused of fraudulent mismanagement of funds, and being mean to people. I didn't know those qualities were in demand down south.
Never been to Atlanta, New Orleans or Houston, I see.
-
Well, I've been to Houston, but I try not to think about it. =)
-
It looks like he is accused of fraudulent mismanagement of funds, and being mean to people. I didn't know those qualities were in demand down south.
I'd say we've achieved market saturation...
-
Dudes problem was not excessive theological conservatism. Also he had little difficulty attracting lots of folk in seattle willing to buy what he was selling. Enough so that he set up a sorta franchise system.
Dude's problem is not with his theology. And the problem is not entirely his. Driscoll built up a profitable "brand", and had a lot of people covering for him when problems did start to become overt. Google up "evangelical industrial complex".
He needs to just go do something else for a while, or forever.
-
Dude's problem is not with his theology. And the problem is not entirely his. Driscoll built up a profitable "brand", and had a lot of people covering for him when problems did start to become overt. Google up "evangelical industrial complex".
He needs to just go do something else for a while, or forever.
His theology is suspect, IMO. For the most part, no more so than any other non-denom megachurch cult of personality. But Driscoll also screws the theological pooch in his own Very Special Way.
Very much agree he needs to take up another career.
-
His theology is suspect, IMO. For the most part, no more so than any other non-denom megachurch cult of personality. But Driscoll also screws the theological pooch in his own Very Special Way.
Very much agree he needs to take up another career.
What, specifically, do you find objectionable in his theology?
-
What, specifically, do you find objectionable in his theology?
Non-Denom Megachurchian Cult of Personality
1. Claims of extra-Biblical inspiration. AKA, "vision casting leadership." The CoP is not fulfilling the role of pastor/shepherd, but is claiming extra-Biblical prophetic power/vision.
2. Insufficiency of the Bible. This is a logical destination from #1.
3. www.youtube.com/watch?v=7xxgRUyzgs0
4. Freakishly out of context readings of verses, many times twisting them into the opposite of their meaning. These can be so outlandish as to cause one to wonder, "Does no one present have a Bible and the ability to read it?"
5. No accountability when CoP goes off the rails.
6. I could go on in the ways megachurchian cults of personality are ate up like a soup sandwich theologically, but there is only so much time in the day.
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcrosebrough.typepad.com%2F.a%2F6a00e54eea61298833016768ecd63d970b-500wi&hash=a1cba4b2e57289eb4fa2e911db37c13113bb8bcb)
Driscoll-Particular
1. Craven, repackaged feminism in jeans and pseudo-tough guy talk. What a weasel in need of a beating.
2. Used the Song of Solomon to convince his wife to give him oral sex when she objected...and then subjected his worshipers parishioners attendees to a sermon on the topic. This would be abuse of his pastoral office at the very least.
3. Church governance at odds with Biblical model.
Just because slimeball SJW leftists don't like a guy does not necessarily mean he is a good guy. It just might be "pray for an asteroid" time.
-
Lol. Have you ever actually listened to any of the sermons you're referring to? 1-6 are non-applicable generalizations, and #2 under specific is patently false.
-
http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/evangelical-leaders-give-fallen-mars-hill-pastor-mark-driscoll-a-new-forum/
Mr. Driscoll is preaching again. I would not be surprised if he starts another church, probably in a more conservative area than Seattle and away from all the lawsuits and memories here. Texas or someplace else in the South would be a good fit for him.
We've already got a multi-location controversial megachurch with an "interesting" leader covering the state. Don't need another one...
-
Lol. Have you ever actually listened to any of the sermons you're referring to? 1-6 are non-applicable generalizations, and #2 under specific is patently false.
One through six apply. I found examples of driscoll exhibiting each. Driscoll megachurch cult of personality is megachurchy and culty.
I prefer to read the transcripts than to watch the fool on youtube. I am more able to concentrate on content than the inflamed sphincter of his personality and give him some benefit of doubt that way. I read his greatest hits and then a few not so infamous for some balance. Did not want to be on the same side as the liberal squishes.
The man has no business running a church. He is theelogically unsound, self aggrandizing, and temperamentally unsuited to leadership.
-
temperamentally unsuited to leadership.
Or, by modern standards, very suited to leadership.
-
I just spent several minutes reading some of the theological discussion in this thread, on the Trinity, etc. A good re-read.
I tend to think of the doctrine of predestination vs free will like the Trinity: we can sort of analogize it but can't really grok it properly. Sort of a Deut 29:29 thing.
Yup.
A theory I often indulge is that some Christians fare better with a free-will point of view, where they feel more pressure to conform their free will to God's will. And I think some Christians, under the same teaching, would be racked with guilt, and w/o any peace or faith in God's ability to save them from their own corrupt natures. Or, they might be too tempted to pat themselves on the back for having chosen God's salvation. The latter two types may fare better w/ a more predestinarian understanding. And it may be that God allows us to find the church or doctrine that most helps us stay in the faith. So goes the theory.
-
ro-oster's #3 above went to a commercial first. It was that online game commercial with Kate Upton riding a horse. At first I thought he was referring to busty women as a MegaChurch problem. =D :laugh:
......then the video played and ruined the idea.
-
It is really hard to lump all Churches together when they are independent. It is all who the pastor is and what tone they set. The only complaint I see and hear about is way too much emotional content, but that can apply just as much to denominational churches. I have visited some good ones though.
I really dislike rock bands at Church also, but each to his own. I gre up with more traditional organ music and older songs. I visited one Church where all the songs were written by some member and I just didn't like it. That and the pastor said they normally ask everyone to hug their neighbor (more incentive not to return).
-
2. Used the Song of Solomon to convince his wife to give him oral sex when she objected...and then subjected his worshipers parishioners attendees to a sermon on the topic. This would be abuse of his pastoral office at the very least.
How-to topics are more appropriate to evening activities. Do you have the link to the transcript, though? This one sounds useful.
-
How-to topics are more appropriate to evening activities. Do you have the link to the transcript, though? This one sounds useful.
Made the mistake and watched that one on youtube last year. Convinced me that it is best to read the transcripts. I am sure there is one out there. Can't get to youtube here, but Driscoll's Greatest Hits are easy to find on Youtube.
And like nudist colonies, the reality is more cringe-worthy than most folks' notions.
Drisoll's exegesis is crap and unless you are already a member of his cult of personality, you will be less impressed/convinced than those already drinking the kool aid. So not as useful as you might think.
-
Driscoll was famous for nastily insulting men in his audience to curry favor with their wives:
An example:
"Father God, I pray that our time would be pleasing to you, that it would be profitable to us, Lord God, as well. I pray for those men who are here that are cowards, they’re silent, passive, impish, worthless men, they’re making a mess of everything in their life and they’re such sweet little boys that no one ever confronts them on that. I pray for the women who enable them, who permit them to continue in falling, those who are mothers and sisters and girlfriends and wives. I pray, Lord God, for those men who are chauvinists, those who are mean, who are brash, who are rude, who are harsh, who, Lord God, think they are tough when in fact they are Satanic. God, I pray for those men that they would have the courage today to not fight with a woman, but to fight with you, to actually find their rightful place in creation, that they might receive a good rebuke so that they can become honorable rather than dishonorable sons. God, I pray for my tone, I pray for our men, and I pray for the women who are listening in. I pray, Lord God, that they would know this comes from a heart of passion, deep concern, and love. I pray, Lord God, that we would think biblically, critically, humbly, and repentantly, and that, Lord God, there would be dramatic life change by the power of the Holy Spirit in the name of Jesus, Amen."
-
Driscoll was famous for nastily insulting men in his audience to curry favor with their wives:
Sounds like a real nice guy...
-
Drisoll's exegesis is crap and unless you are already a member of his cult of personality, you will be less impressed/convinced than those already drinking the kool aid.
Well, I wouldn't be trying to convince myself to give me oral sex If I could bend that far I wouldn't have nearly as much time to post on here...or to go looking for women more likely to fall for the argument.
-
Well, I wouldn't be trying to convince myself to give me oral sex If I could bend that far I wouldn't have nearly as much time to post on here...or to go looking for women more likely to fall for the argument.
Things I learned today:
KD5NRH wants his male member in a man's mouth.
KD5NRH wants to take a male member in his own mouth.
KD5NRH would prefer a combination of the above scenarios to seeking female companionship.
-
KD5NRH would prefer a combination of the above scenarios to seeking female companionship.
Depends on how quickly and thoroughly she learns.
And you know full well you would if you could. Ever met an intact male dog or cat that doesn't do it at every opportunity?
-
Well, this thread has certainly turned.
-
Well, I wouldn't be trying to convince myself to give me oral sex If I could bend that far I wouldn't have nearly as much time to post on here...or to go looking for women more likely to fall for the argument.
So, not from Nantucket?
-
Guy at work, I have on good authority from several trustworthy women, can do that. When word first got out he was dubbed Bingo.
It also led to more than one philosophical lunch time debate (not including him) if doing so counted as gay, or at least bi, or if it only counted as masturbation. I don't think a general consensus was ever reached.
-
It also led to more than one philosophical lunch time debate (not including him) if doing so counted as gay, or at least bi, or if it only counted as masturbation. I don't think a general consensus was ever reached.
If you could do it, would you ever take the time to care?
-
2. Used the Song of Solomon to convince his wife to give him oral sex when she objected...and then subjected his worshipers parishioners attendees to a sermon on the topic. This would be abuse of his pastoral office at the very least.
What I recall, perhaps incorrectly, was some discussion of the other sort (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=buttseks), in one of his books. Out of sight, out of mind, and I really don't care to know. It's distasteful, for him to use that as an example.
Driscoll was famous for nastily insulting men in his audience to curry favor with their wives:
Not unique to Driscoll. Running men down is common in current Am. evangelicalism.
Dude's problem is not with his theology.
His theology is suspect, IMO.
We may be using the term in somewhat different ways.
Non-Denom Megachurchian Cult of Personality
1. Claims of extra-Biblical inspiration.
Driscoll had his own particular version of that. Claims of special, God given knowledge of the sexual sins of others.
-
Not unique to Driscoll. Running men down is common in current Am. evangelicalism.
I find Driscoll and everything he stands for distasteful. That said, it's common among American men to need some running down. Many of them are *expletive deleted*ing it up.
-
She should have tossed Luke 6:31 back at him
-
I find Driscoll and everything he stands for distasteful. That said, it's common among American men to need some running down. Many of them are *expletive deleted*ing it up.
I should have phrased that a bit differently. "Running men down and pandering to women is common in current Am. evangelicalism. " And I'm not just thinking about a scolding from the pulpit.
(This here, BTW, is probably the best I've heard on the subject: The Masculine Mandate (http://reformedforum.org/ctc87/).)