David H.

Well spoken, as is all of the above. God's blessing upon you, David

While I have said that I will not contribute any more to the debate because I rest my case and don't think there is any point in badgering the issue any further, I will respond to your statment and following question, Ben, as being outside the actual debate: In what way am I any more unteachabel than any of those, like yourself, who have voiced equally strident opinions here? Has any one of them changed his or her view to what I have been saying? Have you? Or am I unteachable only because I have not changed to your way of thinking? Excluding completely the way some have written to me, because I knew my direct approach would bring a strong reponse, I did not find your words to not-so"FailedChristian" to be at all loving, Ben. Be careful that you are not simply couching your words in love phrases, while saying things that are not really too kind. As for my current church state, you said you had read "every word I had written," which is why Firehill is rolling on the floor laughing. I already wrote you a clear and fairly extensive answer to your question. To give you the benefit of kindness, perhaps you had just not read that far through the forum, and thought you had read to the end. I was completely open and specific about my church experience without anyone asking. So, there is no mystery there. You can go back and check your own assumptions for accuracy regarding my church state by reading the two posts I made on that subject. (Without extending you that kindness, I'd have to think that maybe you had not changed to my point of view because you have given my writings so much careful attention as to skip over entire pages.) Let me make it easy for you. They are my last two posts on page 11: http://www.worthyboards.com/index.php?show...4437&st=100

No, I'm not bitter at all. Just because I argue strongly against the legalism, particularly yours and AK's, that says I have to go to church -- that it's a command -- does not mean I am bitter about church. Of course, when you wrote the quote above, you had not yet read my subsequent comments about my church experience. We were deeply hurt by one pastor, but we moved almost immediately thereafter for job reasons, and our next church had a wonderfully pastoral pastor, whose wife was a trained counselor who helped us get through that experience. We loved that little Christian and Missionary Alliance Church. Then another job move took me about thirty miles away through nasty traffic and required that I live where I work; so we left the little country church nextdoor and found one near our new home -- a Free Methodist church. It was good enough as things went, but we found the fellowship there a little shallow, even after fifteen years of attending there. Unlike the CMA church, we never felt like we connected in any deep way, except with just a few people. We were, nevertheless, very involved in the church's ministry -- singing in the choir, working as a custodian (my wife), teaching Sunday School (me), leading and small group, attending church on Wednesday's, too. So, we did not fail to connect for lack of participation. It's just very few people seemed to care about going any deeper than a nice smile and a "how are you?" And then they walked off before they even heard the answer. The little CMA church went much deeper. In fact, we continued to go back an visit it on ocassion for about ten years. The next move was overseas, so it required yet another church. I thought about what kind of church I would like to join. I am open to learning wherever I can. Every church has added a new dimension to my understanding of the Christian faith, and every church has had its shortcomings. My wife, however, did not want to join a church right away. She felt a little more hurt by the last church than I because of some sour things a few people had done. So, I decided maybe this time what we are to try is living as a Christian without a church. That's the next leg in our journey. It doesn't mean we'll live without fellowship. We may, in fact, find much deeper fellowship with just a few people than we had with anyone in our last church. Time will tell, and I'm comfortable with that. I don't accept that the New Testament has a single new command to give. Jesus said, "A new commandment give I unto you ... that you love one another as I have loved you." That closed up the writing of new commandments as far as I'm concerned by perfectly summing them all up. The Apostle Paul spent his whole life arguing against legalism and against the idea that obeying all the rules leads to righteousness. He says the law was there, not to help us become righteous, but to reveal our unrighteousness by giving us something to sin against. Paul did not go from that position, to creating even more laws as if just adding some more laws would help make us righteous where the first laws had failed. That's absurd. So, no, a New Testament exhortation is not a law. Any commands that do exist in the New Testament are simply reiterations of laws that already existed. The rest is exhortation, but not command. The law was completed (fulfilled) in Jesus, who gave only one new command, which wasn't new at all; it, too, was a reiteration; it simply summed up all the old commands. "Love one another as I have loved you." I'm happy with that and not at all bitter. It amazes me that when someone argues strongly against legalism as a form of righteousness or even a path to righteousness that people assume he's bitter. Jesus ripped the Fundamentalists of his day to shreds -- mercilessly, right in front of everyone -- because he loved to expose self-righteousness for the fraud that it is. He knew the religious leaders of his day couldn't be reformed and that the temple (the Church of that day) couldn't be reformed; but he wanted to reveal the unrighteous legalism of those who led that "church." I'm sure they thought he was extremely bitter and angry and mean; but we don't see him that way because we're his followers. Yet he sure got under their skins. Some of his own followers, however, have become equally legalistic about not doing such things as drinking, dancing, listening to the wrong music, smoking. It becomes for them something more than just a choice to focus on what is good. Doing any of those things becomes a sin in itself. And doing the right things like tithing and going to church and reading the bible become more than a path. They become righteous living, and those who don't do them are "backsliders." So, they write to not-so'"FailedChristian" as if he is backsliding. These people whose self-righteousness exists in their own holy lifestyles, hate to have their righteous rags stripped away. Then they look pathetically human and weak. If they've clothed themselves in legalism as an expression of righteousness, then they hate to have their legalism stripped away. Their anger when their righteousness is stripped away reveals their naked and empty hearts. Making church a new command and judging others as backsliding if their attendance is slipping is pure legalism. I have zero tolerance for legalism. You cannot tell anything about a person's heart by whether or not he is attending church. There have been monks who have holed up as hermits for decades and who have given us writings that clearly come from beautiful hearts. They holed up because they felt they would learn something from solitude that they could not learn over the din of arguments like these. Each has its place. There is a time and place for solitude -- even long periods, though they are risky -- and a time an place for sharp arguments -- like those Jesus brought against the Fundamentalists of his day, though this is risky, too. So, I try to avoid name-calling and ad-hominum arguments; but I cut into legalism with a sharp sword wherever I see it because that is what my master did. I attack the idea not the person. You don't see me writing that any particular person here is mean, even though I've felt a little meanness coming my way. My attack against legalism sometimes includes lampooning stupid ideas to show just how stupid they are, such as when one person wrote to not-so-"FailedChristian" very seriously on another thread of this forum that "staying free and thinking are totally and completely UNscriptural." It's hard for me to believe someone would even write somthing that dumb. (And, as soon as I call it "stupid," I sound like I'm calling its writer stupid; but it is really only the idea that I am saying is stupid. The writer might be brilliant; but he sure tripped over his own pen on that one. Once in awhile, something is written that is so blatantly dumb, that I just take out my sword and wack off its head.) As for this forum, I think I've said all I can to support my ideas that church is not a command and that there are other legitimate ways to fellowship. If I haven't made you a believer in that, I rest my case and yield you the last word so that you have an opportunity to say something nice and close the debate on a kind word that we can all feel good about (unless, of course, others wish to carry on with the debate, in which case I'll just read and watch). --David

I haven't tried to refute it. Without going back to the Greek and reflecting on the meaning of those words, I gave you the benefit of the doubt and said that they are words that do imply some kind of authority. But all you have proven is that bishops and elders are authorities. You haven't proven that the Bible commands all Christians to be under a bishop or an elder. Who was Paul under? What governing board did he submit to? You weren't asked to prove what "bishop" meant. You were asked to prove that we all have to have a bishop -- that we all have to be in an organized fellowship in order to have fellowship and in order to obey the Bible. I'm sure the Pharisees felt the same way about Jesus. But I'm not the one calling you rude and mean and resorting to ad-hominum attacks against your person when I can't prove my point. In fact, I admitted I cannot prove we are not commanded to enter an organized fellowship, but you want to strangle me an others with laws that I don't believe exist. So, before I would let you put that yoke around my neck, it was your burden to prove such a command does exist. Defining "bishop" and "elder" for me does not prove that we all have to go to church to be good Christians, which is the point of this whole particular thread. It doesn't prove that I have to have a bishop just because such a thing exists. I have been a regular church-goer all my life, and I have never once quit a church because I didn't like it and have never sued a pastor (even when the pastor did something really, really terrible); yet there have always been things I did not like about my church's doctrine and about its people. I went for what I did like and for the peole I did like and to be tested by the ones I didn't like (while speaking my mind but always without insult), and when I quit, it was only because I physically moved to another location. Each time I've moved, I've chosen to broaden myself by attending a different kind of church. I consider myself a BaptiLutherMethbyterian. My tenure in any one church has ranged from ten to twenty years. I moved overseas recently and so I don't yet have a church. Nor am I making any effort this time to find one. This time, I'm seeing what it's like to be a Christian without a church and am looking for other expressions of fellowship, such as finding someone to have coffee and prayer with on Sunday mornings. That is the path I feel I must walk in order to learn more about what it is to be a Christian. If God brings a church into my life, fine. I'm perfectlly open to it. I'm also perfectly at peace with living as a Christian outside of a formal fellowship for awhile. And no one is going to put a legal yoke around my neck by defining what "bishop" means and claiming that means I have to have one.

Someone in another forum asked me how I define holiness. They were very interested there in making themselves pure by destroying any music that they felt was tainted. I do not define holiness as Fundamentalists do. For the Jewish Fundamentalist, as for all Fundamentalists, holiness was defined by works. It was a combination of not doing the bad and doing what was commanded. Holiness was living perfectly by the rules. Jesus came along and said, "It's not what goes into a man," such as the pork that enters his mouth or the music that enters his ears, "that makes him evil; it's what comes out of his heart." Holiness cannot be had through screening out all the bad and doing what is commanded. Holiness is a heart condition. It develops through humility, grace, mercy, love. We are never perfectly holy, and not doing the wrong things doesn't make us one bit more holy. We can obey all the rules perfectly and still have miserable hearts. The Fundamentalists have long tried to achieve holiness through outer actions. The Wesleyan tradition that has been a big part of my life was the center of the "holiness movement." To be holy they refrained from drink, they didn't do a lot of things they felt were bad, etc. They did do the things that were good, like read their Bible and pray. But that doesn't give a person a clean heart, a holy heart, a heart that is "set-apart" for God. It's the fruit of the spirit coming out of the heart that make a person holy. And the fruit of the spirit, is not works or actions, it's conditions -- love, joy peace, patience, kindness. If those conditions exist in the heart, you will, of course, see them manifest in outer works because a heart full of all that cannot stop itself from doing good things. That is why Jesus said, "It is what comes out of a man that makes him holy." That is how you see what is in the heart. "By their fruit you shall know them." But it is also possible to do all the right things, to do good things, from a legalistic heart -- to do them because we are commanded to -- and that has nothing to do with holiness. The Pharisees did that, and they did it very well; so that is more along the lines of self-righteousness. Fundamentalists still don't get that -- even today. One of the things, of course, that Wesleyans did to be holy was go to church regularly. Holiness is a heart condition, and the condition of the Fundamentalist heart in all religions is one of self-righteousness, of believing they go to the right church and go regularly, read the right Bible, refrain from the wrong drink ... that they are, therefore, the true people of God, and those who don't go to church or to the right one, don't read their Bible daily, and drink socially, well, they're all precariously living on the road to hell. The Pharisees believed that way. Islamic Fundamentalists believe that way. And Christian Fundamentalists believe that way. Fundamentalism is a life primarily governed by law ... in all religions.

This isn't about you. So, you don't need to take it personally. It's about your statement that we all need to live under an authority and that all fellowship has to have some kind of authoratarian hierarchy. You didn't prove your point scripturally, nor even come close. The Bible simply does not even command us to have a pastor. You're argument for our need to be under a human authority is that pastors are given authority. But, to spell it out for you, 1) There is no scripture commanding me to be in fellowship. Paul was not writing a new law. He was exorting -- strongly encouraging -- his followers to stay in fellowship, inspite of the problems with fellowship -- because it is good for them. No new commandment. The law ended with Moses. 2) Even if you could prove a command to be in fellowship, there is no command that my fellowship follow a certain model and no command that it must include a pastor. As a result, whether or not a pastor is defined as having authority, by no means implies a need for me to be under a pastor. So, you want to doggedly argue for the need for church to be exactly as it is with sermons and all. There's nothing stopping you from having that kind of church. It, in fact, seems to be the only kind of church there is. So, you have plenty of options. But you seem mortally annoyed that someone even suggests there might be completely different ways to fellowship that are just fine with God. That, to me, is legalism of the kind that goes "it has to be my way or the highway." I have no idea why you would want to argue that we must all be under the authority of a pastor, but that is clearly what you are arguing all the same. You can say I say, "Nah, nah, nah, you haven't proven your point." But I'm not the one throwing in the "nah, nah, nahs;" those came from you. I'm just simply stating, "Show me the scripture that commands all of us to go find a pastor to be an authority over us." If you can't, then I won't accept your argument. You can't because it doesn't exist; so, when you cannot prove your point, you resort to "nah, nah, nahs" and try to put them in my mouth. Having failed to come up with a scripture that proves we must all be under a pastoral authority figure, you then demand I prove my point -- I presume with a scripture that says we don't have to all find an authority to be under. I can't prove my point because you cannot prove a negative. While scripture doesn't command that we be under some church authority, scripture also doesn't go about describing all the things we don't have to worry about. It's there to tell us what we should be concerned about, not to lay out all the things that are O.K. My philosopy is this, if the scripture does not command me to do something, then I don't have to do it. It's as simple as that. I'll do it if I find it good for, and I won't if I don't. That includes attendance in an institutional church. The burden of proof is entirely on you to prove that scripture does command me to find an authority to fellowship under. And you haven't done that. You've merely shown that pastors are authority figures. O.K. So what? Then, unable to prove your ultimate conclusion, you strain out a gnat in your arguing, but swallow a camel. You tell us that you are about to sue your pastor. Now, I've never come anywhere close to doing that, and we've had about the worst pastoral experience there is. Quite possibly the same kind you've had. I'm not going to go into the details. The fact is, you quote the New Testament as if it's exortations were new commandments, but then you say you're going to ignore Paul's exortation that we do not sue our fellow church members. You're going to do worse than that, and sue the your church's leader. So, you show you're perfectly willing to ignore Paul's exortations when you want to. Paul's concern was that the church is damaged and Christ is damaged when the world sees church members suing each other. It causes the world to scoff at the inability of Christians to practise what they preach about love. Nothing hits the headlines like a pastor being sued by one of his parishioners. So, if Paul's exortations are meant as commands, why do you choose to break that one in the worst way possible? Since that is your doctrine, then your pastor's authority must be questioned in your particular case by the elders. And it is the majority will of all the elders that governs, never the will of any individual elder. They must govern as a body; otherwise, that individual elder would simply be an individual with even higher authority than the pastor. As a form of checks and balances, the elders only have authority as a group. So, if your elders have not defrocked the pastor as a group, then he is still your authority under the system you have submitted to, even if you are an elder who thinks the pastor should be defrocked. In that case, you are an elder who lost his argument, and the majority governs. If you do not submit to the will of the majority, then you are raising yourself as the highest authority, one who is above the decision of the elders. That would make you the hypocrite ... IF you took that course. What was the label? I don't recall calling you anything. If you took my comments about antiauthoratarianism as somehow implying you are "authoratrian" and took that as a label upon yourself, then I assure you that you are the one who misapplied the "label" because I was not thinking about you as a person when I wrote it, I was thinking about the issue of authority you raised and merely making clear that I am not anitiauthoratarian myself. I believe humanity benefits from having authorities; but I also don't believe I am commanded to go find one to put myself under. I have lots of secular authority that I am under. I cannot prove to you that scripture does not command me to be under a religious authority. The only way I could do that would be to quote the entirety of the Bible and say, "See, it wasn't there." I assume you have a Bible, so I asked you to show me where it is. The burden of proof is on you. The burden of proof has to lie in that direction because there is no way to prove something isn't there in any situation. That is the kind of negative that cannot be proven. All you can prove is what is there. Therefore, logic always dictates (as does law) that the burden of proof is on the one who is trying to claim a particular law is there. He has to cite the law. Therefore, if you cannot cite the command that dictates I put myself under a religious authority; then I will remain on my position that such a law does not exist. It was Jesus who walked out on reforming the temple. His ministry to the church of his day, ended when he walked out of the temple and placed the burden of reconciliation on the temple authorities: "You will not see me again until you can say, 'Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.'" It was Jesus who also said, "You cannot put new wine into old wineskins" because the old wineskins would simply explode. That was a reference to the temple authorities. Jesus knew they were incapable of holding new wine. They were incapable of reformation. He would nevertheless try in order that that point might be proven before God and man in history. Jesus failed entirely at reforming the church of his day. The temple was the church authority. The High Priest was the pope of his time in that culture. But Jesus knew he would fail to reform Judaism. He was under no delusion that reform of an institution was possible. That's why he said to Peter, "Upon this rock I will build my church." He knew the new wine had to go into new people -- people who were capable of recognizing who he was. He knew the old guard would never be able to hold such new wine. They would, in fact, explode in rage over the very idea. Which they did! It was to people like Peter -- who were not so instilled in their old religion and invested in their own authority and their own positions -- that the new wine could come into the world. If Jesus' purpose was to reform Judaism, he failed; but his words show that he knew the old wineskins would never hold what he had to offer. You see, the Pharisees were Fundamentalist Jews. And Fundamentalists always know they are right; so they can never hold a new idea. Jesus was under no delusion about his ability to reform the Pharisees. That's why he attacked the Fundamentalists of his day in such a blatantly judgmental manner. Their self-righteous ideas that they understood the truth and lived in holiness because they obeyed the letter of the law sickened him. So, he attacked it. He didn't reform it. Few people ever reform under attack; they harden their positions for battle. Jesus knew that, but he knew they weren't going to reform anyway; so, he wanted others to see how wrong they were. He wanted others to see the evil that would come out of the supposedly pure Fundamentalist heart when it was under attack. And they revealed themselves quite plainly. They killed him. As for closing the doors of reconciliation and ending the possibility of reform, Jesus cursed their temple by saying it would not stand ... and it didn't. It and much of what it stood for crumbled.

I'm not feelin' the love, man. Now it's time for this lovin' blueberry to go to bed.

I wasn't being sarcastic to EVERYONE. Just gentle ben. Oh, come on. It's blueberry time. Don't you feel it? There's love in the air everywhere And Anne thought you could burn the blueberries! They're just so dang full of love, man, you can't burn 'em.

I read your topics ... and your web site. They just didn't make your case for you. I have seen it many times: Pastors who are overly concerned about authority almost always abuse their authority. People who are big on authority usually love the way it makes them feel. I have not problem with authority. I'm not antiauthoritarian, and I don't like antiauthoritarianism; but I've noticed that whenever pastors or others start stressing their God-given authority, it's usually they who are arrogant. Those are the ones who love their authority. Anyway, I read the topics and your web site, and I find nothing scriptural about your argument that fellowship must happen under an authoritarian model. On your own web site, you ask what would happen if the reformers had tried to improve the church, rather than split with it. I think we can see from this exchange just how far that would have gotten! You cannot put new wine in old wineskins. I've made my best arguments for alternative forms of fellowship, but you're going to stay with the standard church model. It's not a model open to reform, just tweeking. Reformation is for heretics. In which case, long live the heretics! Seems to me that Jesus split with the church of his day, too. He abandoned the temple and cast his judgment against it because he thought they were "doing church" all wrong. That was the whole problem; they were "doing" church. He was killed, of course, for being a heretic because he challenged their way of "doing church," and he challenged their authority. That's what you become labeled when you tamper with the church model of your day. Don't try to change institutions. They're not interested in being changed.

Hey, I said I was going to go get you some rocks. If you want gravel for a shotgun approach, instead of boulders for a single smashing hit, I'll get you gravel. Let's rock! The nice thing about throwing stones is we won't even have to think. 'Cause I know you're not big on that, Ben. So, we'll keep it simple (black and white): You're a fascist pig; not-so-"FailedChristian" is a man of "no integrity;" and I'm a blowhard. There. That was your bag of gravel, and I helped you throw it. Rock on, man! Keep showin' the love. Ooops. I forgot rock is the one thing a lot of Christians used to burn. Sorry. Let's waltz on. Ooops, I forgot. Dance is one one of those things pure Christians had the good sense to throw out a long time ago, too. Guess all we can do is shake on it ... so long as we don't shake our booty. "They'll know we are Christians by what we don't, by what we don't do. Yes, they'll knooow we are Christians by what we don't do." They'll know we are Christians by our LOVE??? Oh, common, who's gonna believe that? Get me a rock, and find me a church drop-out. I'll show ya what love is!

Yeah, I don't remember the command to have authority over us either, other than the authority of Jesus Christ and the need to submit to secular authorities in secular matters. No, they don't. There is nothing in the scriptures that are referred to in those posts that tells us we're to have an authority over us. They tell us how to pick people qualified for leadership. They don't tell us that we have to have leaders. Who leads the leader? Only Christ. Why should that be true for him and not for me? There is simply no command to participate in anything like the churches we have today. We are free to do it; but it's not commanded; and there may be better alternatives for some. Gee, I'm not sure, but I think maybe he preaches a thing called a sermon, which had better be good; but where does it command that fellowship must have pastors. Nothin' wrong with pastors; but I don't remember the command to have one. Nothing wrong with sermons, but I don't remember the command not to foresake meeting for sermons either. I don't even recall Paul suggesting that fellowship should typically have sermons. Everything has its place, but none of its mandatory for any of us. The fact that preachers have there place is by no means a command that we must always give them a place in our fellowship. The fact that they're supposed to do their job well (so they don't bore the rest of us out of gords) is by no means a command that we must have them in every fellowship. I would tell a CEO that he better do his job well at the annual banquet; but that doesn't mean we have to have a CEO speek at every banquet. Where's the logic? Now you're kidding, right? Maybe some people don't want to go because they've found many fellowships to be so superficial or so judgmental or so controling or even cultish they couldn't stand to be there. Maybe others have found church services to be so uninspiring and dull that they can hardly take another one. Maybe that's exactly why we need to broaden our minds about what constitutes this thing called "fellowship" that we are exorted (not commanded) not to foresake. I'm feeling what Jesus felt about not even trying to put new wine in old wineskins. If you're just that determined to think fellowship has to happen with a sermon and the whole liturgy that raps around it and the whole organizational structure, then I think I've said about all I can to point out the value of alternatives, and had best not push my arguments any further. It's amazing to me, though, how absolutely entrenched this single model is.

That's the way, Ben. Smack the guy that's down over the head. Kick some dust in his eyes. You saw right through him, you clever guy. You now "KNOW" exactly why he had such trouble with his prevous pastor. You know all the details. Of course, we all know there are usually two sides to every battle and usually some fault on both sides; but what of it? I take integrity pretty seriously, yet I couldn't begin to tell what church or what pastor was being referred to in his letter; so there isn't even a shred of integrity lacking in sharing the letter. The only one who would ever be able to recognize whom the letter was to would be its original recipient, and, since he already got the letter, I don't think it's going to be any news to him, except that he might learn a little more about how not-so-"FailedChristian" felt about the whole experience. So long as he doesn't open his mouth and say, "Hey, that's me you're talking about," the rest of us will never know, and he'll have no reason to feel he's been humiliated. Good job, man. Let me run and get some stones for you.

Why are Fundamentalist Christians so fearful? This will corrupt me. That will corrupt me. Better burn it to get it off the face of the earth. I agree with George's Blueberry Girl. It's a beautiful song. I've never agreed with it from a theological standpoint; but that's a pathetic way to listen to a song anyway. "Hey, this song isn't a correct doctrinal statement." Songs have always been much more about feelings than doctrine. But the song presents an interesting philosophical question that we should be able to enjoy, not feel we have to burn it to be spiritually safe. I guess I've never felt that spiritually weak to worry about such things. That's beautifully said. What's so hard to get about it? What would you put into this life if this life was all you had? We've all heard of people who find they've got a year left to live and that final year becomes the only year in which they felt they ever did live because suddenly they took every minute, every conversation, every kiss, every hug, every look, as if it was the last one they might ever know. Suddenly they drank life to the fullest. Imagine we had nothing to escape to and had to make it all count right now. The song is meant to ponder, not to critically analyze the theological unreality of it all. It's not meant to be a statement about reality. Sheesh, some Christians are more in love with judgment than anything. They long for judgment day when the others will get theirs. If God judged based on righteous judgment, we'd all be toast. What we have to be thankful for is that he balances righteous judgment with loving mercy. Fair, but finding mercy where it can be found, creating a path by which mercy can be offered over judgment. Sad, sad, sad, again, that anyone should despise their life so much. I've had a very hard life, too. A year ago everything crumbled in bankruptcy. Some days I've felt like the sentence above. But then I think there is a lot of beauty in this life, too, and it's really pathetic if all we can think about is the next one. We miss the simple glory of this one, even while we're living it. I'm glad for heaven; but for some it becomes escapism. I think that underappreciates the simple glory that God has created in this world and in our lives. And the antidote to escapism: I thank God for that perspective and pity people who can only see a song for its theological errors. How poetically dead in the head is that. Sure there are a lot of garbage songs out there that have nothing redeemable about them at all. I just don't listen to them; but getting rid of them is no big issue to me. But, for some people, I guess, along with throwing out the garbage, comes throwing out "Imagine" because of its theological errors. Are you really that weak that you're going to stumble by listening to someone's view that's different than yours or by asking a simple "what if"? I praise God for people who can listen to ideas outside of their own and ponder them thoughtfully and engage with them humbly and not feel threatened and not feel the need to trash someone who believes in them. They can find the kernel of good that's in a song or a piece of art and let the chaff blow away. They don't feel threatened if the bit of truth came through a buddhist perspective because they know all truth is God's truth and that recognizing the truth doesn't mean you're going to be become a buddhist. Instead of lives based in spiritual fear, they live lives based on faith. They're free to engage with people outside their fold -- I mean engage in real relationships, not beat them up for believing the wrong thing. If a song's got nothing redeemable -- no kernel of good -- you just toss it. No big deal. I wouldn't even think of writing a post on a forum about whether or not I should do that and how. But some people want everything that goes into their ears to be pure and perfect. I guess they don't trust their own ability to discern the good from the bad, and they fear the bad. I don't want to live such a fear-based life. It's not what goes into a man that makes him impure; it's what comes out of his own heart.

I find it hard to believe that CellShade's, Islam-bashing, Arab-bashing ways are going to lead any Arab to have any interest in Jesus Christ as the Son of God. Every word exudes such love and respect. I don't know about the rest of you, but when someone tells me that Christians are a bunch of heartless, Satan-loving idiots, it doesn't really incline me to respect their opinion.

Ahh, but Ben said we should be stupid and bound. Given that being free and thinking are both completely and totally UNscriptural, according to Ben. Sad, sad, sad.

Likewise, people who join organized churches as members, sometimes tend toward conformity. They often fall in lockstep to the same patterns of liturgy. As a result, they also "become a little wierd" with their own Christian subculture. And what is sad in their case is that they don't realize they've "become a little wierd" because they have surrounded themselves with people who all share the same wierdness. They think that's how it's supposed to look -- just like the spelling of the word "wierd." It becomes normal for them like a family that doesn't realize how "wierd" and disfunctional their family looks to others. Then it becomes the model or standard for all fellowship. So, their error in thinking there is one way to "have church" compounds more and more. It replicates in conformity around the world until that's the way all fellowship is presumed to be done. Then they view anyone who steps outside the standard as backsliding, and they become judgmental about others living outside the standard model. As they come to believe their way of fellowship is the biblical "model," they also become closed to creating completely different models that might reach out to people who will never enter an organization. And, so, they become "ineffective" with those people. All because they insist there is one way -- the right way -- their way -- of doing things. And "it is sad." Very, very sad. We have an opportunity, not a "responsibility," to meet with people of faith in order for spiritual growth to happen in our lives. We are encouraged to do it because our spiritual growth tends to become very ingrown, diseased and "wierd" if it happens in a vacuum. On the other hand, it tends to become very compressed and conformed if it happens in a mold, and that is equally "wierd" -- only it doesn't look weird to those inside the mold. It looks normal. Where is the freedom?

Paul also never lifted up any of the first churches as a model for others to follow. And I seriously doubt they all followed any model. Other than that they tended to evolve around the existing synagogue model because people follow what they're used to. I'd like to know where you see a liturgy written in scripture of an opening address, followed by an opening song, followed by an opening prayer, followed by announcements, followed by a prayer and/or hymn of invocation, followed by an offering, followed by a scripture reading, followed by a sermon, followed by a closing song and perhaps a closing prayer. Yet, almost every church in the world follows that liturgy with minor variations in the kind of music used and the level of formality. I'd like to see where in scripture Paul commanded that all fellowship (which he asked us not to foresake) must include sermons or where it even says that all early churches had twenty-minute sermons as a model for us to follow! I'd like to see where Paul commanded that gatherings of believers always take up an offering and that they always have paid pastors. They CAN do those things. Scriptures don't forbid it. There is, after all, freedom to organize. But they certainly don't have to. Yet, nearly all of them do, and those who do, all follow the same pattern. Lemmings. Then to make matters worse -- and I've witnessed it many times -- the members judge others who choose not to participate in their corporate model as being unspiritual, "out of fellowship." Lemmings. And don't mistakenly say that I'm juding them for being in that kind of fellowship. I'm not. I'm judging them for insisting that it is the only way and others who do not follow their way are backsliding. If they want to do everything the same way everyone else does, that's fine. There are a lot of good things such organization can accomplish. (You can't, for example, enjoy using your singing talents in a choir if you don't have enough organization to form a choir. And it's fair and reasonable for the choir director to expect regular attendance if you're going to participate so that you don't sing sloppy; because you have a choice of coming to that church and not participating in the choir if you don't want to follow the choirmeister's rules. But if they were to ask you to leave the church, that would be stupid.) The efficiency of organization explains why a single model has risen to the top as the standard. That particular model happens to be very efficient at covering all the bases. It's also very Catholic in its origins. Nevertheless, no organizational structure is scripturally commanded. It is not scripturally modeled either, as you claim it is; and there may be other ways that are better for other people. So, if not-so-"FailedChristian" never casts his shadow across the threshhold of a "church" again, he's just as spiritual as anyone else. This is not a minor quibbling. The vast majority of Christians think you have to "go to church" -- as if it's something you go to -- namely the kind of organization I described in my earlier post that has professional leaders, sermons and liturgy and organizational structure. If you don't, they start talking to you like you're "backsliding." Is participation in that kind of structure "forwardstepping," instead of "backsliding," or is it just "lockstepping"? What I'm trying to do is break open the box that fellowship has been stuffed into. Next, you'll say that Paul mandated a particular organizational system. Not exactly. He gave guidelines for chosing leaders because human nature is to organize. Human nature is to move toward civilization. Some house churches were already institutionalizing on their own; i.e., forming organizational structures. Paul laid out some guidelines for choosing the leaders; but he never said people should institutionalize the church. He certainly didn't command it. He just said, if you're going to do it, here's how to do it well. And some division of labor would be helpful so people can focus on serving in the area where they are gifted. Even that's pretty vague, and it's not a command. And there's no prescribed liturgy, even though every church today follows a nearly identical liturgy to all the others -- including all those that think of themselves as non-denominational and non-liturgical.

It doesn't HAVE to happen with any of those things. It CAN happen with them. My comments are not about whether or not fellowship happens in a building or outdoors, though outdoors is good. It's about whether it has to happen in an instutional body, whether it HAS to involve sitting and listening to a sermon, whether it HAS to involve singing hymns, etc. Every "church" everywhere follows the same essential model with just variations of flavor. They have governing bodies. They have sermons. They have people sitting in mass. They have business meetings behind the scenes. They collect offerings to support their organizational structure. They have employees. They have doctrinal statements and governing documents. Almost every single "church" in the world follows that corporate model like a bunch of lemmings. And Paul never commanded either fellowship or that particular model of fellowship. And yet people will judge your spirituality by whether or not your a member of one of those organizations.

Let's parse that: a) "stay[ing] free" is completely and totally UNscriptural b) "think[ing]" is completely and totally UNscriptural. Not just "a little bit unscriptural," but "competely and totally unscriptural." And someone gives that a thumbs-up??? So, God would prefer us to be in bondage and stupid.

If you're only saying that being in fellowship with other believers is good for all of us, then that's true. We all need that, and that's what's happening on this forum. If you're saying fellowship is required, that's false. Paul was not adding to the Law. That's the last thing he would do, and many Christians are very legalistic about fellowship. If you're saying "going to" church, as in attending one of those institutional bodies each week, is for all of us, that's also false. There may be less organized, less structured forms of fellowship, like meeting over coffee with a friend, that are every bit as good or even better for us than the Sunday School/morning service/listen-to-the-sermon models. "Going to church" tends to represent an extremely narrow idea of what fellowship is. It's the same model everywhere with minor variances for flavor -- a little less liturgy, a little different music; but it's still all sitting and listening to the preacher preach. Paul did not say, "Do not foresake listening to sermons on Sundays."

"Stay free and think" is unscriptural? Oh, my... That's got to go on my list of the ten saddest things I've ever read.

I do, but I'll keep it short this time. Maybe not-so-"FailedChristian" does have some personality areas to work on (and maybe not); but is it so inconceivable that staying in this church just might not have ever been a good thing? Some churches are better if they do die because they're not going to be improved because they're self-righteous to the point where they cannot even see their need for improvement. They're going to keep hurting people. I've seen some churches die where I'm glad they're gone. The massive pain they were inflicting on their surrounding community through their cult-like behavior is gone now, and the community has somewhat healed. But it will never heal completely. There are people who were part of those churches that are still hurting over the awful things that happened to them. When a church goes bad, it can be real bad; and it's not not-so-"FailedChristian's" burden to save it from itself. They asked nsFC to leave, and nsFC is better off to be free. I hate to see people slapped around just because they left a lousy church. Maybe Jesus should have staid in the temple and tried to reform the Pharisees, instead of storming out because they were so far beyond hope of improvement.

I'm convinced that non-sequitors are a way of life here. Ok, again, here we go: 1) I serve the Truth...and the One who holds that Truth, God. 2) The holy Spirit is a Counsellor, A Comforter and an Advisor...not a reigious extremist who wants "sacrifices" that include the sheddding of blood or thought. 3) I'm not the one judging...those who believe that certain CD's are "evil" have done that. 4) When a person advocates an action committed by the villains of history (destroying) in order to follow some hyper-religious, legalistic, extreme view, then I call it out into the Light of Reason, The Light of God. 5) The music on the CD's do not BELONG to them, the music belongs to the artist, or have you not been following trhe latest issues about downloaded music? You only buy the rights to the music temporarily. The artist retains all other rights. The Cd company retains all rights to the physical CD. You are licensing the product when you purchase the CD. Read about it. Look it up. If you serve truth, why don't you actually respond to the article instead of using rhetoric? That last comment is a bizarre tactic. FC was exactly, logically, point-by-point addressing the "article." So why cast aspersions on him (if FC is a him) by implying he's not interested in the truth because he's deferring to rhetorical tactics? Seems the last comment by AK is the rhetorical tactic -- sort of a bait-and-switch. Ignore the fact that FC just answered point-by-point the illegitimate questions regarding whom he serves by asking him why he didn't. I think the idea of burning CDs tends to raise the eyebrows and maybe the ire of any intellectual person. As FC points out, burning things is usually the tactic of the evil side. And whenever the institutional Church has burned things, it's usually turned into a hell of its own making. It makes one think of burning heretics. Of course, it's not the same thing, but it borders on it. Church members are only ganging up to burn property (their own property), not people, BUT they're burning it because of its ideas, which is exactly what heretics were burned for. The smell of plastic smoke curling through the air is just a little too much of a reminder of the smell of singeing hair on the feet of heretics with bad ideas. There is just a flicker of a hint of witch burners and flaming heretics, and burning of libraries to set one ill at ease -- to make one ask, how far will this go? Haven't we seen this before? It feels like a story we vaguely recall had a bad ending. Also, it's been my observation that churches that call for bonfire parties are usually legalistic. They start acting like they're afraid of objects. Pretty soon they're breaking up Wizard of Oz plates because the wizard was magic, like a witch. (Never mind that he was a fake wizard, and the story has charmed all ages for years.) And then you start to wonder, if they're itchin' for witchin'. What would they do if they found a real witch? And then the media gets wind of your smoke, and the whole thing gets embroiled. The entire institutional Church starts smelling like a knee-jerk bunch of time-travellers from the Dark Ages on a rampage. The burning doesn't wind up becoming a good witness at all. No one looks on and says, "My, how faithful they are." They wince and say, "What a bunch of morons. Stay away from them!" If you think that looking like the Grand Inquisitor is a good witness, hmm. If you think looking like the Vandals, who burned libraries is a good witness... Well, they made a rather bad name of themselves. The Church burned some libraries, too, and it's been a bad witness that has stuck for centuries. I remember a few years ago a group of churches down in Texas were making a big deal out of their book and music burning in public. What an embarrassment. So, if you don't want those CDs influencing you, don't make a production out of it. Just toss them and forget about them, like FC says. The only person you're witnessing to is your fellow Church members by impressing them with a pyrotechnic show of holiness. When early Christians did it for the first time in the book of acts, they had no idea what they were setting in motion and how it would become distorted. They also didn't have hundreds of years of history behind their act that add a great deal of contextual overtones to the burning of any perceived or real evil. Remember, they also stoned witches in the Bible. And when I see Christians relishing old traditions of the book-burning kind, I wonder if they'd secretly like to restore a few more old traditions of purging evil. I think the devil's lips twitch in a smile every time a Christian strikes a match in the name of purity.

That's like saying that a battered wife doesn't HAVE to let anyone hurt her. Your lack of compassion is disgraceful. What a defendeer of the church you are! Hypocrite! The following is such a fine statement that I have to repeat it (since it wasn't mine, but the Raven woman's), and I think it makes a good response to not-so-"FailedChristian", too: I'd just qualify that I wouldn't consider the person who is hurt and acting out that hurt exactly a lie or a puppet in any pejorative way, but I think the point is that we are the only ones who can decide to validate the true person and not let the angry person become the new us. There is something about the hurt that can make us a more beautiful person ... like the burls on an old walnut tree (or olive or whatever) where it's bark was once rubbed off and its healed over. It's the most beautiful and valuable wood on the planet. So, we have to find some way to create beauty where there is now pain. Anger is the first response and perfectly reasonable. We shouldn't feel burdened with the "duty" to become better and not bitter; but there is a path that can lead to the better outcome, and only the one who is hurt can walk it. I am very thankful for those who are honest about how their church fellowship has hurt them and who are smart enough to get out. Like not-so-"FailedChristian" says, you cannot blame the wife who is abused for staying in her abuse for awhile because she hopes to be able to make things work. But, sooner or later you realize that the evil you are up against is not going to change and not going to work out. That's why Jesus tells us moses was allowed by God to create a path for divorce (because God knew your hearts were evil). He didn't mean it was evil to get a divorce. He meant that he knew human hearts were evil and that without divorce some people would find themselves permantly trapped in an evil situation that they cannot change, and God does not want that either. So, because he recognized evil in the human heart, he created a path for people to be able to get out of those relationships. The same is true for needing to get out of fellowship. Sometimes we get pretty beaten up before we decide to take the path out because most of us don't want to be easy quiters. But, at some point, we realize it's not going to get better, and we take the exit.