Which direction is Christianity going? (1 Viewer)

[Psychopav]

One point: we are still very much in a post-conciliar period that ushered in many many changes to the liturgy and the way the Church engages with the times. It takes time for these things to work themselves out, and Vatican II in particular brought about a sea change in the way the laity is to engage with the faith. From catechesis to the role of the family to the liturgies themselves, the bolded is certain to change in the next 50 years as much as it has changed in the last 50, and I hope for the better.

This is our hope, that the gates of hell will not prevail against the progress of the Church.

What do you mean by "the faith"? I think you're making my point, but I want to be sure.

Warning: this is not a theologically precise answer.

By "the faith", I mean the a personal relationship with God in the person of Christ Jesus, and by engaging with it I mean the active pursuit of that reconciliation with God and not just mindless wrote practice.

Thanks. What does the Catholic church think its place is in the individual relationship one has with God in this situation that changes in the liturgy would have an impact?

That is poorly worded so if I need to rephrase I will.

I'm not sure I follow your question.

Sorry. I admitted it poorly worded
Let me try again. Your comment above seemed to be saying that the Church was in a bit of transformation and that would impact how the faith was practiced. Hope this is correct.

Continuing on. If the relationship between God and a follower is personal, how does the Church (or yourself) think those changes play a role in those personal relationships?

The practice of the Church is in a transformation, yes.

It's a good question, and I plan to answer it somewhat obliquely to get the point across. Hope that's ok, and please understand I'm not trying to limit the meaning of the following but using the scripture to illustrate my meaning.

While fhe relationship between God and a follower is personal, is not an exclusive relationship. That's clear from the doctrine of the Trinity itself - God Himself is a relational being. And He made us that way too. To reference just a couple touchpoints from scripture:

"For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.” Mat 18:20 is one verse that makes it clear that the relationship is bigger than just Believer-God, it is Believer-God-Other Believers, in community. There are many others of course.

And Paul expresses this in First Corinthians 12:12-27:
"12 As a body is one though it has many parts, and all the parts of the body, though many, are one body, so also Christ.
13
For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, slaves or free persons, and we were all given to drink of one Spirit.
14
Now the body is not a single part, but many.
15
If a foot should say, “Because I am not a hand I do not belong to the body,” it does not for this reason belong any less to the body.
16
Or if an ear should say, “Because I am not an eye I do not belong to the body,” it does not for this reason belong any less to the body.
17
If the whole body were an eye, where would the hearing be? If the whole body were hearing, where would the sense of smell be?
18
But as it is, God placed the parts, each one of them, in the body as he intended.
19
If they were all one part, where would the body be?
20
But as it is, there are many parts, yet one body.
21
The eye cannot say to the hand, “I do not need you,” nor again the head to the feet, “I do not need you.”
22
Indeed, the parts of the body that seem to be weaker are all the more necessary,
23
and those parts of the body that we consider less honorable we surround with greater honor, and our less presentable parts are treated with greater propriety,
24
whereas our more presentable parts do not need this. But God has so constructed the body as to give greater honor to a part that is without it,
25
so that there may be no division in the body, but that the parts may have the same concern for one another.
26
If [one] part suffers, all the parts suffer with it; if one part is honored, all the parts share its joy.
27
Now you are Christ’s body, and individually parts of it."

So using this analogy, if Christ is the mind, and we believers are all parts of the body, then maybe one way to think about it is that the liturgical practice is the clothing. They say the clothes make the man, and that is true, to an extent. In this way, the changes instituted by the Church in Vatican II may be thought of as a change of clothing. My neck does not change in relation to my mind, but when I wear a T-shirt the neck-mind interaction is different from when I wear a turtleneck and different still from when I wear a button down shirt with a necktie.

This is an imperfect analogy but I hope illustrates the point that changing external forms of worship may impact the experience of the practice of the faith.

Of course there was much more to Vatican II than a change of clothing. Vatican II challenges the faithful in a different way than they had in the past. Maybe a better analogy would be the difference between wearing a hat to protect one's head from the rain and replacing the hat with a hand-held umbrella. Hm. Interesting thought...

Three tent poles as I understand it. Prayer, fellowship and service/bi kical study. I get all that. Is it fair to say this shift of the Catholic church could be characterized derived as a shift from having inserted itself between the I divide all and God to an organization that helps facilitate the fellowship part? That would be a huge shift as I understand it. A definite good thing.

I think an outsider might characterize it that way. From my perspective, it's more that the life of the Church is just as vital as it ever was, but the laity have a more active part in that expression, not just liturgically but in catechesis, social justice, and evangelism. It is probably similar to the effect of the shift from the Latin scriptures to the vernacular. Actually now that I think about it, that's probably a very apt analogy and quite literal considering the changes in the liturgy itself.

The Church's role has not changed, the relative importance of it' constituent parts has. The deposit of the faith is still found in Sacred Scripture and Tradition, as safeguarded and passed down by the Church which is (1 Tim 3:15) "the pillar and foundation of truth." But the expression of the faith and it's communal action has, to coin a phrase, become more democratized. The clergy has expanded to include deacons, lay people can distribute communion, proclaim the first and second readings, and lead the psalm and other songs at mass, girls can be altar servers, etc. Most parishes established parish councils and finance councils to advise the pastors and guide the various ministries (including liturgical, catechetical, bible studies, prayer groups as well as the traditional social service ministries).

I realize that's not exactly what you're asking about the but practical impact of these changes has been that a laity that is now much more engaged in the various functions of the Church has necessarily become a laity which is much more engaged in the individual maturation of its own spirituality. Hope that makes sense.

Thanks. Based on the comments I've read from others here and my personal anecdotes of those that have left Catholicism, the church organization stepping back seems like a good step. After those conversations I am always left with the same complaint which is some variation of "it feels like it's more about the religion and ceremony than the relationship with God." Appreciate the perspective

Sounds to me like those are the people who should have left. It shouldn't be that way.

 

[dgreen]

Anyway...

The most positive aspect of the church we attend, to me, is that the message is generally geared towards something topical (e.g., the growth of anxiety in the modern world), and they use verses to support the guidance they provide on that particular topic. It's like a spiritual TED talk. It's a stark contrast to the Catholic churches I mostly attended in my youth (Yes, I somehow survived the Christian Terminex treatment), and if more churches are headed in this direction, I think they'd find more receptive people.

Yes. The church word we use for those types "Spirtual TED talks" is "Topical Sermons".

Per ChatGPT:

1. Topical Sermons - These focus on a theme, issue, or area of life, and then bring in Scripture to speak into that topic. ​

Think:​

• “How to Handle Anxiety Biblically”
• “God’s Design for Relationships”
• “Biblical Wisdom for Finances”

Purpose: To apply biblical truth to everyday life.
Common Traits: Relatable stories, modern analogies, practical steps, and life application.
Popular in: Seeker-sensitive churches, non-denominational, contemporary services.

Another common type of sermons are what we call Expository Sermons.

2. Expository Sermons (aka Studying the Bible)​

These focus on explaining the meaning of a biblical text, often verse-by-verse or passage-by-passage.

• “A Study Through the Gospel of John”
• “Paul’s Letter to the Ephesians: Chapter 2 Deep Dive”

Purpose: To let the text drive the sermon, revealing its original meaning and context, and then applying it.
Common Traits: More theological depth, historical context, Greek/Hebrew explanations, systematic approach.
Popular in: Reformed, traditional, or Bible church settings.

I find both to be useful.

I probably lean more toward the Topical as it seems I like I lean more to the "how does this practically apply?"

Although I do get the value for taking a whole chapter or book of the bible and going through it.

For you old heads, sort of like listening to the whole album. Not just picking a track. For some things, context is helpful.

I'm more of a textual guy than topical. I think quite a bit has changed for me because of study of the text. It has made application easier for me. It's not that I mind topical sermons, but I want any Biblical references to consider their original meaning. I want a topical sermon to be the result of a textual study. A good preacher should be in tune with what the congregation needs to hear and then knows which part of the Biblical story is helpful to address that topic.

I'm not really familiar with the idea of listening to the whole album for context. Do albums tells stories? If so, that's cool. The more I learn about artists, the more I'm amazed at their depth. I'm not a huge fan of RedZone. I see a complete football game as an unfolding story. I think you miss something by just seeing bits and pieces of that story. I think it's pretty easy to understand that concept with a movie or a novel, but I've also started to consider where else it might show up...like a football game or, apparently, an album.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Anyway...

The most positive aspect of the church we attend, to me, is that the message is generally geared towards something topical (e.g., the growth of anxiety in the modern world), and they use verses to support the guidance they provide on that particular topic. It's like a spiritual TED talk. It's a stark contrast to the Catholic churches I mostly attended in my youth (Yes, I somehow survived the Christian Terminex treatment), and if more churches are headed in this direction, I think they'd find more receptive people.

Yes. The church word we use for those types "Spirtual TED talks" is "Topical Sermons".

Per ChatGPT:

1. Topical Sermons - These focus on a theme, issue, or area of life, and then bring in Scripture to speak into that topic. ​

Think:​

• “How to Handle Anxiety Biblically”
• “God’s Design for Relationships”
• “Biblical Wisdom for Finances”

Purpose: To apply biblical truth to everyday life.
Common Traits: Relatable stories, modern analogies, practical steps, and life application.
Popular in: Seeker-sensitive churches, non-denominational, contemporary services.

Another common type of sermons are what we call Expository Sermons.

2. Expository Sermons (aka Studying the Bible)​

These focus on explaining the meaning of a biblical text, often verse-by-verse or passage-by-passage.

• “A Study Through the Gospel of John”
• “Paul’s Letter to the Ephesians: Chapter 2 Deep Dive”

Purpose: To let the text drive the sermon, revealing its original meaning and context, and then applying it.
Common Traits: More theological depth, historical context, Greek/Hebrew explanations, systematic approach.
Popular in: Reformed, traditional, or Bible church settings.

I find both to be useful.

I probably lean more toward the Topical as it seems I like I lean more to the "how does this practically apply?"

Although I do get the value for taking a whole chapter or book of the bible and going through it.

For you old heads, sort of like listening to the whole album. Not just picking a track. For some things, context is helpful.

I'm more of a textual guy than topical. I think quite a bit has changed for me because of study of the text. It has made application easier for me. It's not that I mind topical sermons, but I want any Biblical references to consider their original meaning. I want a topical sermon to be the result of a textual study. A good preacher should be in tune with what the congregation needs to hear and then knows which part of the Biblical story is helpful to address that topic.

I'm not really familiar with the idea of listening to the whole album for context. Do albums tells stories? If so, that's cool. The more I learn about artists, the more I'm amazed at their depth. I'm not a huge fan of RedZone. I see a complete football game as an unfolding story. I think you miss something by just seeing bits and pieces of that story. I think it's pretty easy to understand that concept with a movie or a novel, but I've also started to consider where else it might show up...like a football game or, apparently, an album.

Lots of albums are not so much telling a story but they are a complete set. So some prefer listening to the whole album.

Red Zone vs a whole game is similar too.

Value in both I think.

 

[Psychopav]

I was hesitant to post this because it gets a little outside of the discussion, but now that we're talking about albums and NFL Red Zone I think this should be fine.

For those interested in looking at the source, I strongly recommend www.biblehub.com. This website is awesome and lets you look at the words using the original greek (NT) or Hebrew (OT).

As a simple example, the famous passage in John 21 where Jesus asks Peter if he loves the Lord. in most English translations, John 21:15 reads something along the lines of "When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter,* “Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?”* He said to him, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Feed my lambs.”"

Those who have studied know that the word that the Lord uses for "Love" is different from the word that Peter uses when he replies. You can see this directly in the greek at Biblehub:

Jesus's word:
ἀγαπᾷς
agapas

Peter's answer:
φιλῶ
philō

You can also click on various reference links that give the definition of the greek word and every other place where it appears in scripture.

There's so much nuance to be gleaned from looking at the original language, and biblehub makes it easy to do that. If you're playing along at home, use the dropdowns at the top to find the verse you're looking for, and then click on "Greek" in the black menu items in row 3 (or "Hebrew" if you're looking at an OT book). The site works just fine on mobile as well.

I have used this site so often that this post may be my greatest contribution to the FFA ever. It's just an awesome, awesome resource.

________________________________________

@Sparky Polastri this is a very timely example of what I was talking about vis a vis the impact of Vatican II. I daresay a pre-Vatican II Catholic layperson would NEVER have been exposed to a resource like this. I learned of it from a priest who has a daily radio show commenting on the mass readings of the day.

 

[dgreen]

I was hesitant to post this because it gets a little outside of the discussion, but now that we're talking about albums and NFL Red Zone I think this should be fine.

For those interested in looking at the source, I strongly recommend www.biblehub.com. This website is awesome and lets you look at the words using the original greek (NT) or Hebrew (OT).

As a simple example, the famous passage in John 21 where Jesus asks Peter if he loves the Lord. in most English translations, John 21:15 reads something along the lines of "When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter,* “Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?”* He said to him, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Feed my lambs.”"

Those who have studied know that the word that the Lord uses for "Love" is different from the word that Peter uses when he replies. You can see this directly in the greek at Biblehub:

Jesus's word:
ἀγαπᾷς
agapas

Peter's answer:
φιλῶ
philō

You can also click on various reference links that give the definition of the greek word and every other place where it appears in scripture.

There's so much nuance to be gleaned from looking at the original language, and biblehub makes it easy to do that. If you're playing along at home, use the dropdowns at the top to find the verse you're looking for, and then click on "Greek" in the black menu items in row 3 (or "Hebrew" if you're looking at an OT book). The site works just fine on mobile as well.

I have used this site so often that this post may be my greatest contribution to the FFA ever. It's just an awesome, awesome resource.

________________________________________

Yep, learning from people who know the original languages and the culture can shed so much light. And if you’re a nerd, it’s fun to try to research some of it yourself, even if you don’t know the languages. I usually use Step Bible.

Back when I was on Twitter, Ari Lamm was one of my favorite follows. He had a lot of threads titled Why Read the Bible in Hebrew where he’d show things that are missed in English.

 

[Navin Johnson]

I was hesitant to post this because it gets a little outside of the discussion, but now that we're talking about albums and NFL Red Zone I think this should be fine.

For those interested in looking at the source, I strongly recommend www.biblehub.com. This website is awesome and lets you look at the words using the original greek (NT) or Hebrew (OT).

As a simple example, the famous passage in John 21 where Jesus asks Peter if he loves the Lord. in most English translations, John 21:15 reads something along the lines of "When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter,* “Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?”* He said to him, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Feed my lambs.”"

Those who have studied know that the word that the Lord uses for "Love" is different from the word that Peter uses when he replies. You can see this directly in the greek at Biblehub:

Jesus's word:
ἀγαπᾷς
agapas

Peter's answer:
φιλῶ
philō

You can also click on various reference links that give the definition of the greek word and every other place where it appears in scripture.

There's so much nuance to be gleaned from looking at the original language, and biblehub makes it easy to do that. If you're playing along at home, use the dropdowns at the top to find the verse you're looking for, and then click on "Greek" in the black menu items in row 3 (or "Hebrew" if you're looking at an OT book). The site works just fine on mobile as well.

I have used this site so often that this post may be my greatest contribution to the FFA ever. It's just an awesome, awesome resource.

________________________________________

Yep, learning from people who know the original languages and the culture can shed so much light. And if you’re a nerd, it’s fun to try to research some of it yourself, even if you don’t know the languages. I usually use Step Bible.

Back when I was on Twitter, Ari Lamm was one of my favorite follows. He had a lot of threads titled Why Read the Bible in Hebrew where he’d show things that are missed in English.

Wasn't the NT originally written in Greek?

 

[dgreen]

I was hesitant to post this because it gets a little outside of the discussion, but now that we're talking about albums and NFL Red Zone I think this should be fine.

For those interested in looking at the source, I strongly recommend www.biblehub.com. This website is awesome and lets you look at the words using the original greek (NT) or Hebrew (OT).

As a simple example, the famous passage in John 21 where Jesus asks Peter if he loves the Lord. in most English translations, John 21:15 reads something along the lines of "When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter,* “Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?”* He said to him, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Feed my lambs.”"

Those who have studied know that the word that the Lord uses for "Love" is different from the word that Peter uses when he replies. You can see this directly in the greek at Biblehub:

Jesus's word:
ἀγαπᾷς
agapas

Peter's answer:
φιλῶ
philō

You can also click on various reference links that give the definition of the greek word and every other place where it appears in scripture.

There's so much nuance to be gleaned from looking at the original language, and biblehub makes it easy to do that. If you're playing along at home, use the dropdowns at the top to find the verse you're looking for, and then click on "Greek" in the black menu items in row 3 (or "Hebrew" if you're looking at an OT book). The site works just fine on mobile as well.

I have used this site so often that this post may be my greatest contribution to the FFA ever. It's just an awesome, awesome resource.

________________________________________

Yep, learning from people who know the original languages and the culture can shed so much light. And if you’re a nerd, it’s fun to try to research some of it yourself, even if you don’t know the languages. I usually use Step Bible.

Back when I was on Twitter, Ari Lamm was one of my favorite follows. He had a lot of threads titled Why Read the Bible in Hebrew where he’d show things that are missed in English.

Wasn't the NT originally written in Greek?

Yes*. Ari Lamm is Jewish**.

* There are some minority views that Matthew was originally written in Hebrew. But, all our earliest manuscripts for anything in the NT are in Greek.

** My intention in saying he’s Jewish was to communicate that he’s not a follower of Jesus so his Bible doesn’t include the NT. Someone can obviously be Jewish and a Jesus follower and I didn’t want to just leave my response without some clarification.

 

[rockaction]

I personally don't think there was an obvious political choice for Christians.

I feel impelled to say something here and it won't get politically specific, but I find this interesting. I was reading something by a guy that was taking a ton of heat on Twitter for having himself or one of his writers write something to the effect that there was no mention in the Bible of nails during the crucifixion. It was a magazine or account called Christianity Today, and it just immediately started taking a beating. I mean people were asking if the writer really had read the Bible because if he had he would have known that there were nails in the Bible. They are right in it.

And it was interesting because I did some digging and found out the account is owned by a guy named Russell Moore, and I found out that he'd left the Southern Baptist Convention after being the head of their Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission because he believed that the Baptists had moved towards what Bob Sacamano is talking about—he said they'd put conservative politics in front of and expense of the scripture. And I thought, "Well that sounds right. Hear about it all the time." I mean, the evangelicals basically are responsible for the current president's electoral success and staying power. They vote for him and support him in droves. So I could see what Moore was getting at.

Then I read a bit of Moore and about some people who were ascendant in the Baptist church during his tenure like Beth Moore. And I poked around some more, and I found out that back before the movement towards Trump, there had been an attempt to smuggle in contemporary left-leaning social justice causes dealing with race, sex, class, economics and I just smiled. This sure sounds like something I'm all too familiar with. It sounds like Moore had his own agenda and things changed for him politically. And I thought about how we're in a political time where we're warning about the changing powers between the political branches of our government and institutions where people are saying, "Be careful before you deviate from tradition and claim powers for yourself or interject yourself into institutions because somebody following you might want that power and use those means for different ends and a different result."

And I guess what struck me about it all is that both sides don't see that elevating groups, individuals, and earthly politics over the Truth and the Light is a very hubristic and human thing to do. It's the first sin. It's pride and hubris to think they're going to change society like Jesus did and transform all of us fallen sinners into the redeemed because of their beneficence as righteous social justice warriors. Or on the other hand, that we can use earthly politics as the means to attain an even purer form of worship or relationship with Christ like Christian Nationalists want. Both are dangerous delusions that aren't tethered to reality, and they both could (and would) cause a great deal of harm along the way if the means suggested are adopted to achieve their ends.

So I guess it's interesting that both sides will feel that God wants them or commands them to use their personal concept of the good as they understand it from scripture to determine who they should vote for. I'm not sure how I feel about that whole postulate. And I guess what sticks out is your quote, Joe, where there isn't an obvious political choice using the scripture best you understand it. Because I'd agree that to the best of my knowledge of what is Truth and Light there really wasn't a Christian candidate. And to ask a person to vote so that he is in keeping and good standing with Christ is a fool's errand just as much as thinking Christ wants you to vote for earthly political ends—as if he ever cared about those—at the expense of virtue.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that people shouldn't feel tortured about who they or others vote for; in fact, to do so and remain faithful in that deed to Christ is both impossible or sinful. When your neighbors or friends think they are witness to the true nature of the current political scene vis a vis Christ and are sure of their righteousness, I'd suggest turning the other cheek instead of political bickering. And should you personally get to thinking about the political ends of your own vote, just remember God asked us to render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's.

And don't worry about where they intersect so much.

 

[SWC]

to those talking about funding i just wanted to point out that the catholic church is the a gigantic landowner owning over 117000000 acres that is absolutely huge that includes buildings etc and the vatican has a net worth of 10 to 15 billion with investments etc they will never be out of cash in our or our kids lifetime as a result take that to the bank brohans

 

[Sparky Polastri]

I was hesitant to post this because it gets a little outside of the discussion, but now that we're talking about albums and NFL Red Zone I think this should be fine.

For those interested in looking at the source, I strongly recommend www.biblehub.com. This website is awesome and lets you look at the words using the original greek (NT) or Hebrew (OT).

As a simple example, the famous passage in John 21 where Jesus asks Peter if he loves the Lord. in most English translations, John 21:15 reads something along the lines of "When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter,* “Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?”* He said to him, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Feed my lambs.”"

Those who have studied know that the word that the Lord uses for "Love" is different from the word that Peter uses when he replies. You can see this directly in the greek at Biblehub:

Jesus's word:
ἀγαπᾷς
agapas

Peter's answer:
φιλῶ
philō

You can also click on various reference links that give the definition of the greek word and every other place where it appears in scripture.

There's so much nuance to be gleaned from looking at the original language, and biblehub makes it easy to do that. If you're playing along at home, use the dropdowns at the top to find the verse you're looking for, and then click on "Greek" in the black menu items in row 3 (or "Hebrew" if you're looking at an OT book). The site works just fine on mobile as well.

I have used this site so often that this post may be my greatest contribution to the FFA ever. It's just an awesome, awesome resource.

________________________________________

@Sparky Polastri this is a very timely example of what I was talking about vis a vis the impact of Vatican II. I daresay a pre-Vatican II Catholic layperson would NEVER have been exposed to a resource like this. I learned of it from a priest who has a daily radio show commenting on the mass readings of the day.

Yeah...done many a word study and used this site a lot

 

[Psychopav]

I personally don't think there was an obvious political choice for Christians.

I feel impelled to say something here and it won't get politically specific, but I find this interesting. I was reading something by a guy that was taking a ton of heat on Twitter for having himself or one of his writers write something to the effect that there was no mention in the Bible of nails during the crucifixion. It was a magazine or account called Christianity Today, and it just immediately started taking a beating. I mean people were asking if the writer really had read the Bible because if he had he would have known that there were nails in the Bible. They are right in it.

And it was interesting because I did some digging and found out the account is owned by a guy named Russell Moore, and I found out that he'd left the Southern Baptist Convention after being the head of their Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission because he believed that the Baptists had moved towards what Bob Sacamano is talking about—he said they'd put conservative politics in front of and expense of the scripture. And I thought, "Well that sounds right. Hear about it all the time." I mean, the evangelicals basically are responsible for the current president's electoral success and staying power. They vote for him and support him in droves. So I could see what Moore was getting at.

Then I read a bit of Moore and about some people who were ascendant in the Baptist church during his tenure like Beth Moore. And I poked around some more, and I found out that back before the movement towards Trump, there had been an attempt to smuggle in contemporary left-leaning social justice causes dealing with race, sex, class, economics and I just smiled. This sure sounds like something I'm all too familiar with. It sounds like Moore had his own agenda and things changed for him politically. And I thought about how we're in a political time where we're warning about the changing powers between the political branches of our government and institutions where people are saying, "Be careful before you deviate from tradition and claim powers for yourself or interject yourself into institutions because somebody following you might want that power and use those means for different ends and a different result."

And I guess what struck me about it all is that both sides don't see that elevating groups, individuals, and earthly politics over the Truth and the Light is a very hubristic and human thing to do. It's the first sin. It's pride and hubris to think they're going to change society like Jesus did and transform all of us fallen sinners into the redeemed because of their beneficence as righteous social justice warriors. Or on the other hand, that we can use earthly politics as the means to attain an even purer form of worship or relationship with Christ like Christian Nationalists want. Both are dangerous delusions that aren't tethered to reality, and they both could (and would) cause a great deal of harm along the way if the means suggested are adopted to achieve their ends.

So I guess it's interesting that both sides will feel that God wants them or commands them to use their personal concept of the good as they understand it from scripture to determine who they should vote for. I'm not sure how I feel about that whole postulate. And I guess what sticks out is your quote, Joe, where there isn't an obvious political choice using the scripture best you understand it. Because I'd agree that to the best of my knowledge of what is Truth and Light there really wasn't a Christian candidate. And to ask a person to vote so that he is in keeping and good standing with Christ is a fool's errand just as much as thinking Christ wants you to vote for earthly political ends—as if he ever cared about those—at the expense of virtue.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that people shouldn't feel tortured about who they or others vote for; in fact, to do so and remain faithful in that deed to Christ is both impossible or sinful. When your neighbors or friends think they are witness to the true nature of the current political scene vis a vis Christ and are sure of their righteousness, I'd suggest turning the other cheek instead of political bickering. And should you personally get to thinking about the political ends of your own vote, just remember God asked us to render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's.

And don't worry about where they intersect so much.

and why it is so tragic to find ourselves in a situation where people blame the other tribe for voting the way they do. Christians are called to seek the truth and follow it as they see it, not to follow the rules and ostracize those who are in another part of their faith journeys. If you find yourself at odds with the political ideology of another Christian, sincerity and genuineness should prevail. That's what charity calls for, after all.

 

[Joe Bryant]

I don't want to derail this thread because it's a good one, so feel free to delete this (or I'm happy to do so) but saw this today and it just made me think about your thread.

This is the sort of thing that irritates me to no end. The true teachings of Jesus Christ are far more aligned with Pope Francis than the people shouting loudly that they want a 'different' sort of Pope this time around. It's often the vocal minority that screams the loudest and gets the attention - amplified by social media - but it really irks me that a group of people who claim to be Christian say and do things that are incongruous to the true teachings of Jesus.

Agree 1000% So many churches these days preach their version of the bible or simply don't crack the book open at all. There is a megachurch in Charlotte, Elevation, who's pastor Steven Furtick is simply a motivational speaker that infuses Christianity when it suits but boy does he put on a good show. It's a concert level presentation with a message sandwiched in there somewhere. I understand it appeals to an audience and with attendance well over 10,000 on various campuses around the city, it obviously appeals to a lot of folks. It's not what I look for from church and if I'm being honest, I don't really consider it a church.

Which circles back to a theme in this thread, Christians being judgmental so I should probably just shut up.

I think the quality of a service is interesting. I understand the idea of a high level of quality being a negative. Where it can feel like a concert or the presentation has high production value.

And sometimes you see a similar discussion in how nice the building should be.

I know there is some element of trying to create a place of worship that is bringing your best to God. Obviously some churches are incredibly beautiful. And expensive. The usual counter there is the money spent there should be used for helping others more.

I've always struggled with the balance there.

 

[beer 30]

I don't want to derail this thread because it's a good one, so feel free to delete this (or I'm happy to do so) but saw this today and it just made me think about your thread.

This is the sort of thing that irritates me to no end. The true teachings of Jesus Christ are far more aligned with Pope Francis than the people shouting loudly that they want a 'different' sort of Pope this time around. It's often the vocal minority that screams the loudest and gets the attention - amplified by social media - but it really irks me that a group of people who claim to be Christian say and do things that are incongruous to the true teachings of Jesus.

Agree 1000% So many churches these days preach their version of the bible or simply don't crack the book open at all. There is a megachurch in Charlotte, Elevation, who's pastor Steven Furtick is simply a motivational speaker that infuses Christianity when it suits but boy does he put on a good show. It's a concert level presentation with a message sandwiched in there somewhere. I understand it appeals to an audience and with attendance well over 10,000 on various campuses around the city, it obviously appeals to a lot of folks. It's not what I look for from church and if I'm being honest, I don't really consider it a church.

Which circles back to a theme in this thread, Christians being judgmental so I should probably just shut up.

I think the quality of a service is interesting. I understand the idea of a high level of quality being a negative. Where it can feel like a concert or the presentation has high production value.

And sometimes you see a similar discussion in how nice the building should be.

I know there is some element of trying to create a place of worship that is bringing your best to God. Obviously some churches are incredibly beautiful. And expensive. The usual counter there is the money spent there should be used for helping others more.

I've always struggled with the balance there.

Yea for sure. My current church is a warehouse we put a few fake walls in and made it into some semblance of a church. We are in the process of acquiring land to put a permanent building on.

The church I came from did a really good job juggling what you described above. Older church that had been around since the early 1900's. Nice sanctuary but not overdone, had a young, excellent choir director that has since gone on to be the director at some huge churches. He would put on a Broadway type production on a shoestring budget relying on a pile of volunteers for Easter and Christmas, they were awesome. The church runs a food pantry and has all the programs a larger church has to cater to the various groups. They were always looking for ways to perform outreach to the community, locally and internationally. That, to me, is how a church should function but even there, there were always detractors about something they didn't agree with. I think that comes with the territory but when I see my pastor tooling around in a Lamborghini and living in a 6,700 sqft home, I tend to raise an eyebrow.

 

[Joe Bryant]

I don't want to derail this thread because it's a good one, so feel free to delete this (or I'm happy to do so) but saw this today and it just made me think about your thread.

This is the sort of thing that irritates me to no end. The true teachings of Jesus Christ are far more aligned with Pope Francis than the people shouting loudly that they want a 'different' sort of Pope this time around. It's often the vocal minority that screams the loudest and gets the attention - amplified by social media - but it really irks me that a group of people who claim to be Christian say and do things that are incongruous to the true teachings of Jesus.

Agree 1000% So many churches these days preach their version of the bible or simply don't crack the book open at all. There is a megachurch in Charlotte, Elevation, who's pastor Steven Furtick is simply a motivational speaker that infuses Christianity when it suits but boy does he put on a good show. It's a concert level presentation with a message sandwiched in there somewhere. I understand it appeals to an audience and with attendance well over 10,000 on various campuses around the city, it obviously appeals to a lot of folks. It's not what I look for from church and if I'm being honest, I don't really consider it a church.

Which circles back to a theme in this thread, Christians being judgmental so I should probably just shut up.

I think the quality of a service is interesting. I understand the idea of a high level of quality being a negative. Where it can feel like a concert or the presentation has high production value.

And sometimes you see a similar discussion in how nice the building should be.

I know there is some element of trying to create a place of worship that is bringing your best to God. Obviously some churches are incredibly beautiful. And expensive. The usual counter there is the money spent there should be used for helping others more.

I've always struggled with the balance there.

Yea for sure. My current church is a warehouse we put a few fake walls in and made it into some semblance of a church. We are in the process of acquiring land to put a permanent building on.

The church I came from did a really good job juggling what you described above. Older church that had been around since the early 1900's. Nice sanctuary but not overdone, had a young, excellent choir director that has since gone on to be the director at some huge churches. He would put on a Broadway type production on a shoestring budget relying on a pile of volunteers for Easter and Christmas, they were awesome. The church runs a food pantry and has all the programs a larger church has to cater to the various groups. They were always looking for ways to perform outreach to the community, locally and internationally. That, to me, is how a church should function but even there, there were always detractors about something they didn't agree with. I think that comes with the territory but when I see my pastor tooling around in a Lamborghini and living in a 6,700 sqft home, I tend to raise an eyebrow.

Thanks. The Lamborghini or Jet and Mansion pastors get lots of attention but I think that's a pretty small number of actual cases. I think the much more common thing is churches finding the balance for what most churches do.

And practically, I'm more interested in how Christians in general handle this. Not churches.

It's a pretty common theme discussing how much money or how nice of a home Christians should have.

In my understanding, it's about priorities.

Jesus and the Rich Young Ruler is often used in the discussion. It's my understanding that story is less about Christians having money and more about where money falls on the importance list. Through the bible, some of the richest people in the world like Solomon were followers of God. It's an interesting discussion.

 

[SWC]

i dont get anything out of the rock and roll masses thats just not church to me what i do get a lot out of is going to back to highway f outside a city of now 500 that was 200 when i was around and where the windows are open for mass and in the spring and summer you can smell the fields and old paul drove his john deer to church and you could hear it before you saw it and the choir sits above you and they might not be the best but they get the job done and the priests are like old nic and say a good sermon about all the righteous stuff but dont get too firey and brimstoney and leave the judgment at the front doors and i can still see my mom and dad sitting in the front row becuase she was a reader and my dad was an usher and that was the way it went when you did the work you got to sit up front and the kneelers had padding that needed to be replaced 30 years ago and every sanctus was like a torture session and when they still rang the bells twice during the eucharist once for the body and once for the blood and where everyone in that place knew everyone else and aside from the religion church was where you went to figure out who needed a hand who was sick and who had good news to share that brohans is where i think god hangs out not in a powerpoint presentation or a guitar amplifier which is probably an allegory that extends higher than the steeple in todays world take that to the bank brohans

 

[Joe Bryant]

i dont get anything out of the rock and roll masses thats just not church to me what i do get a lot out of is going to back to highway f outside a city of now 500 that was 200 when i was around and where the windows are open for mass and in the spring and summer you can smell the fields and old paul drove his john deer to church and you could hear it before you saw it and the choir sits above you and they might not be the best but they get the job done and the priests are like old nic and say a good sermon about all the righteous stuff but dont get too firey and brimstoney and leave the judgment at the front doors and i can still see my mom and dad sitting in the front row becuase she was a reader and my dad was an usher and that was the way it went when you did the work you got to sit up front and the kneelers had padding that needed to be replaced 30 years ago and every sanctus was like a torture session and when they still rang the bells twice during the eucharist once for the body and once for the blood and where everyone in that place knew everyone else and aside from the religion church was where you went to figure out who needed a hand who was sick and who had good news to share that brohans is where i think god hangs out not in a powerpoint presentation or a guitar amplifier which is probably an allegory that extends higher than the steeple in todays world take that to the bank brohans

I know we had a thread here somewhere too about churches should stop trying to be "cool". I think there's truth there.

 

[beer 30]

i dont get anything out of the rock and roll masses thats just not church to me what i do get a lot out of is going to back to highway f outside a city of now 500 that was 200 when i was around and where the windows are open for mass and in the spring and summer you can smell the fields and old paul drove his john deer to church and you could hear it before you saw it and the choir sits above you and they might not be the best but they get the job done and the priests are like old nic and say a good sermon about all the righteous stuff but dont get too firey and brimstoney and leave the judgment at the front doors and i can still see my mom and dad sitting in the front row becuase she was a reader and my dad was an usher and that was the way it went when you did the work you got to sit up front and the kneelers had padding that needed to be replaced 30 years ago and every sanctus was like a torture session and when they still rang the bells twice during the eucharist once for the body and once for the blood and where everyone in that place knew everyone else and aside from the religion church was where you went to figure out who needed a hand who was sick and who had good news to share that brohans is where i think god hangs out not in a powerpoint presentation or a guitar amplifier which is probably an allegory that extends higher than the steeple in todays world take that to the bank brohans

Bless you my son

 

[Jayrod]

i dont get anything out of the rock and roll masses thats just not church to me what i do get a lot out of is going to back to highway f outside a city of now 500 that was 200 when i was around and where the windows are open for mass and in the spring and summer you can smell the fields and old paul drove his john deer to church and you could hear it before you saw it and the choir sits above you and they might not be the best but they get the job done and the priests are like old nic and say a good sermon about all the righteous stuff but dont get too firey and brimstoney and leave the judgment at the front doors and i can still see my mom and dad sitting in the front row becuase she was a reader and my dad was an usher and that was the way it went when you did the work you got to sit up front and the kneelers had padding that needed to be replaced 30 years ago and every sanctus was like a torture session and when they still rang the bells twice during the eucharist once for the body and once for the blood and where everyone in that place knew everyone else and aside from the religion church was where you went to figure out who needed a hand who was sick and who had good news to share that brohans is where i think god hangs out not in a powerpoint presentation or a guitar amplifier which is probably an allegory that extends higher than the steeple in todays world take that to the bank brohans

I get this, but the churches that stuck to this slowly died or are dying away because the people that like it this way are actually.....dying away.

Because the next generation that grew up didn't enjoy much if any of that and refused to participate.

Kind of hard to keep a pastor around to preach and pay for upkeep and electricity for lights if no one shows up and gives any money.

Relevancy becomes necessary for a church to stick around. Younger people and, more importantly, non-church people aren't interested in a nostalgic experience they didn't grow up with. One of the biggest problems with the church and why it was dying is actually a refusal to change the style, look or feel of the building and services so as to not offend the establishment. While some people may abhor the modern styles of churches, more people like it than don't, hence its popularity.

Both options have pros and cons. There is a danger to making things so "cool" or relevant that no one can see a difference between church and entertainment but there is also a danger in being so stuck in your ways that you refuse to make necessary and good changes so that people will even bother to attend and hear the gospel.

Interesting as this was a discussion we literally had at my men's group this morning as our church is going through some structural changes in the midst of a leadership change this year. At one point in time we even did a "traditional" service early on Sunday's and then the contemporary service later in the morning. Eventually the traditional service faded away and its been 15 or so years since everything has gone to a modern look and feel. We had a choir with robes 25 years ago and the pastors wore suits but now it is a band with 4-5 singers and the pastors dress business casual. The messages are completely the same and the focus and core values of the church haven't changed in 30 years, but the look and feel of the services are night and day.

 

[SWC]

i hear you jayhan i think the thing is that church needs to be available in many formats for different flavors me personally i think a lot of my fond memories are of church in my younger day are linked to my longing for a way and pace of life that just isnt around anymore and that is small cities full of people who knew eachother and legitimately looked out and took care of eachother i just dont think that exists much anywhere anymore so i guess at the end of it im not taking shots at the rock and roll stuff it just isnt what i link to the most peaceful years of my life thats all take that to the bank brohan

 

[Uruk-Hai]

i hear you jayhan i think the thing is that church needs to be available in many formats for different flavors me personally i think a lot of my fond memories are of church in my younger day are linked to my longing for a way and pace of life that just isnt around anymore and that is small cities full of people who knew eachother and legitimately looked out and took care of eachother i just dont think that exists much anywhere anymore so i guess at the end of it im not taking shots at the rock and roll stuff it just isnt what i link to the most peaceful years of my life thats all take that to the bank brohan

This is a point our dearly departed wikkidpissah used to make - as churches became less and less the center of communities, we started losing the communities themselves. I'm not sure I 100% agree with that, but I can see how one can make the argument.

 

[dgreen]

i hear you jayhan i think the thing is that church needs to be available in many formats for different flavors me personally i think a lot of my fond memories are of church in my younger day are linked to my longing for a way and pace of life that just isnt around anymore and that is small cities full of people who knew eachother and legitimately looked out and took care of eachother i just dont think that exists much anywhere anymore so i guess at the end of it im not taking shots at the rock and roll stuff it just isnt what i link to the most peaceful years of my life thats all take that to the bank brohan

This is a point our dearly departed wikkidpissah used to make - as churches became less and less the center of communities, we started losing the communities themselves. I'm not sure I 100% agree with that, but I can see how one can make the argument.

I think something like an Orthodox Synagogue is really good for communities. Since they aren't going to drive on Sabbath, people attend the synagogue that's within walking distance. This connects their geographic community with their synagogue community. It's many of the same people.

My church is much different. We are a scattered congregation. Some people drive over an hour. Everyone drives by multiple churches to get to our church. It's great that we are committed to that community, but it's not the communities where we live. We don't see each other most days. We don't bump into each other walking our dogs and have those small conversations that build relationships. We do offer certain opportunities to try to overcome this reality, but I just don't think it works as well as when a church was in the center of the town and was a connection for your whole neighborhood.

Our churches today are formed mostly off of like-minded theology. We want to worship and fellowship with those who hold the same beliefs. When beliefs start to differ, churches split. I think many communities would be really challenged to continue worshipping and living together if they lacked choices of where to go and had to attend one within walking distance. This was also problem for the early church. The Jewish-Gentile relationship was a struggle, but it's that struggle that much of the NT is trying to resolve.

 

[Gally]

i hear you jayhan i think the thing is that church needs to be available in many formats for different flavors me personally i think a lot of my fond memories are of church in my younger day are linked to my longing for a way and pace of life that just isnt around anymore and that is small cities full of people who knew eachother and legitimately looked out and took care of eachother i just dont think that exists much anywhere anymore so i guess at the end of it im not taking shots at the rock and roll stuff it just isnt what i link to the most peaceful years of my life thats all take that to the bank brohan

This is a point our dearly departed wikkidpissah used to make - as churches became less and less the center of communities, we started losing the communities themselves. I'm not sure I 100% agree with that, but I can see how one can make the argument.

I think there are a lot of things that keep pushing the sense of "community" away. Lack of a community involved church is part of it. Having high school of choice is a part of it. Phone usage is part of it.

I will highlight the school of choice aspect a bit. People seem to be going away from pride in their high school as a community. Kids jumping ship to play a sport at a different school leads to a lack of community surrounding the school teams. In my area kids are jumping back and forth between the rival high schools to the point that there is no healthy rivalry anymore. So communities aren't taking pride in that anymore. It's become about me which is a bad thing for community.

 

[SWC]

i hear you jayhan i think the thing is that church needs to be available in many formats for different flavors me personally i think a lot of my fond memories are of church in my younger day are linked to my longing for a way and pace of life that just isnt around anymore and that is small cities full of people who knew eachother and legitimately looked out and took care of eachother i just dont think that exists much anywhere anymore so i guess at the end of it im not taking shots at the rock and roll stuff it just isnt what i link to the most peaceful years of my life thats all take that to the bank brohan

This is a point our dearly departed wikkidpissah used to make - as churches became less and less the center of communities, we started losing the communities themselves. I'm not sure I 100% agree with that, but I can see how one can make the argument.

I think there are a lot of things that keep pushing the sense of "community" away. Lack of a community involved church is part of it. Having high school of choice is a part of it. Phone usage is part of it.

I will highlight the school of choice aspect a bit. People seem to be going away from pride in their high school as a community. Kids jumping ship to play a sport at a different school leads to a lack of community surrounding the school teams. In my area kids are jumping back and forth between the rival high schools to the point that there is no healthy rivalry anymore. So communities aren't taking pride in that anymore. It's become about me which is a bad thing for community.

i lived way the heck out in the sticks growing up and the high school that i used to drive about 20 minutes into in the morning is now over 1700 kids which is huge versus what it once was i mean everything changes and maybe i am just an old boy trying to hang on to something that just doesnt exist anymore take that to the bank bromigos

 

[Joe Bryant]

i hear you jayhan i think the thing is that church needs to be available in many formats for different flavors me personally i think a lot of my fond memories are of church in my younger day are linked to my longing for a way and pace of life that just isnt around anymore and that is small cities full of people who knew eachother and legitimately looked out and took care of eachother i just dont think that exists much anywhere anymore so i guess at the end of it im not taking shots at the rock and roll stuff it just isnt what i link to the most peaceful years of my life thats all take that to the bank brohan

This is a point our dearly departed wikkidpissah used to make - as churches became less and less the center of communities, we started losing the communities themselves. I'm not sure I 100% agree with that, but I can see how one can make the argument.

I think something like an Orthodox Synagogue is really good for communities. Since they aren't going to drive on Sabbath, people attend the synagogue that's within walking distance. This connects their geographic community with their synagogue community. It's many of the same people.

My church is much different. We are a scattered congregation. Some people drive over an hour. Everyone drives by multiple churches to get to our church. It's great that we are committed to that community, but it's not the communities where we live. We don't see each other most days. We don't bump into each other walking our dogs and have those small conversations that build relationships. We do offer certain opportunities to try to overcome this reality, but I just don't think it works as well as when a church was in the center of the town and was a connection for your whole neighborhood.

Our churches today are formed mostly off of like-minded theology. We want to worship and fellowship with those who hold the same beliefs. When beliefs start to differ, churches split. I think many communities would be really challenged to continue worshipping and living together if they lacked choices of where to go and had to attend one within walking distance. This was also problem for the early church. The Jewish-Gentile relationship was a struggle, but it's that struggle that much of the NT is trying to resolve.

I do think the local church and walking distance thing is super interesting.

The counter to that I would say is when churches are so centered geographically, they often can become in a bubble.

It depends on the town and the geography, of course, but it's easy to be exclusive like that when geography is the key part.