Ex-vangelicals (and evangelicals and anyone who wants to comment on the cognitive model of how beliefs are formed) - your thoughts?

[chiguirre]

28 minutes ago, Ordinary Shoes said:

No, Catholics shop around. The days of attending your geographical parish are long gone. People tend to congregate at parishes that fit where they fall on the spectrum of liberal to conservative. People also follow priests around when they are transferred. 

 

That's not been my experience in my area, but there are relatively few, huge parishes here. For example, the parish in my town has about 20,000 people on the roll. Shopping around would mean driving an extra 15-30 minutes to get to just the next church which is not likely to be substantially different. It's also going to be a pretty big congregation with 2 or 3 priests. It's easier to arrange to attend the mass with your favorite priest than it would be to drive to a different parish. Lots of people do that.

Edited April 18, 2021 by chiguirre

[Wheres Toto]

21 hours ago, WildflowerMom said:

I don't follow anyone.  I read the Bible and study it myself, with no outside influences, and I let the Holy Spirit lead me.  
I did grow up in church, though, and was taught the nicene creed.  I don't know if what I believe now is what I was taught, though, because I've pretty much forgotten.  I just go on Bible alone, now (and the Holy Spirit guiding me).   I've heard of Sproul and Piper.  I don't know anything about them or what they teach.

You are reading a translation though, right?  So you are going by someone's interpretation.  

ETA:  Hit post too soon.   Just wanted to add that I'm finding this whole discussion somewhat fascinating.  I'm currently agnostic/atheist coming from a liberal UMC tradition, with tons of Catholic family and very limited exposure to the more fundamental/evangelical traditions outside of this board (more in the olden days than now).   

Edited April 18, 2021 by Wheres Toto

[WildflowerMom]

37 minutes ago, Wheres Toto said:

You are reading a translation though, right?  So you are going by someone's interpretation.  

ETA:  Hit post too soon.   Just wanted to add that I'm finding this whole discussion somewhat fascinating.  I'm currently agnostic/atheist coming from a liberal UMC tradition, with tons of Catholic family and very limited exposure to the more fundamental/evangelical traditions outside of this board (more in the olden days than now).   

But what can I do about that?   I don't read Hebrew.  I don't read Greek.  So I read what I can and let the Holy Spirit fill in.   It's hasn't been a difficult process or I probably would've stopped a long time ago, lol.     
 

Edited April 18, 2021 by WildflowerMom

[Jean in Newcastle]

45 minutes ago, Wheres Toto said:

You are reading a translation though, right?  So you are going by someone's interpretation.  

ETA:  Hit post too soon.   Just wanted to add that I'm finding this whole discussion somewhat fascinating.  I'm currently agnostic/atheist coming from a liberal UMC tradition, with tons of Catholic family and very limited exposure to the more fundamental/evangelical traditions outside of this board (more in the olden days than now).   

In my opinion, some translations are better than others.  I personally like the New American Standard Bible translation because it uses a formal equivalence translation approach - ie. it tries to translate the original languages directly into English instead of interpreting the meaning.  This does mean that the NASB can be a bit choppy in English at times but it is more directly tied to the original languages.  If you have a study Bible, you will also have notes to show which text (Masoretic, Septuagint, etc.) and will often give alternative translations in the notes if any of the ancient texts differ (which as I mentioned before is not as common as some people seem to think).  Also - I have access to commentaries which will explain why they came to a certain interpretation of the text.  And in my case, I did study Greek and Hebrew in seminary but appreciate that my pastor (who happens to be my dh) does study and teach from the original languages and will give alternative interpretations while he's teaching and will explain why he leans a particular way. 

[SoCal_Bear]

I just came across this: Four Approaches to Race, Politics, and Gender. This was eye opening for me to consider the idea of four teams which not necessarily fall around doctrinal lines. I am mulling this over carefully.

https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/kevin-deyoung/why-reformed-evangelicalism-has-splintered-four-approaches-to-race-politics-and-gender/

[Jean in Newcastle]

28 minutes ago, Ordinary Shoes said:

But how do you know that the Holy Spirit is guiding you? I hate to bring this up but there is someone on this forum who believes she is being led by the Holy Spirit and is now deep into QAnon ridiculousness. She seems to believe that the Holy Spirit is leading her in that direction. 

 

Not who you quoted, but there is a huge difference between reading Scripture (the bulk of which does not have differences in translation) and prayerfully asking the Holy Spirit to teach her and to help her to apply it to her life, and reading QAnon blogs/posts and following those rabbit trails which have absolutely nothing to do with Scripture.

[Jean in Newcastle]

7 minutes ago, Ordinary Shoes said:

I understand that but I offered the example of the risks of relying up on the Holy Spirit alone to guide us.  

Discerning how the Holy Spirit guides us can be difficult and I think we are prone to seeing what we want in Scripture. I think that we need to a touchstone outside of ourselves to guide us. For me, that touchstone is the Church. 

Yes, I do agree with that.  (Though how I define the church and it's role is a bit different since I am not Roman Catholic though of course I do belong to the catholic (universal) church.)

[TCB]

1 hour ago, calbear said:

I just came across this: Four Approaches to Race, Politics, and Gender. This was eye opening for me to consider the idea of four teams which not necessarily fall around doctrinal lines. I am mulling this over carefully.

https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/kevin-deyoung/why-reformed-evangelicalism-has-splintered-four-approaches-to-race-politics-and-gender/

This is kind of random but I started reading that article, which is a very interesting one, and was struck by how much time and energy we, the church, put into arguing and debating these issues, and it makes me wonder if it’s a convenient diversion from actually getting on and living the way we should. Don’t get me wrong, those are important issues, but some of the things we get caught up with endlessly debating really are not. 

[MercyA]

2 hours ago, Jean in Newcastle said:

In my opinion, some translations are better than others.  I personally like the New American Standard Bible translation because it uses a formal equivalence translation approach - ie. it tries to translate the original languages directly into English instead of interpreting the meaning.  This does mean that the NASB can be a bit choppy in English at times but it is more directly tied to the original languages. 

Yes. I also like the NASB. Below is a chart showing where the most popular translations fall on the "word-for-word" to "thought-for-thought" to paraphrase spectrum.

I'm not trying to step on any toes here, but I would never use a retelling like The Message--written by one man!--for serious Bible study.  Just for contrast, the NASB was worked on by 54 translators, the ESV by over 100 translators, etc.

If anyone is interested in some of the differences between translations, this inexpensive chart is very handy. 
 

Edited April 18, 2021 by MercyA

[bolt.]

50 minutes ago, MercyA said:

Yes. I also like the NASB. Below is a chart showing where the most popular translations fall on the "word-for-word" to "thought-for-thought" to paraphrase spectrum.

I'm not trying to step on any toes here, but I would never use a retelling like The Message--written by one man!--for serious Bible study.  Just for contrast, the NASB was worked on by 54 translators, the ESV by over 100 translators, etc.

If anyone is interested in some of the differences between translations, this inexpensive chart is very handy. 
 

The inclusion of "AMP" -- which I think means the amplified version? -- as word-for-word seems like an error to me, so I'm fairly suspicious about the accuracy of the chart as a whole. The whole "deal" of the amplified version is to add multiple English synonyms in the translation of individual words in the original language text.

[Jean in Newcastle]

1 hour ago, MercyA said:

Yes. I also like the NASB. Below is a chart showing where the most popular translations fall on the "word-for-word" to "thought-for-thought" to paraphrase spectrum.

I'm not trying to step on any toes here, but I would never use a retelling like The Message--written by one man!--for serious Bible study.  Just for contrast, the NASB was worked on by 54 translators, the ESV by over 100 translators, etc.

If anyone is interested in some of the differences between translations, this inexpensive chart is very handy. 
 

I will piggyback off of this to say that while I think that it is very important to carefully translate from (as close as we can get) to the original autographs, I also think that it is very important to be able to read the Bible for ourselves in our own language, whatever that might be. 

[MercyA]

30 minutes ago, bolt. said:

The inclusion of "AMP" -- which I think means the amplified version? -- as word-for-word seems like an error to me, so I'm fairly suspicious about the accuracy of the chart as a whole. The whole "deal" of the amplified version is to add multiple English synonyms in the translation of individual words in the original language text.

In the past, I thought the same thing about the Amplified Version! I now disagree that it is an error in the chart. It is placed in the same general area in most similar charts I have seen. The AMP is still a word-for-word translation, but my understanding is that it includes multiple English word equivalents for the Hebrew and Greek where one English word might not be sufficient. 

From the publisher's website: "The Amplified Bible is a Literal Equivalent translation that, by using synonyms and definitions, both explains and expands the meaning of words in the text by placing amplification in parentheses, brackets, and after key words. This unique system of translation allows the reader to more completely and clearly grasp the meaning as it was understood in the original languages. Additionally, amplifications may provide further theological, historical, and other details for a better understanding of the text."

It is not my preferred translation at all, but I can see where it would be helpful.

Edited April 18, 2021 by MercyA

[bolt.]

I can see what the amplified version is trying to do and why -- but that's not properly called a word-for-word translation. Using more than one word 'to explain and expand the meaning of the text' is exactly what all sorts of thought-for-thought translations do. They just do it by using full sentences instead of parentheses.

Anyhow, it doesn't matter. I just wouldn't rely on the chart, myself, because I don't think that the chart has correctly assessed one of the translations that I'm familiar with. That's all.

[SoCal_Bear]

I need to put this somewhere and don't want to start a stand alone thread.

I’m trying really hard today to have loving and kind thought because I got an email from a person involved our Christian co-op's decision to ignore public health mandates. She was comparing their conclusion to disobey about mask mandate with Bonhoeffer’s decision to assassinate Hilter.

Am I crazy for thinking there is something off here?

[TCB]

11 minutes ago, calbear said:

I need to put this somewhere and don't want to start a stand alone thread.

I’m trying really hard today to have loving and kind thought because I got an email from a person involved our Christian co-op's decision to ignore public health mandates. She was comparing their conclusion to disobey about mask mandate with Bonhoeffer’s decision to assassinate Hilter.

Am I crazy for thinking there is something off here?

Sounds crazy to me. What exactly is their rationale for disobeying the mandate? It doesn’t seem like something you can compare to assassinating an evil person who was responsible for killing millions. Now if they were planning on assassinating Covid I could see the connection. Sounds like they’re planning the opposite.

[bolt.]

17 minutes ago, calbear said:

I need to put this somewhere and don't want to start a stand alone thread.

I’m trying really hard today to have loving and kind thought because I got an email from a person involved our Christian co-op's decision to ignore public health mandates. She was comparing their conclusion to disobey about mask mandate with Bonhoeffer’s decision to assassinate Hilter.

Am I crazy for thinking there is something off here?

You're not the "crazy" one in that story, for sure.

In the sense that both are acts of "things a government would rather we didn't do" -- there is exactly one point of analogy between the two actions. In every other respect, they bear no resemblance to one another. It's just the standard unthinking go-to metaphor that lots of people use to defend any antigovernmental action that they take a shine to these days.

If you want a loving and kind thought, think of them warmly as blithe hopeful fools, sheep without a shepherd, much beloved but seriously misguided. Misguided in fact by people who have specifically and knowingly targeted them in their weakness, manipulated and squeezed them into a shape that is beneficial to the evil masterminds running this show. If Jesus would gather these lost sheep in his arms, cuddle them, heal their mistaken thinking, and carry them kindly to a better place -- that's the right feeling for Jesus' Spirit to be generating in the believers around them. You can get there. Start by feeling sorry for them.

Edited April 18, 2021 by bolt.

[SoCal_Bear]

I have asked multiple times for a Scriptural basis for their reasoning. They have nothing other than to say that they must not allow the government to infringe upon their right to worship and to gather.

[bolt.]

1 minute ago, calbear said:

I have asked multiple times for a Scriptural basis for their reasoning. They have nothing other than to say that they must not allow the government to infringe upon their right to worship and to gather.

Of course they have nothing else. They are speaking only what they have been fed. It's a weak position with terrible logic -- but you knowing that doesn't help anyone.

[TCB]

1 minute ago, calbear said:

I have asked multiple times for a Scriptural basis for their reasoning. They have nothing other than to say that they must not allow the government to infringe upon their right to worship and to gather.

That’s interesting. Do they say exactly how wearing a mask infringes on the ability to worship and gather? That is what’s so difficult about this whole thing I think, there seems to be little if any logic involved so very difficult to have a rational discussion.

[SoCal_Bear]

I get a lot of talk about how it is not for us to tell anyone how to make private health decisions, that masks are a symbol of government overreach, etc. 

I spend loads of time explaining that fundamentally I was resigning over a leadership integrity issue because when I searched Scripture the overwhelming message is to Love God and Love Your Neighbor. On top of that Scripture about elders being above reproach and blameless, obedience to the authorities, how we are to treat our weaker brother, about denial of our own rights and freedoms for the sake of others, etc. No need to literally cite chapter and verse here as I think all of you are well aware about what I am talking about. As far as I can tell, we have not been asked to deny our faith and are not unable to gather and worship. They see it as a symbol of oppression. Though the irony as a POC listening to them talk about oppression makes me cringe.

She just offered to give me a copy of Slaying Leviathan: Limited Government and Resistance in the Christian Tradition. That probably says everything right there about why there will not be a meeting of the minds on this topic.

Edited April 19, 2021 by calbear

[SoCal_Bear]

EDITED to Fixed my comment because was not thinking straight. Thanks, WTM, for pointing that out.

Using that schema that I posted about upthread for the purposes of discussion, I am an actually 2 3 leaning heavly towards 3 2 It's probably clear that the main leadership of the group is a 1  4. I just care a lot about maintaining relationship and unity the 3'2s and 4'1s and our witness to the world.

Copied the schema below for discussion purposes.

1. Contrite: “Look at the church’s complicity in past and present evils. We have been blind to injustice, prejudice, racism, sexism, and abuse. What the world needs is to see a church owning its sins and working, in brokenness, to make up for them and overcome them.”
2. Compassionate: “Look at the many people hurting and grieving in our midst and in the world. Now is the time to listen and learn. Now is the time to weep with those who weep. What the world needs is a church that demonstrates the love of Christ.”
3. Careful: “Look at the moral confusion and intellectual carelessness that marks our time. Let’s pay attention to our language and our definitions. What the world needs is a church that will draw upon the best of its theological tradition and lead the way in understanding the challenges of our day.”
4. Courageous: “Look at the church’s compromise with (if not outright capitulation to) the spirit of the age. Now is the time for a trumpet blast, not for backing down. What the world needs is a church that will admonish the wayward, warn against danger, and stand as a bulwark for truth, no matter how unpopular.”

Edited April 19, 2021 by calbear

[MercyA]

.

Edited April 19, 2021 by MercyA

[MercyA]

45 minutes ago, calbear said:

I spend loads of time explaining that fundamentally I was resigning over a leadership integrity issue because when I searched Scripture the overwhelming message is to Love God and Love Your Neighbor. On top of that Scripture about elders being above reproach and blameless, obediance to the authorities, how we are to treat our weaker brother, about denial of our own rights and freedoms for the sake of others, etc.

You are my hero of the day! Bravo for courageously speaking truth.

[Moonhawk]

1 hour ago, calbear said:

Using that schema that I posted about upthread for the purposes of discussion, I am an actually 2 leaning heavly towards 3. It's probably clear that the main leadership of the group is a 1. I just care a lot about maintaining relationship and unity the 3's and 4's and our witness to the world.

Copied the schema below for discussion purposes. 

1. Contrite: “Look at the church’s complicity in past and present evils. We have been blind to injustice, prejudice, racism, sexism, and abuse. What the world needs is to see a church owning its sins and working, in brokenness, to make up for them and overcome them.”
2. Compassionate: “Look at the many people hurting and grieving in our midst and in the world. Now is the time to listen and learn. Now is the time to weep with those who weep. What the world needs is a church that demonstrates the love of Christ.”
3. Careful: “Look at the moral confusion and intellectual carelessness that marks our time. Let’s pay attention to our language and our definitions. What the world needs is a church that will draw upon the best of its theological tradition and lead the way in understanding the challenges of our day.”
4. Courageous: “Look at the church’s compromise with (if not outright capitulation to) the spirit of the age. Now is the time for a trumpet blast, not for backing down. What the world needs is a church that will admonish the wayward, warn against danger, and stand as a bulwark for truth, no matter how unpopular.”

I don't think I follow why you think that the main leadership of your group is a 1? Am I reading this incorrectly or misunderstanding what's being meant here? Maybe I'm wrong, maybe I'm bringing my own color to your situation, but I really didn't read anything in your posts that indicated your leadership was a 1. 

They are refusing to follow guidelines in the name of "standing up" to the governments "oppression" of their worship. They are seeing what they are doing as a holy act of defiance. They think they are standing for the Church's good name in all this, not letting the secular world diminish her with masks and mandates. Doesn't this sound more like a 4 (if, perhaps, a misguided 4)?

I was brought up I suppose in a community most like a 4. The quote of, "I do not follow the times, I follow Christ" and ones to that effect were thrown around quite a bit. I see the same people/group/mindset on FB talking about how the masks are encroaching on their religion, trying to keep men out of church with fear.

The problem with 4's is that last part of "no matter how unpopular". Because sometimes they see it as "anything unpopular" with the secular world to be a sign that they are doing the right thing. "The modern secular world wants me to do this, and so it is probably the wrong thing to do." --> "The secular world wants masks, so it is probably against religion. They are against meeting in large groups, it is obviously because the church meets in large groups. Therefore, we cannot give in to masks and social distancing."

[Terabith]

8 hours ago, WildflowerMom said:

But what can I do about that?   I don't read Hebrew.  I don't read Greek.  So I read what I can and let the Holy Spirit fill in.   It's hasn't been a difficult process or I probably would've stopped a long time ago, lol.     
 

I'm not sure I have the bandwidth for this, but just for your information, the Gospels were written in Greek.  At one point I read it well enough to read them in the original, but I have lost that skill.  

Also, the Bible is not the Word of God.  Jesus is the Word of God.  

But yes, interpretation is challenging, because it's important to know history, culture, traditions, as well as language.  And even in the original Greek, you're not reading the original words of Jesus, or even of the apostles.  

[Moonhawk]

19 minutes ago, Ordinary Shoes said:

Anyone want to discuss the connection between high demand Christian groups and MLMs? I have a knee injury so have been less mobile recently and have some spent some of my couch time (and while doing physical therapy) watching anti-MLM Youtube videos. It's interesting how there is a religious connection to most of these groups. 

I noticed that many of the women in our old church were involved in MLMs. They have more faith in MLMs than in vaccinations. Crazy! 

Does being a member of a high demand religious group 'prime' you for trusting an MLM? 

 

So, I think that high-demand religions or at least parishes prime their members to think more in terms of "us vs them." And everyone has it to an extent, but my perception is that tight-knit communities definitely have this stronger than the average.

So, you're primed to see the world in us vs them, and then you find other people who have this same view, and are willing to let you be part of their "us". you probably have other things in common: you're a young woman, maybe a mom of young kids, husband works but you are at home or want to be, if only the money could work out. You want something to do. They understand what you're going through, they have a similar position, you can talk about things with them. All you have to do to join is buy a pink suitcase of products, and you are not only about to make your life better, but you are one of us!

Both groups tell you to ignore doubters (of religion, of the product) and that the doubters don't have your salvation/success in their best interest. They tell you that your future is in your own hands, all you have to do is follow these easy rules and it will all work out. They tell you that you just need their support to make it through the hard times before you get to the big payout. It's a similar story, one you're comfortable with and already believe, so it's an easy step over to it. 

From my view, the MLMs exploit the mental pathways that religion has made, especially to those who grew up in the environment. I say this as someone who was raised in a total high-us-vs-them-Catholic-parish and MK household. My mom has been with MK for longer than I've been alive. My sister is currently a MK director and has been for over 20 years, with slips here and there. And heck, I still use MK products (and my mom always has extra from whatever quota needed to be met). 

Ps - knee injury here too! waving from my own couch, lol

[Resilient]

1 hour ago, Ordinary Shoes said:

Anyone want to discuss the connection between high demand Christian groups and MLMs? I have a knee injury so have been less mobile recently and have some spent some of my couch time (and while doing physical therapy) watching anti-MLM Youtube videos. It's interesting how there is a religious connection to most of these groups. 

I noticed that many of the women in our old church were involved in MLMs. They have more faith in MLMs than in vaccinations. Crazy! 

Does being a member of a high demand religious group 'prime' you for trusting an MLM? 

 

I am in what people are calling a "high-demand" tradition (which I call "high opportunity").  

• No one in my community is involved in an MLM.
• I don't know the political affiliation of more than 10% of the people in my community. 
• Education:  All the options: homeschool, private school, public school. Each family chooses.
• Some are married, some single, some divorced, some have kids, some don't, some are retired.
• Some are rich who anonymously help those who are poor. Some are white collar, some blue collar. 
• Some have left the community because of masking and vaxxing: BOTH sides of the coin on this one. No-win--but no shunning and no "dogma" about it. Anyone who leaves is always welcome back, open arms.  
• We hold jobs, celebrate graduations, struggle with parenting, have our kids in sports leagues, face addiction--all of it.
• We are not perfect, but we are forgiving. And we have to be...because we are not perfect.  

Our community is encouraged to think of "high-demand/opportunity" church-life as a way of centering (not abdicating control over) our lives. 

(The bullet points are an attempt to answer in anticipation other questions that might arise about "high-demand/opportunity" traditions.) 

 

[Porridge]

4 hours ago, calbear said:

Using that schema that I posted about upthread for the purposes of discussion, I am an actually 2 leaning heavly towards 3. It's probably clear that the main leadership of the group is a 1. I just care a lot about maintaining relationship and unity the 3's and 4's and our witness to the world.

Copied the schema below for discussion purposes.

1. Contrite: “Look at the church’s complicity in past and present evils. We have been blind to injustice, prejudice, racism, sexism, and abuse. What the world needs is to see a church owning its sins and working, in brokenness, to make up for them and overcome them.”
2. Compassionate: “Look at the many people hurting and grieving in our midst and in the world. Now is the time to listen and learn. Now is the time to weep with those who weep. What the world needs is a church that demonstrates the love of Christ.”
3. Careful: “Look at the moral confusion and intellectual carelessness that marks our time. Let’s pay attention to our language and our definitions. What the world needs is a church that will draw upon the best of its theological tradition and lead the way in understanding the challenges of our day.”
4. Courageous: “Look at the church’s compromise with (if not outright capitulation to) the spirit of the age. Now is the time for a trumpet blast, not for backing down. What the world needs is a church that will admonish the wayward, warn against danger, and stand as a bulwark for truth, no matter how unpopular.”

I’n sorry if I missed this, but where is this schema from?

[SoCal_Bear]

2 hours ago, Moonhawk said:

I don't think I follow why you think that the main leadership of your group is a 1? Am I reading this incorrectly or misunderstanding what's being meant here? Maybe I'm wrong, maybe I'm bringing my own color to your situation, but I really didn't read anything in your posts that indicated your leadership was a 1. 

They are refusing to follow guidelines in the name of "standing up" to the governments "oppression" of their worship. They are seeing what they are doing as a holy act of defiance. They think they are standing for the Church's good name in all this, not letting the secular world diminish her with masks and mandates. Doesn't this sound more like a 4 (if, perhaps, a misguided 4)?

I was brought up I suppose in a community most like a 4. The quote of, "I do not follow the times, I follow Christ" and ones to that effect were thrown around quite a bit. I see the same people/group/mindset on FB talking about how the masks are encroaching on their religion, trying to keep men out of church with fear.

The problem with 4's is that last part of "no matter how unpopular". Because sometimes they see it as "anything unpopular" with the secular world to be a sign that they are doing the right thing. "The modern secular world wants me to do this, and so it is probably the wrong thing to do." --> "The secular world wants masks, so it is probably against religion. They are against meeting in large groups, it is obviously because the church meets in large groups. Therefore, we cannot give in to masks and social distancing."

Ugh...I meant 4. Sorry. my typo. I was looking at the chart not the numbers (in the article) I'm a 3 with heavy leaning towards 2. Forgive me, please! I'm rather is thrown today by the messages I have gotten. It's thrown me for a loop.

 

[SoCal_Bear]

12 minutes ago, WTM said:

I’n sorry if I missed this, but where is this schema from?

https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/kevin-deyoung/why-reformed-evangelicalism-has-splintered-four-approaches-to-race-politics-and-gender/

 

`

Edited April 19, 2021 by calbear

[SoCal_Bear]

I shocked a group on justice and racial reconciliation when I said in a way I don't regret what has gone on this past year from COVID, George Flyod, BLM, the election, insurrection, etc. I believe that God is using all of that to show us many things in people and our society that have been hidden. It's immensely painful, but I believe that God is using this to move many out of complacency. 

[ktgrok]

9 hours ago, Ordinary Shoes said:

Anyone want to discuss the connection between high demand Christian groups and MLMs? I have a knee injury so have been less mobile recently and have some spent some of my couch time (and while doing physical therapy) watching anti-MLM Youtube videos. It's interesting how there is a religious connection to most of these groups. 

I noticed that many of the women in our old church were involved in MLMs. They have more faith in MLMs than in vaccinations. Crazy! 

Does being a member of a high demand religious group 'prime' you for trusting an MLM? 

 

I think maybe it is not a connection with high demand groups but with patriarchal groups that don't want women "working" in traditional ways. But being part of an MLM is not counted as a traditional job, doesn't put them in authority over men (if the MLM is mostly women), etc. It's more like "egg money" from the past so is acceptable. 

It is also outside the traditional world of employment, which is often seen as corrupting/secular/evil. Men can have those jobs since they are strong enough to resist, but women, being more suceptible to the suggestion of evil (sarcasm) are better off not becoming involved. MLMs are "less worldly" supposedly. Never mind how many are a scam.

[ktgrok]

For the record, I don't think "high demand" is a value judgement, at least not to me. Just a description. Some sports are more high demand than others, but that doesn't make them cults or anything 🙂

[MercyA]

Quoting @Terabith

"Also, the Bible is not the Word of God.  Jesus is the Word of God.  

But yes, interpretation is challenging, because it's important to know history, culture, traditions, as well as language.  And even in the original Greek, you're not reading the original words of Jesus, or even of the apostles."

Many of us would beg to differ. 😉 

ETA: No time to get into this deeply today, just wanted to point out that these are far from universally accepted statements. 

Edited April 19, 2021 by MercyA

[WildflowerMom]

10 hours ago, Terabith said:

I'm not sure I have the bandwidth for this, but just for your information, the Gospels were written in Greek.  At one point I read it well enough to read them in the original, but I have lost that skill.  

Also, the Bible is not the Word of God.  Jesus is the Word of God.  

But yes, interpretation is challenging, because it's important to know history, culture, traditions, as well as language.  And even in the original Greek, you're not reading the original words of Jesus, or even of the apostles.  

I don't think I have the bandwidth, either!  And I always feel stupid talking about deep subjects because I know what I think in my head, but getting that out coherently is difficult for me.    I took religion classes in college especially focusing on the Dead Sea scrolls and such and my priest was a big lecturer on the history of the church.   But... my health has caused some decline in how I process info.  🤷🏻‍♀️  It is what it is.  
 

What I was meaning to say in my previous posts is that I don't rely on others when I study the word.    I do look up maps, historical info, facts and figures, but I don't listen to other sources.  IOW, I don't really want opinions.    Right now (actually it was a New Years resolution) I am studying the New Testament.  I've read it however many times over my 40+ years, but this time I really wanted to go slow and study it.    I know the Holy Spirit is guiding me (because otherwise I probably wouldn't be able to grasp a whole lot at all! Lol) and He meets me where I am and helps fill in some blanks if I have any.    The Holy Spirit will never contradict the word of God, IMO, and that has definitely not happened in my experience.    Now, after I've studied what I can, I  might move on to other sources, but maybe not.  Frankly, I've always used other (opinion) sources and all it did was confuse me, make me doubt basic things, blur the word, etc.   Putting down other sources has been eye-opening for me.   I feel like I'm finally getting what I'm supposed to from the Bible.    
 

re: the bolded...  true, but there is nothing I can do about that.  God is merciful and I don't think He faults me for not hearing it from the horse's mouth, so to speak.     Like I said above, He meets me (us) where we are.  🤷🏻‍♀️
 

I hope that explains a little.  💛

[WildflowerMom]

24 minutes ago, ktgrok said:

For the record, I don't think "high demand" is a value judgement, at least not to me. Just a description. Some sports are more high demand than others, but that doesn't make them cults or anything 🙂

What is a high demand denomination?   I don't understand that.

[MercyA]

.

Edited April 19, 2021 by MercyA

[WildflowerMom]

4 minutes ago, MercyA said:

Many of us would beg to differ. 🙂 

Yes.   I think what He wanted us to base our faith on came through in the Bible.   
 

But that's just me.   I approach my faith pretty simply, I think.  Maybe too simply for some. 🤷🏻‍♀️

[ktgrok]

20 minutes ago, WildflowerMom said:

What is a high demand denomination?   I don't understand that.

One that has a high demand of your time/participation. So, a church that has people there for Wednesday Bible Study, Sunday school, Sunday service (maybe even two services), Saturday small group, volunteering some other day of the week, etc. Where your life is totally centered on the church. 

[WildflowerMom]

21 minutes ago, ktgrok said:

One that has a high demand of your time/participation. So, a church that has people there for Wednesday Bible Study, Sunday school, Sunday service (maybe even two services), Saturday small group, volunteering some other day of the week, etc. Where your life is totally centered on the church. 

Oh ok, thanks for that!  
 

I like the idea of that, in a way.   It's like a family, I guess.  It reminds me of Acts 2:42-46.    

[HS Mom in NC]

22 hours ago, Ordinary Shoes said:

First, none of us are reading the original Gospels. We are reading translations and even translations of translations. Which translation? Reading the Gospels is not hard to understand? Yes, I agree with you, in general. If you pick up one of the Gospels and read it with the background of Christianity, its not hard to understand. We're reading something that we already understand. We can say that all of these details don't matter, i.e. Rabbi Hillel - the golden rule and "the rest is commentary." (paraphrasing). But every individual is going to have a slightly different take on Gospels and that's where things begin to fall apart. 

Jesus is the Logos, the way the truth and the life, but how do any of us know what He actually taught? Again, we're all reading translations of translations of the Gospels that were written long after He died. None of the Gospels were intended to be historical records of what Jesus said. From an individual perspective, you can approach the Gospels in the way that you suggest but it doesn't work in the long run with a group because everyone will have a different interpretation which is why there are literally thousands of different denominations. 

Liturgy vs freestyle = I come from a liturgical background so my perspective will be different here. A formal liturgy can be very freeing. What do you pray when you think of anything to pray? Are we all high emotion all of the time? I'm certainly not. I find a formal liturgy comforting because it takes the pressure off of me to improvise every Sunday. Besides, even in casual churches, isn't there a liturgy? By that I mean a format that is followed on most Sundays? Is it all free for all every Sunday? 

I'm not familiar with Evangelism at all besides growing up in the Bible Belt. 

I think we're talking past each other because of our different backgrounds but from my perspective, trying to simply Christianity to just the "teachings of Jesus" is the recipe for more division. 

 

If you don't view the gospels as accurate to or at least containing the essence of Jesus's teachings, then there's no point in discussing it further.  I believe in a sovereign, omnipotent, omniscient God who is and was able to inspire and preserve through various means enough scripture and provide enough accuracy in translation to give the world at least the core  of Jesus' teachings so we can generally  function according to His will. What's the point of Jesus being the Truth, the Way, and the Life if it's impossible to know what He taught? I also believe in the indwelling of the Holy Spirit that gives believers who are sincerely trying to do His will enough insight to function accordingly. I don't think that's at all out of God's ability or control.

There are people who have read those gospels without a background in Christianity to understand them as well as people with a background in Christianity.  I've heard such personal testimonies of people coming from behind the Iron Curtain with secular backgrounds and those from other religious backgrounds who were able to follow along and get all of it and either accept or reject it as truth.

I don't believe different denominations are inherently bad. I don't have a problem with people coming to different conclusions reading the New Testament on many of the doctrinal issues I listed above.  I think it's actually respectful and positive to create room for somewhat different interpretations and their expressions on those doctrinal issues.  It makes perfect sense for people who believe in baptizing babies vs. people who believe in only believer's baptism to create spaces where those in agreement operate (teaching and practicing) according to the consciences informed by their conclusions.  I wouldn't ask church leadership to baptize someone if it was contrary to their convictions, and I wouldn't deny those who do want to baptize babies a place to do that with the full support of leadership and those around them.

Do I have strong convictions on the issue of who should be baptized?  Very much so, I'm not saying it's a non-issue.   In other words, I don't value conformity as highly as you do when it comes to doctrinal issues.  Why?  Because they're not primary. Jesus is.  It doesn't frighten me, disturb me, or make me the slightest bit uncomfortable. I don't equate differences to "falling apart."  I think that attitude is alarmist and dangerous. It could motivate others with political power and social status to demand conformity from those they have power over, even though those subject to that power may have convictions otherwise. All of my posts have been about ideas having consequences that play our in society.

Your equating free styling with high emotion makes no sense.  I have no idea what you're talking about and again, I'm asking you to explain what you mean. Yes, different churches have different formats for corporate worship that can vary by local assembly, denomination, cultural norms, etc.

There are different ways of praying and different people choose what resonates and works for them in their particular situations.   Sometimes they pray scripture, sometimes they pray conversationally, sometimes they pray without words, sometimes they pray with a format/structure, sometimes they pray responsively as a written prayer someone else wrote, sometimes they pray by writing a prayer down, sometimes they pray as a group, sometimes they pray individually. Most of those can be done aloud or silently as people prefer or as the situation calls for. The level of emotion can be anywhere on the spectrum of human emotional intensity and is completely unrelated to the type of prayer used.

Again, you have misrepresented my previous posts and the essence of my argument. You're wildly oversimplifying and refusing to acknowledge nuance.  You need to read more carefully.  I most certainly did not say we should only use Jesus' teachings and ditch everything else.  I said we need to order and value His teachings higher than other things that I think we should keep.  Everything cannot have the same value in practice. Priorities and focus must be set, and I said Jesus' words should be given the highest value because of who He is-the Way, the Truth and the Life.

[HS Mom in NC]

2 hours ago, WildflowerMom said:

What is a high demand denomination?   I don't understand that.

Another take on high demand denomination is one that teaches that all aspects believer's life should be thoroughly dominated by, integrated with, and informed by their faith and its teachings: habits of mind and their resulting emotions, what actions to take regarding relationships with God, people, money, material goods, the physical world, etc. Their faith is the lens through which they see everything about their lives and the foundation on which rests all of those aspects of their lives.

A low demand denomination sees faith as more compartmentalized and separate aspect of life. Their faith and its teachings are equal to or sometimes lesser than other influences and aspects of their lives.

[Porridge]

3 hours ago, ktgrok said:

One that has a high demand of your time/participation. So, a church that has people there for Wednesday Bible Study, Sunday school, Sunday service (maybe even two services), Saturday small group, volunteering some other day of the week, etc. Where your life is totally centered on the church. 

Many immigrant churches are like this - not in a demanding way, but in a high opportunity way, as one PP mentioned. For immigrant churches, teh church serves both a religious and a social function, and it’s comfortable to center ones life around it

[J-rap]

On 4/18/2021 at 11:11 AM, Ordinary Shoes said:

First, none of us are reading the original Gospels. We are reading translations and even translations of translations. Which translation? Reading the Gospels is not hard to understand? Yes, I agree with you, in general. If you pick up one of the Gospels and read it with the background of Christianity, its not hard to understand. We're reading something that we already understand. We can say that all of these details don't matter, i.e. Rabbi Hillel - the golden rule and "the rest is commentary." (paraphrasing). But every individual is going to have a slightly different take on Gospels and that's where things begin to fall apart. 

Jesus is the Logos, the way the truth and the life, but how do any of us know what He actually taught? Again, we're all reading translations of translations of the Gospels that were written long after He died. None of the Gospels were intended to be historical records of what Jesus said. From an individual perspective, you can approach the Gospels in the way that you suggest but it doesn't work in the long run with a group because everyone will have a different interpretation which is why there are literally thousands of different denominations. 

Liturgy vs freestyle = I come from a liturgical background so my perspective will be different here. A formal liturgy can be very freeing. What do you pray when you think of anything to pray? Are we all high emotion all of the time? I'm certainly not. I find a formal liturgy comforting because it takes the pressure off of me to improvise every Sunday. Besides, even in casual churches, isn't there a liturgy? By that I mean a format that is followed on most Sundays? Is it all free for all every Sunday? 

I'm not familiar with Evangelism at all besides growing up in the Bible Belt. 

I think we're talking past each other because of our different backgrounds but from my perspective, trying to simply Christianity to just the "teachings of Jesus" is the recipe for more division. 

 

I think I get what you're saying...  I've really struggled with this over the years --  how many people I love and respect so much have come to such varied interpretations in their understanding of God and how that plays out in our lives, and that has confused me.  I come from a liturgical background too, but am no longer with a church like that.  And yet, there are aspects of that that I really miss and personally hold on to. There have been many times that I've been able to "rest" in those liturgical prayers when life feels so overwhelming that I don't have the energy to think of my own words or even think my own thoughts, for example.  

I think it's natural that denominations have sprouted because we're different types of people and maybe require different methods of finding God.  Of course that ends up being a family thing because then we pass on our own views to our children, and even our personal slants become doctrine to them. 

But I think if we are able to peel away the layers and various interpretations and prejudices and politics, Jesus's basic bottom-line teachings are the same across the board, and are pretty simple:  Love your neighbor.  Don't judge.  And we see in the different examples of Jesus's acts how he reached out to those who were the ignored and shunned.  If we judge those people, they'll turn away.  If we love them and value them, they maybe come a little closer to understanding God's love.   I've come to think it really isn't any more complicated than that.  But I am still learning.

In the end, I don't even think it matters if we believe the Bible is 100% literal or partially symbolic, or has mistakes here and there or if every single word is supposed to be there for a reason.  I do think the message is completely God-breathed and inspired throughout, and that God is in it ~ so it becomes the living word.  

I agree with you that Scripture was not meant to be a historical document;  still, that's how we first learn about Jesus.  And we know that oral tradition back then was taken very seriously and was an amazing skill that people learned -- it was important for them to learn it and impart it correctly because most people did not yet have the ability to write or read.

I don't really understand how God uses that in our own very different lives to teach us an even deeper understanding about Jesus and what that means for us, but I believe the Holy Spirit through a lifetime of experiences and maturing and suffering and so forth does just that.  

Edited April 19, 2021 by J-rap

[Jean in Newcastle]

14 hours ago, Terabith said:

I'm not sure I have the bandwidth for this, but just for your information, the Gospels were written in Greek.  At one point I read it well enough to read them in the original, but I have lost that skill.  

Also, the Bible is not the Word of God.  Jesus is the Word of God.  

But yes, interpretation is challenging, because it's important to know history, culture, traditions, as well as language.  And even in the original Greek, you're not reading the original words of Jesus, or even of the apostles.  

Everyone has been gracious on this thread, knowing that we have different faith traditions even within Christendom.  Until your post.

She knows that the Gospels (for the most part) were written in Greek.  Some parts are in Aramaic.

And many of us believe that the Bible is the Word of God.  We also believe that Jesus is the Word of God. 

[Jean in Newcastle]

I personally believe that God is a high demand God.  He wants to be a part of all aspects of my life.  He should be remaking me from the inside as I grow spiritually so that I am approaching all aspects of my life through the lens of the Word of God (Scripture in this sentence).

Some people are hungry for teaching.  I think that churches that give a lot of opportunity to learn are good. 

But on the other side of the coin, churches that are putting themselves as an entity above God are not good.  It's not good to be part of a high demand church that requires you to be lockstep with their culture (which is to be differentiated from what God is actually producing in people). 

I don't know if this post is explaining my view well enough because I haven't eaten yet!  Going to eat breakfast and think more about it. 

[Jean in Newcastle]

Believers (in the Bible and God) have been trying to distill our beliefs as derived from Scripture ever since God's message started to be written down.   The Roman Catholic church has been more united on what those core doctrines are partly due to the canonical structure of the church.  (I assume that this is the same for the Eastern Orthodox church?  This isn't my faith tradition so forgive me if I'm unclear on some of this.)

My beliefs align with most major Protestant denominations on the basics (or what used to be called the fundamentals but which became a bad word due to a bunch of cultural baggage and legalism).  Protestant churches tend to agree on these basics with differences in some more minor points and then differences in church government and liturgical style.   I also have a lot of agreement with my Catholic friends as well, though perhaps more disagreement than with fellow Protestants.  But (and correct me if I'm wrong) there is agreement on the Incarnation of Jesus Christ as the God-Man.  There is agreement on His death on the cross for our sins.  (And as a corollary there is agreement on our need for that death for our salvation.)  There is agreement on His resurrection from the dead and His ascension to the Right Hand of the Father.  To me:  this is the core of the gospel (the good news).  (I Corinthian 15:3-4)  I am an "evangelical" because I believe that this good news applies to the entire human race and needs to be shared with others.  (Not forced down their throat but shared - especially if they ask for the "reason for your hope"  1 Peter 3:15)

As I stated in the previous post, I believe that God is a high demand God.  But I believe that while He's given other believers in the church spiritual gifts, He hasn't given away the role of the Holy Spirit in our lives.  So while I do believe that I benefit from those with the communication gifts of Pastor and Teacher, I don't believe that those pastors or teachers should try to take the place of God the Holy Spirit.  They are there to give the message.  Then God the Holy Spirit will work in my heart if I am open to His working and will produce the growth.    I believe that the communication gifts don't include telling me how to apply those doctrines and teachings to my specific circumstances.  The pastor can give some (general) examples but they shouldn't be trying to dictate and meddle directly in my life.  I think? that this is where those "high demand" churches differ from my perspective. 

[Jaybee]

I've gotten behind on this thread and haven't read page 2 yet, so I apologize if this is has already been posted. I just read this article by Russell Moore, and felt it was appropriate for this thread. It is quite long and not an easy read, but I feel it is an important read. https://www.russellmoore.com/2021/04/15/losing-our-religion/

 

[kirstenhill]

3 hours ago, WildflowerMom said:

What is a high demand denomination?   I don't understand that.

Here's another angle.  I don't disagree at all with what others have posted.  This is just an additional potential way it could manifest.  In some churches I've been a part of (or known closely of via good friends attending), there has been a strong church culture of most "committed" people making certain lifestyle choices.  Certainly, not everyone...but it was clear that those in the inner circle would be more likely to make these choices.  These might involve moms staying home, homeschooling, using certain discipline methods for kids, partaking or not partaking in certain media, etc.   I'm sure there are some churches that might take this to a cult like level ("you MUST do x, y, and z"). but even just a strong peer pressure to do certain things feels like a potential part of being "high demand". 

[Terabith]

1 hour ago, Jean in Newcastle said:

Everyone has been gracious on this thread, knowing that we have different faith traditions even within Christendom.  Until your post.

She knows that the Gospels (for the most part) were written in Greek.  Some parts are in Aramaic.

And many of us believe that the Bible is the Word of God.  We also believe that Jesus is the Word of God. 

I'm sorry.  I admit I hadn't read the whole thread.  That was my fault.