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

[J-rap]

1 hour ago, Ordinary Shoes said:

RE the bolded - I agree that it boils down to that but why does that matter if Jesus was just some guy who lived 2000 years ago? Didn't the Buddha teach the same thing? 

And there some sayings of Jesus in Scripture that are pretty harsh. For example, He condemns divorce in Matthew 5:32. There are many different ways of interpreting that verse. 

I think that we bring all our past and our baggage, etc to our reading of the Gospel. I believe the Holy Spirit can guide us into a proper understanding of what we read but I think that's very difficult to discern. 

I agree that God is a "high demand" God. I think that "high demand" churches can be exhausting when they expect enthusiasm all the time. That's unrealistic for most people. It doesn't account for different personalities. In our former church, which I would define as "high demand," people were very enthusiastic and when enthusiasm waned, people would disappear. They didn't know how to have a less enthusiastic faith because the model was "high demand," attend all of the services, etc. 

There's a great quote by C.S. Lewis where he says that God's influence also appears in other religions and philosophies, and people might be led by those and belong to Christ without even knowing it.  Anyway, I like to think of it like that.   Also, just because a particular view teaches the same thing on the surface doesn't mean it flows along the same path throughout...  The Buddhist path follows a pretty strict route.  The Jesus path, because of a loving God, can be interrupted, and God offers us grace, as a gift.  

I think there can be a danger in taking just one verse and basing a final conclusion on that.  We always need to compare it to the character we know that is Christ -- which is a self-sacrificial love even in the midst of imperfections and a messy world.  So while we can believe that God intends marriage to be one flesh and is pained by divorce, we can also know that He is loving and gracious, and he accommodates the ideals to our fallen situation.  I believe he truly honors and blesses remarriages.

 

Edited April 19, 2021 by J-rap

[HS Mom in NC]

1 hour ago, Ordinary Shoes said:

I didn't write that I didn't view the Gospels as accurately containing the essence of Jesus's teachings. I don't think it's out of God's ability. However, I don't believe that God insures that all translations are accurate. I also don't believe that God insures that believers (that's a vague word - believers in what?) will interpret it correctly. 

What are the core of Jesus's teachings? I think that you will find radically different opinions about how to define that amongst Christians. 

In my religious tradition, the "core" of Christianity is who Jesus was, i.e. the Incarnation, and what He did, the Resurrection - "trampled down death by death." 

People read the Gospels and reach many different conclusions about what it means. Does that mean that they are not sincere? Or that they were not lead by the Holy Spirit? 

What do you think that there should be agreement about in a group that worships together? 

Jesus is primary but who is Jesus? 

I don't believe I equated free styling with high emotion. It seems to me that what you are suggesting here is that believers will know the primary teachings of Jesus through reading the Gospels. Is that a correct interpretation? You've explained what you regard as doctrine (not primary) but what do you see as the primary teachings? 

And you're suggesting that we know these teachings through reading the Gospels? 

I see that as based on feeling which I why I wrote about "high emotion." What if someone reads the Gospels and it's boring to them? Is that possible? Is there something wrong with that person? What if someone reads the Gospels and concludes that Jesus is not the Son of God? Are they insincere? 

I don't disagree with this. 

It's not that I've misrepresented what you are saying. Rather, it's that we come very different religious traditions so we view these issues differently. 

How do know what Jesus actually said? Do you believe that a translation is an accurate translation of His words? I agree that that the Gospels tell us everything we need to know about what Jesus taught but I don't believe that they are they are complete representations of everything he said. 

You seem generally uncomfortable with things that can be vague, open to interpretation, and practiced in varied ways.  I'm not.  No, no one other than God can know for absolute sure who is sincerely a believer, but Jesus said we'd recognize believers by their fruits. So God knows with certainty all along and we'll get sometimes get a sense of it later when we can't see any fruit long term. He also said there would be tares among the wheat.  So at some point we'll run into people who seem to believers and aren't, but God will sort them in the end. In other words, we don't need to know with certainty that information to get on with the main thing which is following Jesus and becoming more and more like Him.

Of course people will disagree with how to interpret and apply what Jesus said.  That doesn't negate that His teachings should be primary in the lives of people who call themselves followers of/believers in Jesus. Some will be wrong about some things.  OK.  So what? That's not my problem to solve or anyone else's.  They aren't mine to manage.  I'm supposed to do what I believe God wants me to do and I'll answer for it right or wrong-same as everyone else.  So what? Why be bothered by that at all other than to study and pray and act with diligence?

Primary teaching would be the Jesus is the way someone finds truth, eternal life, and the way to God. Jesus taught that the primary goal of His followers is to be like Him-holy.  That means selfless, serving, humble, demonstrating the Fruits of the Spirit, focused on the eternal over the temporal, thinking about things the way He does, being watchful in anticipation of His return, repentant for when we aren't like Him, fasting, praying, seeking out God's will and doing it, conforming ourselves to His image, sharing with others what He did for us, etc. In the gospels Jesus tells us who He is and what He wants us to do and be. We're active participants in our spiritual lives and responsible for how and why we choose to participate. That's all in the gospels.  The gospels give enough of Jesus' words and teachings accurately enough to let us know what's most important and to create a lens through which to view the world. What did Jesus say/teach about that? Is the foundation of a believer's/follower's life.

When it comes to functioning as a local congregation there has to be unity in practical functioning issues like who has authority as leadership, which ordinances/rituals will be practiced,  what forms of corporate worship to use, and how to allocate material resources. I don't mean in agreement as in we align in every particular point of doctrine, rather I mean agreement that the way the congregation chooses to operate is within the range of acceptable options whether we agree or not with every acceptable option.  Agreement is not the same as acceptable.  It's perfectly acceptable to me that people do and or think  things I don't agree with on most doctrinal issues.  That's necessary in a group of people made up of different individuals who function as a unit.  Churches, societies, and families need to operate this way or it's endless division.  Thinking every participating individual needs to conform to the same thinking on every doctrine in order to function a unit is tyranny. European history is full of the horrors of how that played out to its logical end. 


I attended an evangelical church in a different state (not the Bible Belt-the Bible Belt is it's own parallel universe) than the one I live in now that refuses to take a position (as a local congregation) on creationism vs. evolution, the continuation or cessation of the spiritual gifts, end times passages, election vs. free will, physical presence vs. symbolic communion, and a few other things.  They agree that different believers could have differing views and still function in unity.  When someone preached or taught (there were several pastors) they would point out respectfully, when it came up, that their teaching was coming from a particular position on those debatable secondary issues, but that there are other positions believers (including some of the other pastors) can take that are acceptable.   Why?  Because those things aren't primary.  The gospel that Jesus, God the Son, has reconciled man to God the Father,  through is sinless life and sacrifice and those who repent and put their faith in Him are reborn through and indwelt by God the Holy Spirit.  On that they took their stand.  People could agree, disagree, whatever, but that they held to firmly. A wide variety of denominations would align with that.  Obviously not everyone, but that reduces many of divisions in Christianity.

Feelings are irrelevant.  It doesn't matter if they read the gospels and do or don't get excited. It's strange to me that you bring up feelings and emotions at all in this discussion because they have nothing to do with any of it. Some people are more emotive and others are less emotive.

So what if we don't have everything Jesus ever said? If the gospels convey the essence of His teachings we're not left in the lurch or sinking into a void.   I disagree with you that the gospels weren't written down as a historical record.  Believers wrote down their eye witness accounts for future generations. Eye witness accounts are included in the category historical records, see the first chapter of Story of the World Vol. 1 by Susan Wise Bauer. God knows what our situation is and what we have access to, and He'll hold us accountable for what we had and what we did with it.  He knows our limitations. Scripture  states we see through a glass darkly now, so we don't have a way to know everything, but that doesn't excuse us from focusing on what we do have and acting accordingly. 

And believers have the Holy Spirit in them to provide guidance too, so we're not failing about helpless. Many believers have had no access to scripture in times past, but they still had the Holy Spirit for guidance. Yes, there is instruction to believers in scripture to test the spirits implying there are good or bad spirits can influence them, but that's the world God created us to live in and deal with. Life is risky. It's part of the struggle because struggles are formative.  There aren't as many clear cut, black and white, explicitly precise teachings as we may want or like, but God has His reasons for putting us in this situation, we need to accept it and do the best we can with it. Jesus often taught through parables, so interpretation is mandatory, but He still expects us to obey and apply His teachings we learn through the parables.  His Sermon on the Mount and The Greatest Commandment and all his teachings are all about conforming us to His image and being more like Him.

That's why we need to ease up on the debatable, secondary doctrinal issues and stop demanding complete agreement in every particular for membership in local assemblies and denominations-they're not as important and clear cut as many claim.  We still have to operate as The Body of Christ as a whole in spite of coming to different conclusions on these things and we have to calm down and be OK with it. 

[lauraw4321]

 

11 minutes ago, Homeschool Mom in AZ said:

I attended an evangelical church in a different state (not the Bible Belt-the Bible Belt is it's own parallel universe) than the one I live in now that refuses to take a position (as a local congregation) on creationism vs. evolution, the continuation or cessation of the spiritual gifts, end times passages, election vs. free will, physical presence vs. symbolic communion, and a few other things.  They agree that different believers could have differing views and still function in unity.  
 

The only evangelical churches I've attended were in the Bible Belt, where I grew up. If I had attended evangelical churches like the one you describe, I doubt I'd be ex-evangelical. 

[HS Mom in NC]

22 minutes ago, lauraw4321 said:

The only evangelical churches I've attended were in the Bible Belt, where I grew up. If I had attended evangelical churches like the one you describe, I doubt I'd be ex-evangelical. 

It's a rarity.  I've never been around other evangelical churches like that in 40+ years of attending them.  I do know there's been a change in leadership, so I can't say that that's still how it's going as it's been 3 years since I was there. I hope it is.

I lived in PHX (very cosmopolitan) for 45 years and Raleigh for the last 3.  It's really shocking how little diversity of thought there is in evangelicalism here, and it's more cosmopolitan than rural areas. My daughter's homeschool discussion group teacher at our local Christian co-op spoke to me privately about how glad she was that daughter was participating. No other kid had ever been there who could articulate the idea of allowing things they didn't agree with.  The topic of discussion was legalizing marijuana. None of the other kids could really even conceive of taking that kind of nuanced position. It's all good or all bad and everyone needs to pick a side, state their convictions even if no one asked,  and pressure government to enforce their preferred view.

Not only did the majority of conservative evangelicals I personally knew in PHX support legalizing marijuana in some or all situations, many were fine with legalizing same sex marriage.  None of us would participate in a same sex relationship or marijuana use or recommend those things to anyone, yet we had no problem voting on the secular government allowing it. It's something many of us have worked out while others can't even wrap their brains around it. It's a parallel to denominational divisions in Christianity.

[J-rap]

21 hours ago, Ordinary Shoes said:

I'm not trying to be argumentative but I think this is an example of how we bring to the Gospel our preconceived ideas. We believe that Jesus is accepting and loving so see the quote about divorce and remarriage and assume that He blesses remarriages. I'm not saying that I disagree that He blesses remarriages but I think that we read that scripture passage as people in 2021 in a society where divorce and remarriage are common and accepted. 

 

Oh don't worry, I don't think you're being argumentative at all.  I actually really enjoy these discussions and don't mind at all if I'm questioned or challenged...  Hopefully it sharpens my critical thinking skills.  🙂   Also, my schedule is very sporadic so sometimes I only check in in the mornings, or have to skip a few days.

But I disagree about that example (remarriages) bringing God to our preconceived ideas.  I tend to believe it actually pains Him when a marriage -- something so sacred and potentially beautiful -- falls apart.  But He is a god of grace and second chances, and He will forgive us over and over again, just as we're asked to do for others.  He, more than anyone else, understands our unique brains and experiences and hearts.  

I think any other interpretation would mean thinking of Him as a judge, and I think that's a mixed-up human understanding of who God is.

[prairiewindmomma]

On 4/19/2021 at 5:27 AM, WildflowerMom said:

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

Ktgrok mentioned high time commitments.  

"High demand" religion actually is a defined term in some studies. 

--a lot of focus is around a living leader/minister

--group is preoccupied with bringing in new members/missionary work

--group is preoccupied with finances---tithes, donations, etc.

--group is preoccupied with how members think/act/feel---guidance on what is appropriate clothing, who to date, how to discipline a child, relationships within a marriage, etc.

--us v. them mentality

--group uses guilt or shame

--group encourages fellowship primarily within members (often accomplished through time commitments for activities as mentioned above)

There's more, but it's about the degree of intensity of those things.

[prairiewindmomma]

Back to the article, dh and I were talking last night about the article linked--the plausibility curve over the information curve. We were talking about how we had privileged some information---because it was coming from church, we looked at it with "faithful" eyes, rather than "rational" eyes.  It was only as we were fact checking some things that we realized that the church was not being truthful and in fact was lying by both omission and commission.  When we had "faithful" eyes, though, we would make excuses to deal away with the cognitive dissonance that came with disagreeing with our main church.

Was that unhealthy as heck? Yes.  Has it also been a really big problem for not only my family but others? Also yes.

[Katy]

6 hours ago, J-rap said:

Oh don't worry, I don't think you're being argumentative at all.  I actually really enjoy these discussions and don't mind at all if I'm questioned or challenged...  Hopefully it sharpens my critical thinking skills.  🙂   Also, my schedule is very sporadic so sometimes I only check in in the mornings, or have to skip a few days.

But I disagree about that example (remarriages) bringing God to our preconceived ideas.  I tend to believe it actually pains Him when a marriage -- something so sacred and potentially beautiful -- falls apart.  But He is a god of grace and second chances, and He will forgive us over and over again, just as we're asked to do for others.  He, more than anyone else, understands our unique brains and experiences and hearts.  

I think any other interpretation would mean thinking of Him as a judge, and I think that's a mixed-up human understanding of who God is.

Not to mention the story of Jesus with the woman at the well.... He wasn’t critical, just proved He knew the truth about her.

[Resilient]

1 hour ago, prairiewindmomma said:

Ktgrok mentioned high time commitments.  

"High demand" religion actually is a defined term in some studies. 

--a lot of focus is around a living leader/minister

--group is preoccupied with bringing in new members/missionary work

--group is preoccupied with finances---tithes, donations, etc.

--group is preoccupied with how members think/act/feel---guidance on what is appropriate clothing, who to date, how to discipline a child, relationships within a marriage, etc.

--us v. them mentality

--group uses guilt or shame

--group encourages fellowship primarily within members (often accomplished through time commitments for activities as mentioned above)

There's more, but it's about the degree of intensity of those things.

In this definition, I do not belong to a high-demand tradition.  Not as indicated any of these bullet points.

[frogger]

On 4/19/2021 at 11:10 AM, Ordinary Shoes said:

I'm not trying to be argumentative but I think this is an example of how we bring to the Gospel our preconceived ideas. We believe that Jesus is accepting and loving so see the quote about divorce and remarriage and assume that He blesses remarriages. I'm not saying that I disagree that He blesses remarriages but I think that we read that scripture passage as people in 2021 in a society where divorce and remarriage are common and accepted. 

 

I think people get hung up on specific things. The sermon on the mount also says if I get angry at my brother, I'm a sinner. 

There is a statement in the 7th chapter that specifically states, "If you being evil" or was it "if you being a sinner." Anyway there is an understanding that everyone has sinned and we must recognize we are poor in Spirit. 

I guess I don't understand why divorce and remarriage would be treated completely different than getting angry. It is certainly not ideal in a perfect world but we aren't perfect people in a perfect world which is kind of the point. We need grace and forgiveness and growth. 

Edited April 21, 2021 by frogger

[frogger]

1 hour ago, Ordinary Shoes said:

One reason why we would treat divorce and remarriage differently is that Jesus specifically says it's not allowed except under certain circumstances. Of course, we're reading a translation of oral stories so it's not like we have an audio recording of what He actually said. 

For the record, I'm not arguing that divorce and remarriage are bad things. But using this as an example of how we apply modern sensibilities to what we read in the Gospels. 

You're right that we get hung up on certain things. We all read the Gospels filtered through our past, our culture, our language, etc. Which culture war issues are addressed by Jesus in the Gospels? Not abortion, homosexuality, gender but what do Christians argue about the most? 

 

Obvious divorce is a big deal. I think we agree on that and caused or is caused sometimes by really awful circumstances so please don't think I'm meaning to take it lightly.

 

Jesus in the same passage according to Matthew said that saying "You fool" is in danger of the fire of hell. I do think that people make light of the angry name calling verse because they struggle to obey that command where it might be easier for them to obey the marriage one. People like grace with their own flaws and judgement with others. Well, some people.

In Matthew 19:10 right after Jesus again reiterates you shouldn't divorce and remarry his followers exclaimed that wasn't it better to never marry! (paraphrase here). Jesus said, Moses allowed divorce because their hearts were hard. I think a life long commitment in a fallen sinful world can simply be tough!

All of Jesus commands are impossible, leaps above Moses' law but it exposes our poverty and our need for him and if we see that need in ourselves it often makes us more gracious and merciful with others because we need mercy so badly ourselves.

 

Anyway, that is my opinion on why people focus on certain sins and not others but I may be wrong. No man knows another's heart. It's hard enough to know our own. 

I don't mean to detail the thread though.

 

 

[J-rap]

3 hours ago, Ordinary Shoes said:

I think I disagree with the bolded. I don't think it's possible for us to step outside of their current time and place and think about divorce differently. It's too normal in our society. It's also not a bad thing for morality to "develop." I think that most of us reading that passage in 1921 or 1821 would think of it very differently than we do today. 

And there is plenty of support in Scriptures for believing that God is a judge. 

I think the reason I pushed back so hard on the "just follow Jesus!" idea is that we all have a different understanding of who Jesus is. Not only do we have different ideas today, we have very different ideas from people in the past. Were they wrong and we were right? There are people right now reading the Gospels and concluding that following Jesus means being a Christian nationalist. I think claiming that those people are insincere or deluded is an easy excuse. 

Thankfully, we continue to evolve as humans, and some things we thought were okay 200 years ago, we now realize are not okay.  The church has gotten a lot of things wrong over the years...  

I also kind of cringe at the generic "Just follow Jesus" slogan.  What I think that means though is that we're to love/show compassion toward everyone, and leave all judgment to God.  So yes I believe you're right -- God does have a role of judge, but I don't think it's the way we tend to think of it.  Only God knows our deepest, most intimate circumstances and experiences and genetics that have caused us to be the way we are and make the choices we have made.  But his very being is love, and he loves all of us enough to have entered into humanity and into whatever life we're living.  

 

 

 

 

[Scarlett]

13 hours ago, frogger said:

I think people get hung up on specific things. The sermon on the mount also says if I get angry at my brother, I'm a sinner. 

There is a statement in the 7th chapter that specifically states, "If you being evil" or was it "if you being a sinner." Anyway there is an understanding that everyone has sinned and we must recognize we are poor in Spirit. 

I guess I don't understand why divorce and remarriage would be treated completely different than getting angry. It is certainly not ideal in a perfect world but we aren't perfect people in a perfect world which is kind of the point. We need grace and forgiveness and growth. 

I agree we all need forgiveness and grace.  

Comparing divorce/remarriage and anger. Not sure that is a valid comparison as far as how they are treated.  

Anger is something that can come on in a flash. Sure we rework our personalities in order to control that as best we can  Divorce doesn't happen without deliberate steps.  And neither does remarriage.  

That is not to say there can be no forgiveness if an unscriptural divorce is obtained. 

Oops hit enter too soon.  But a blanket 'well divorce is common, so we just have to accept it' stance doesn't seem right either.

Edited April 21, 2021 by Scarlett

[MercyA]

I do believe divorce and remarriage are forbidden for the Christian except in very specific circumstances. Why wouldn't I? We don't (or shouldn't) throw out Christ's commandments just because the culture has changed.

Cherry picking New Testament guidelines for the church isn't a good idea for a multitude of reasons. 

[Scarlett]

Just now, MercyA said:

I do believe divorce and remarriage are forbidden for the Christian except in very specific circumstances. Why wouldn't I? We don't (or shouldn't) throw out Christ's commandments just because the culture has changed.

Cherry picking New Testament guidelines for the church isn't a good idea for a multitude of reasons. 

Right.  I really don't think our morals should evolve.  

[MercyA]

12 hours ago, J-rap said:

I also kind of cringe at the generic "Just follow Jesus" slogan.  What I think that means though is that we're to love/show compassion toward everyone, and leave all judgment to God.  So yes I believe you're right -- God does have a role of judge, but I don't think it's the way we tend to think of it.  Only God knows our deepest, most intimate circumstances and experiences and genetics that have caused us to be the way we are and make the choices we have made.  But his very being is love, and he loves all of us enough to have entered into humanity and into whatever life we're living.  

I agree with this in a sense. Jesus certainly taught that we shouldn't judge others in a hypocritical manner or more harshly than we do ourselves. And I do believe God's judgment will take more into consideration than we ever could. I have found Him to be infinitely merciful with me and I have no doubt He shows the same mercy to others.

However, isn't a type of judgment a necessary part of church discipline?

"For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? God judges those outside. 'Purge the evil person from among you.'" 1 Corinthians 5

Also: 

"When one of you has a grievance against another, does he dare go to law before the unrighteous instead of the saints? Or do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if the world is to be judged by you, are you incompetent to try trivial cases? Do you not know that we are to judge angels? How much more, then, matters pertaining to this life?" 1 Corinthians 6

When we say murder is wrong, that is a judgment. When we say not wearing a mask isn't in line with loving one's neighbor, that is a judgment. Just pointing out that we should be careful what we mean when we say "no judgment!"

Edited April 21, 2021 by MercyA

[frogger]

1 hour ago, Scarlett said:

I agree we all need forgiveness and grace.  

Comparing divorce/remarriage and anger. Not sure that is a valid comparison as far as how they are treated.  

Anger is something that can come on in a flash. Sure we rework our personalities in order to control that as best we can  Divorce doesn't happen without deliberate steps.  And neither does remarriage.  

That is not to say there can be no forgiveness if an unscriptural divorce is obtained. 

Oops hit enter too soon.  But a blanket 'well divorce is common, so we just have to accept it' stance doesn't seem right either.

I agree. I don't accept it but I also see anger and hatred currently destroying our country so 🤷 Also, anger can lead to abuse and divorce. I think it is something to fight against, to recognize as sin and repent of not make light of because "everybody does it." It isn't so much that I take divorce lightly but that I take all of Jesus' commands as important. Hope that makes sense.

 

I just believe we know that we are sinners, that these things aren't good. We come to God for Grace and we should extend it to others. 

I'm also not seeing in the text that the command to not divorce was so easy in Jesus time compared to now and it was allowed according to the law of Moses because, according to Jesus, the hardness of their hearts. In other words, it was always fought against. All hard things are.

Edited April 21, 2021 by frogger

[Scarlett]

4 minutes ago, frogger said:

I agree. I don't accept it but I also see anger and hatred currently destroying our country so 🤷 Also, anger can lead to abuse and divorce. I think it is something to fight against, to recognize as sin and repent of not make light of because "everybody does it." It isn't so much that I take divorce lightly but that I take all of Jesus' commands as important. Hope that makes sense.

 

I just believe we know that we are sinners, that these things aren't good. We come to God for Grace and we should extend it to others. 

I'm also not seeing in the text that the command to not divorce was so easy in Jesus time compared to now and it was allowed according to the law of Moses.

Oh I don't think it was easier in Jesus time compared to now.  I think it was easier than Jesus wanted it to be. 

[Scarlett]

5 minutes ago, frogger said:

I agree. I don't accept it but I also see anger and hatred currently destroying our country so 🤷 Also, anger can lead to abuse and divorce. I think it is something to fight against, to recognize as sin and repent of not make light of because "everybody does it." It isn't so much that I take divorce lightly but that I take all of Jesus' commands as important. Hope that makes sense.

 

Yes!   And I agree.  

[frogger]

11 minutes ago, Scarlett said:

Oh I don't think it was easier in Jesus time compared to now.  I think it was easier than Jesus wanted it to be. 

I think we are agreeing. I mean that marriage wasn't easier, which is why his followers exclaimed, "it is better not to marry."  Not sure if I worded that well.

The actual legal system though is a whole different story. It has thrown in the towel and doesn't care about contracts between two people. That has evolved. But it is good to remember it was still allowed in Jesus time at a standard much lower than his command.

Edited April 21, 2021 by frogger

[Scarlett]

1 minute ago, frogger said:

I think we are agreeing. I mean that marriage wasn't easier, which is why his followers exclaimed, "it is better not to marry."  Not sure if I worded that well.

The actual legal system though is a whole different story. It has thrown in the towel and doesn't care about contracts between two people. That has evolved.

Oh I see what you are saying.  Yes, I imagine it was just as difficult to stay married then as it can be now.  What I see different now is not even the legal system (which I agree doesn't care about marriage) but the societal norms.  As mentioned in this thread, it is widely accepted as part of our current culture. It is rare to find someone to agree that Christians are prohibited to divorce/remarry.

[frogger]

10 minutes ago, Scarlett said:

Oh I see what you are saying.  Yes, I imagine it was just as difficult to stay married then as it can be now.  What I see different now is not even the legal system (which I agree doesn't care about marriage) but the societal norms.  As mentioned in this thread, it is widely accepted as part of our current culture. It is rare to find someone to agree that Christians are prohibited to divorce/remarry.

I agree and I think that certain segments of society want to make this batch of sins over here acceptable  while another segment want to make a different batch of sins acceptable. It is ALL sin and it is destructive and hurtful and we all need grace. But I'm afraid I've derailed the thread. 

Edited April 21, 2021 by frogger

[Jean in Newcastle]

I don't want to go back to quote people but popping back into this thread to point out that none of God's attributes can be emphasized at the expense of another.  God is love.  God is also holy.  God shows his love through the work of Jesus Christ which took care of the problem of sin without compromising His holiness. 

Jesus Christ is not independent of God the Father or God the Holy Spirit.  They work in tandem.  Jesus Christ is holy as well as loving and merciful and gracious.   So are God the Father and God the Holy Spirit.  Jesus Christ did not come in the first incarnation as a judge but He will in the second.  That doesn't mean that He didn't have standards of holiness in the first incarnation but his role and purpose at that time was to bring about the means of salvation and to allow us to have a relationship with an absolutely holy God.

The law of Moses was given so that we could see how far short we fall from God's holiness.  Jesus showed us even more starkly how far short we fall by pointing out that murder in our hearts is just as much missing the mark of God's holiness as is murdering a person's body.  Both are sins.  Murdering a human was codified in Hebrew law as an offense just as it is in our current secular laws but anger removes us from a relationship from a holy God just as effectively. 

I believe that we needed Jesus Christ as the God-Man to die on the cross as our substitute as the only solution to having a relationship with a holy and yet loving God who nonetheless cannot be around sin.  We don't have a relationship with God because He chooses to sweep sin under the rug because His love trumps all.  We can have a relationship because Jesus Christ took our sins on his own body on the cross (1 Peter 2:24). Christ satisfied the wrath of God and the consequences of sin (which are death Romans 6:23) by paying the penalty of those sins.  When we accept that He did that for us, then we too can have a relationship with God because God doesn't see our sins anymore - He sees the big "paid" stamp (this is an analogy) because He sees that Christ had taken care of the issue of our sin. 

As a Christian, I was given Christ's righteousness at the moment of salvation.  2 Corinthians 5:21.  This doesn't mean that I don't sin as a Christian.  It means though that I am accepted on the basis of what Christ did on the cross.  That is how God sees me until the moment I go to heaven where I will be finally rid of my sinful nature.

Also as a Christian I believe that while I cannot lose my salvation (John 10:28), I can go into a sort of a spiritual time-out (another analogy made by me not the Bible but based on being "in fellowship vs. being out of fellowship").  I regain fellowship with God by confessing my sin (1 John 1:9) on the basis (again!) on the fact that Jesus Christ had already made the sacrifice for my sins. 

[HS Mom in NC]

On 4/18/2021 at 3:36 PM, 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. 

I agree that the Church (denominations and local congregations) plays a part.  How churches (denominations and local congregations) interpret scripture is simply a group of people who agree on a particular interpretation practicing that interpretation together. They break off and start different branches of Christianity for those reasons too. People choose which church (denomination and congregation) to join and participate in partly because the church's interpretation matches their personal interpretation of scripture. They may not be as conscious of it as others, but at some level joining a denomination and church means a person thinks that denomination and local congregation have a handle on what scripture teaches as well as or better than others. The founders who started those branches and denominations did the same thing-maybe a long time ago, but that's basically what happened.  

Or they're vibe types who aren't scripture focused, but isn't that just them suggesting it's the Holy Spirit leading them?

[Jean in Newcastle]

23 minutes ago, Ordinary Shoes said:

I've thought about "judgment" as we've discussed masks and vaccines, etc. What does it mean to "judge" and what does Jesus mean when He says that we should not "judge?" 

I think that "don't judge" is a tool that is often wielded in support of power. What is the outcome? Does not judging (and I don't think that we think of as "judging" is always what Jesus meant) help protect the vulnerable? Or does refusing to judge put the vulnerable at greater risk? 

I'm thinking of those terrible ATI materials about rape. 

The Catholic Church teaches an idea called the preferential option for the poor. 

What I've witnessed time and again in Christian communities is that people are admonished not to judge while the vulnerable are not protected. 

I think part of the issue here is that we don't understand judgment correctly. For example, early in COVID I told our former priest that I did not think that he would take proper precautions against COVID because he was anti-vax and said that COVID was not more dangerous than the flu. He accused me of being judgmental. He did not take proper precautions against COVID so my "judgment," based on his prior behavior, was accurate. Guessing how someone will behave in the future based on their prior actions is not judgment. That's wisdom, IMHO. I don't let my DD drive in a car driven by a someone who has driven drunk in the past. 

Take the endlessly debated masking question. "Don't judge" means allowing non-maskers to attend church which increases the risk of COVID being transmitted with a much higher risk of complications and death for the most vulnerable. Are we protecting the vulnerable by refusing to "judge" a non-masker? 

It's not "judgmental" to assert that refusing to wear a mask increases the risk of transmission to other people. It would be "judgmental" to say this makes the non-masker a terrible person. We have a hard differentiating between saying that an action was bad because it increased risk and a person was bad. We often conflate them. 

We are told to have discernment in the Bible.  You are right, that that is part of wisdom.

Judging is not the same as having discernment.  Judging (in my opinion) is thinking that we can pass sentence on someone else.  God says that He reserves that right.  My discernment is not omniscient like God's is so I don't get to be the judge.  He sees the heart.  We don't.  But He also says that we can see what's in someone's heart by their words and actions so we do have some data there to make some decisions out of discernment.  One of those discerning decisions might be to not trust your health safety to someone who says through their words that that they don't understand the health issues present and/or aren't going to follow medical guidelines for health safety. 

[HS Mom in NC]

I think women who want to provide care for their children instead of outsourcing that are natural targets for MLMs, but it's the subsets who actually get sucked in are those with no business intuition or training, are lighter on common sense and realism, are prone to needing to be part of a club, are not generally savvy, and are inclined to believe they can get richer quicker. Evangelicals tend to have many who fit those categories. At one 200ish person sized evangelical church I attended, 4 women were all selling Pampered Chef at the same time. Sigh.

[J-rap]

9 hours ago, MercyA said:

I agree with this in a sense. Jesus certainly taught that we shouldn't judge others in a hypocritical manner or more harshly than we do ourselves. And I do believe God's judgment will take more into consideration than we ever could. I have found Him to be infinitely merciful with me and I have no doubt He shows the same mercy to others.

However, isn't a type of judgment a necessary part of church discipline?

"For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? God judges those outside. 'Purge the evil person from among you.'" 1 Corinthians 5

Also: 

"When one of you has a grievance against another, does he dare go to law before the unrighteous instead of the saints? Or do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if the world is to be judged by you, are you incompetent to try trivial cases? Do you not know that we are to judge angels? How much more, then, matters pertaining to this life?" 1 Corinthians 6

When we say murder is wrong, that is a judgment. When we say not wearing a mask isn't in line with loving one's neighbor, that is a judgment. Just pointing out that we should be careful what we mean when we say "no judgment!"

Well yes, I think there are exceptions when we're in a covenant relationship with someone, or also -- of course -- if someone is actually doing something evil or harmful toward another.  

But generally, we're to adopt an attitude of absolutely humility, and think of ourselves as the "worst of sinners" as the Apostle Paul did.  

Jesus says, "Do not judge, or you too will be judged.  For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you."  (Matthew 7:2) 

I think we need to look at the whole narrative of Jesus.  Judgment and life in the kingdom are generally antithetical to one another.  How are we to give unsurpassable worth to another person while we're judging them? 

In my experience, unless a person first knows and truly understands the love of Jesus, they will not listen to any judgment anyway.  

Here is a personal example, which sounds unbelievable, but it's unfortunately true.  A good friend of mine from my childhood disappeared after high school, and I lost contact with her for nearly 30 years.  It turns out that she and her 9 children were kept captive by her horrible husband, until she called me out of the blue from across the country asking for help.  She was able to use a phone for a few minutes while her husband was out, and she found my number. They had been so abused by her husband, that even after being rescued, her children were naturally psychologically damaged.  All three of her (young adult) girls are transitioning to men, as a result of feeling utterly helpless and being told how hated women are.

Everyone's story has a precursor, and only God knows it completely.  If the only thing these young women learn from a church for the rest of their lives is that they are loved 100% and accepted by God, then that is a beautiful thing, and perhaps they never need to know anything more.  Only God knows what they need, and He meets them where they're at.  That's an extreme example but maybe helps explain my views.

And another thing is that the church is often so good at deciding which sins are okay and which sins aren't.  Usually their own sins are okay, but sexual sins and abortion never are. 

Believe me, I didn't used to be this way.  I've become a lot more humbled in the past ten years due to my entire life turning upside-down and trying to figure out what really mattered and how to best serve God and be an example of Jesus.  

We need to meet people at the bottom, on equal terms, not from the top, looking down on them and judging.

 

Edited April 22, 2021 by J-rap

[J-rap]

8 hours ago, Ordinary Shoes said:

I've thought about "judgment" as we've discussed masks and vaccines, etc. What does it mean to "judge" and what does Jesus mean when He says that we should not "judge?" 

I think that "don't judge" is a tool that is often wielded in support of power. What is the outcome? Does not judging (and I don't think that we think of as "judging" is always what Jesus meant) help protect the vulnerable? Or does refusing to judge put the vulnerable at greater risk? 

I'm thinking of those terrible ATI materials about rape. 

The Catholic Church teaches an idea called the preferential option for the poor. 

What I've witnessed time and again in Christian communities is that people are admonished not to judge while the vulnerable are not protected. 

I think part of the issue here is that we don't understand judgment correctly. For example, early in COVID I told our former priest that I did not think that he would take proper precautions against COVID because he was anti-vax and said that COVID was not more dangerous than the flu. He accused me of being judgmental. He did not take proper precautions against COVID so my "judgment," based on his prior behavior, was accurate. Guessing how someone will behave in the future based on their prior actions is not judgment. That's wisdom, IMHO. I don't let my DD drive in a car driven by a someone who has driven drunk in the past. 

Take the endlessly debated masking question. "Don't judge" means allowing non-maskers to attend church which increases the risk of COVID being transmitted with a much higher risk of complications and death for the most vulnerable. Are we protecting the vulnerable by refusing to "judge" a non-masker? 

It's not "judgmental" to assert that refusing to wear a mask increases the risk of transmission to other people. It would be "judgmental" to say this makes the non-masker a terrible person. We have a hard differentiating between saying that an action was bad because it increased risk and a person was bad. We often conflate them. 

You make some great points, which I can't address now but will as soon as I have a longer stretch, hopefully tomorrow.

[MercyA]

@J-rap, thanks for your response! I think we do agree on quite a bit, and I, too, have changed my views over the years (hopefully to be more in line with Scripture and with the character of God--even if my younger self would disagree 😉).

I am so sorry to hear what happened to your friend and her family. 😞 I'm glad you were able to be there for her.

We are not to judge those outside the church. That is not our job. We are to show love and compassion to all, not just in words but in deeds.

I would, however, echo Jean and say we should be careful not to emphasize one aspect of God's character at the expense of others. The same Jesus who warned us not to judge also warned us that "it is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God," told the adulterous woman to "go in sin no more," and instructed us to "be holy, as God is holy." He didn't mince words regarding judgement, saying, "You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye."

I would also say that, according to my understanding of Scripture, "the law was our schoolmaster to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith." Until I clearly saw my sin, I did not fully understand my need for Jesus. I didn't come to Him because He was all loving or to make my life happier. I came to Him because I was (like Paul, as you said) "the chief of sinners" who needed a Savior. Yes, His kindness and mercy helped my journey tremendously. But a healthy fear of His holiness played a large role as well.

I agree that much of the church has been absolutely hypocritical in their handling of sin. They say (as they should) "thou shall not kill" when it comes to abortion, but then refuse to wear masks to protect others and support wars of aggression. They condemn some sexual sins while overlooking others. It has shameful and has harmed the church tremendously. 

Edited April 22, 2021 by MercyA

[J-rap]

16 hours ago, MercyA said:

@J-rap, thanks for your response! I think we do agree on quite a bit, and I, too, have changed my views over the years (hopefully to be more in line with Scripture and with the character of God--even if my younger self would disagree 😉).

I am so sorry to hear what happened to your friend and her family. 😞 I'm glad you were able to be there for her.

We are not to judge those outside the church. That is not our job. We are to show love and compassion to all, not just in words but in deeds.

I would, however, echo Jean and say we should be careful not to emphasize one aspect of God's character at the expense of others. The same Jesus who warned us not to judge also warned us that "it is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God," told the adulterous woman to "go in sin no more," and instructed us to "be holy, as God is holy." He didn't mince words regarding judgement, saying, "You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye."

I would also say that, according to my understanding of Scripture, "the law was our schoolmaster to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith." Until I clearly saw my sin, I did not fully understand my need for Jesus. I didn't come to Him because He was all loving or to make my life happier. I came to Him because I was (like Paul, as you said) "the chief of sinners" who needed a Savior. Yes, His kindness and mercy helped my journey tremendously. But a healthy fear of His holiness played a large role as well.

I agree that much of the church has been absolutely hypocritical in their handling of sin. They say (as they should) "thou shall not kill" when it comes to abortion, but then refuse to wear masks to protect others and support wars of aggression. They condemn some sexual sins while overlooking others. It has shameful and has harmed the church tremendously. 

Well perhaps at the end of the day, we're called to different things.  And I agree that we probably agree on much more than we disagree!  We're getting down to the nitty-gritty.  🙂  

For whatever reason, God seems to have placed me throughout my life more with people who have not experienced Christ's love than those who do, so I have had to learn grace and empathy more than anything ~ not judgment.  That hasn't always been easy!  But I'm personally convinced that in my own life anyway, everything has to always begin with God's love and assurance of worthiness toward others, and that I need to be very careful about how I proceed beyond that.  For example, my church I call home welcomes gay people/couples.  It doesn't do it to celebrate their choices or actions, but to give them a safe place to be loved by God.  We believe it's not God's ideal...  just like selfishness and divorce and idolatry and greed and abortion and pride and so many other things are not God's ideal.  But it's a messy world and it's very complicated and often very difficult, but we're there for each other.  At the end of the day, it's more about furthering God's kingdom here and now, which I think is really about loving and caring for and valuing each other -- everyone we come in contact with -- even our "enemies,"  and giving each other grace.  

I think the closer we are drawn in to God's heart, the Holy Spirit convicts us of how we need to change.  

I personally think the example of "Go and sin no more" implies that Jesus alone was qualified to tell her that.  To the others, he said that whoever was without sin could cast the first stone, and no one met that requirement.   He was letting her know that He was the Messiah, and even then, he wasn't condemning her.  He was advising her to go and sin no more, since she now had known and recognized the Messiah.

ETA:  I wanted add that churches seem to have a long history of calling out certain sins as though those are the worst...  As though a gay relationship is far worse than being prideful or arrogant or selfish with your money or whatever.  And another thought... I was listening to Mere Christianity recently where Lewis talks about a person who appears holy and seems to do everything right... But actually, it happens to be a lifestyle that for many reasons (upbringing, brain-type, etc.) comes very naturally and easily for that person, and in reality, they barely need to sacrifice anything to be that way.  And then there might be another person who seems to do so many things that aren't right and seems to be so far from living a holy life.  And yet, it could be that the second person, coming from his particular background, has actually had to sacrifice so much already and work so very hard just to get to that point.  And yet how easy it is for us to judge the first person as good and the second one as bad.  Only God knows how far we have come, and if we seek Him, He'll continue us on that path Himself.

I used to think of verses like those in Matthew 5 (murder vs anger, adultery vs lust) as hyperbole, but I've come to realize that our inner heart is just as important as our outer actions.  So yes, we have a long way to go with just picking the log out of our own eye.  

Edited April 23, 2021 by J-rap

[J-rap]

On 4/21/2021 at 12:42 PM, Ordinary Shoes said:

I've thought about "judgment" as we've discussed masks and vaccines, etc. What does it mean to "judge" and what does Jesus mean when He says that we should not "judge?" 

I think that "don't judge" is a tool that is often wielded in support of power. What is the outcome? Does not judging (and I don't think that we think of as "judging" is always what Jesus meant) help protect the vulnerable? Or does refusing to judge put the vulnerable at greater risk? 

I'm thinking of those terrible ATI materials about rape. 

The Catholic Church teaches an idea called the preferential option for the poor. 

What I've witnessed time and again in Christian communities is that people are admonished not to judge while the vulnerable are not protected. 

I think part of the issue here is that we don't understand judgment correctly. For example, early in COVID I told our former priest that I did not think that he would take proper precautions against COVID because he was anti-vax and said that COVID was not more dangerous than the flu. He accused me of being judgmental. He did not take proper precautions against COVID so my "judgment," based on his prior behavior, was accurate. Guessing how someone will behave in the future based on their prior actions is not judgment. That's wisdom, IMHO. I don't let my DD drive in a car driven by a someone who has driven drunk in the past. 

Take the endlessly debated masking question. "Don't judge" means allowing non-maskers to attend church which increases the risk of COVID being transmitted with a much higher risk of complications and death for the most vulnerable. Are we protecting the vulnerable by refusing to "judge" a non-masker? 

It's not "judgmental" to assert that refusing to wear a mask increases the risk of transmission to other people. It would be "judgmental" to say this makes the non-masker a terrible person. We have a hard differentiating between saying that an action was bad because it increased risk and a person was bad. We often conflate them. 

I think those are great points, and something I've really struggled with myself.  

I think there's a difference between judgment and wise discernment.  Judging generally places oneself above someone else.  Discernment is about making a proper decision.   

I certainly agree with protecting the most vulnerable.  Probably if we ask those people if the church is loving -- in their experience, we'll have some indication of where we as the church stands.  

[ktgrok]

On 4/21/2021 at 2:07 PM, Homeschool Mom in AZ said:

People choose which church (denomination and congregation) to join and participate in partly because the church's interpretation matches their personal interpretation of scripture. They may not be as conscious of it as others, but at some level joining a denomination and church means a person thinks that denomination and local congregation have a handle on what scripture teaches as well as or better than others. The founders who started those branches and denominations did the same thing-maybe a long time ago, but that's basically what happened.  

Or they're vibe types who aren't scripture focused, but isn't that just them suggesting it's the Holy Spirit leading them?

Sort of? In some ways that was not true when I was in the Roman Catholic church. I actually thought they got some significant stuff wrong, but I still felt they were the original church. (with the Orthodox). I still actually feel that way,but other aspects became a barrier that was keeping from God, rather than the church acting as a conduit of God, so I am not there anymore. But that wasn't over scriptural interpretation for the most part. 

But otherwise, yeah. 

One reason I do love the Episcopal/Anglican tradition is that what defines the church is worshipping together. You can have people with a wide range of beliefs and all fit - as our priest says, "we welcome you no  matter where you are on your journey with God". The Catholic church was actually very similar in that there were a wide variety of opinions in the actual pews. Although the rad trads are getting louder and louder lately 😞

9 hours ago, J-rap said:

 

ETA:  I wanted add that churches seem to have a long history of calling out certain sins as though those are the worst...  As though a gay relationship is far worse than being prideful or arrogant or selfish with your money or whatever.  And another thought... I was listening to Mere Christianity recently where Lewis talks about a person who appears holy and seems to do everything right... But actually, it happens to be a lifestyle that for many reasons (upbringing, brain-type, etc.) comes very naturally and easily for that person, and in reality, they barely need to sacrifice anything to be that way.  And then there might be another person who seems to do so many things that aren't right and seems to be so far from living a holy life.  And yet, it could be that the second person, coming from his particular background, has actually had to sacrifice so much already and work so very hard just to get to that point.  And yet how easy it is for us to judge the first person as good and the second one as bad.  Only God knows how far we have come, and if we seek Him, He'll continue us on that path Himself.

.  

I do love that part in Mere Christianity. I also appreciate that he says he won't talk/write about sins he doesn't struggle with himself. I think a lot of times, pastors do the opposite - lots of middle aged men preaching about abortion who obviously never have to face that choice themselves, or married straight men preaching about homosexuality, etc. I appreciate that Lewis stuck to stuff he himself struggled with. 

[Resilient]

On 4/20/2021 at 6:24 PM, Ordinary Shoes said:

How long have you been Orthodox (presuming)? 

lot of focus around living leader/minister - the Fr. Josiah Trenham obsession in much of American Orthodoxy. There's also Fr. Peter Heers (who is his bishop?). 

preoccupied with bringing in new members - yep

preoccupied with finances - depends on the church

preoccupied with how members think/act/feel - never ending topic is most of American Orthodoxy

us v them - yep

uses guilt or shame - depends on the church

encourages fellowship primarily within members - the time commitment can be huge and people tend to start congregating together because of that. 

 

Are the two preachers you named teaching the Orthodox doctrine? or are they hyper zealous converts?  If the latter, I've seen that before in more than one place / tradition.  

As for the other things you mention, I have seen these things before, too, in more than one place / tradition and been at the wrong end of the stick at times.  Sometimes these things occur in my current community but they are not part of its overall culture.  It's sad that these attributes have formed the culture of your previous faith communities.  😞

[MercyA]

@J-rap, it's late, but I just wanted to say there was much in your response that resonated with me. Thank you.

ETA: Very nice point about Jesus and the woman caught in adultery. I would say that the New Testament has plenty to say about believers exhorting, rebuking, correcting, and disciplining each other (and themselves!) but very little (if any?) to say about them doing the same things to those who have not trusted Christ.

Edited April 24, 2021 by MercyA

[Scarlett]

9 hours ago, MercyA said:

@J-rap, it's late, but I just wanted to say there was much in your response that resonated with me. Thank you.

ETA: Very nice point about Jesus and the woman caught in adultery. I would say that the New Testament has plenty to say about believers exhorting, rebuking, correcting, and disciplining each other (and themselves!) but very little (if any?) to say about them doing the same things to those who have not trusted Christ.

Agreeing with your post and adding that refraining from correcting is different than condoning.

[Faith-manor]

1 hour ago, Scarlett said:

Agreeing with your post and adding that refraining from correcting is different than condoning.

Very much this. And unfortunately, it is an area that evangelicalism and fundamentalism have gotten so very, very wrong. So despite not being a believer anymore, a local church is still trying to punish me for not adhering to their belief system. The church people are down right ugly to me, vicious verbally, so now I refuse any contact with people I once would have considered friends. And I never turned on them personally. I just simply came to a conclusion they do not like, so out came the claws. It does have the effect of reinforcing my belief that organized Christianity has gone so far off the rails that I cannot morally defend the belief system anymore.

So it is something to consider. I am not sure even the apostle Paul, ever an advocate of accountability within the membership, would have tolerated such mean spirited behavior. If one cannot exhibit grace to others, what's the point?

This has been a really cool thread, y'all!