Comments on: Church http://natealderson.org/2006/09/11/church/ Fri, 05 Dec 2008 04:07:45 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1 By: Kristen http://natealderson.org/2006/09/11/church/#comment-3307 Kristen Tue, 19 Sep 2006 16:24:00 +0000 http://natealderson.org/2006/09/11/church/#comment-3307 Yeah I see your point. I guess if they are committed seriously I would hope it wouldn't be easy for them (because of convictions) to pick #4 out and make something up. I also agree that majors can be focused on in an unbiblical manner but then that would make it fall under other numbers in the list. Anyway I doesn't really matter its just a list with some good points. I just think that people leave churches for casual, unimportant reasons and don't consider the affect there actions will have on the community they are leaving. Yeah I see your point. I guess if they are committed seriously I would hope it wouldn’t be easy for them (because of convictions) to pick #4 out and make something up. I also agree that majors can be focused on in an unbiblical manner but then that would make it fall under other numbers in the list. Anyway I doesn’t really matter its just a list with some good points. I just think that people leave churches for casual, unimportant reasons and don’t consider the affect there actions will have on the community they are leaving.

]]> By: JaredB http://natealderson.org/2006/09/11/church/#comment-3290 JaredB Mon, 18 Sep 2006 22:39:53 +0000 http://natealderson.org/2006/09/11/church/#comment-3290 Yes, I'd agree on the majoring on minors thing too, it's just that I think that can be difficult to define, and if someone is looking down that list for an excuse to bail out on a church, they will probably pick out number four and come up with some reason why it applies in their situation. For example, of course the most essential things that we need to share common ground on are those that relate to "salvation", but even that can be expanded on greatly. Some might say that the "salvation" message is just the basics of what a person has to believe / confess, etc. to be "saved", but others (like me) would say that "salvation" is a large process that begins with those things but is offered to us for a purpose which will take longer than the whole length of our lives to live out. It's just one of those things that people can sometimes interpret however they want to suit their own desires. To me, I think that things that may seem like "minors" (like what are you going to do and how are you going to live now that you've decided to follow Jesus) are inseparable from the "major" point of the decision to do so. I think that even the "majors" can be a misunderstood point if the focus is on a checklist of steps to get to heaven (or whatever one's concept of being "saved" is, if it doesn't involve every ongoing aspect one's life). I think Jesus talks plenty of times (like in Matt. 7:21-23, Matt. 25, etc.) about people who believe that they are following him but are not living in ways that reflect that claim. I can see that in the greater western church culture that we are in danger of that type of thing when we talk about "salvation" in the sense of walking people through a formula and having them sign a card or pray a prayer "repeat after me" style, if you know what I mean. I guess what I'm trying to say is that it's hard for me to isolate a "major" like salvation, since I think that everything else stems from it. I can see the point behind the original inclusion in the list though, which is probably that nothing should be placed at an equal level to leading people to/towards God. Yes, I’d agree on the majoring on minors thing too, it’s just that I think that can be difficult to define, and if someone is looking down that list for an excuse to bail out on a church, they will probably pick out number four and come up with some reason why it applies in their situation.

For example, of course the most essential things that we need to share common ground on are those that relate to “salvation”, but even that can be expanded on greatly. Some might say that the “salvation” message is just the basics of what a person has to believe / confess, etc. to be “saved”, but others (like me) would say that “salvation” is a large process that begins with those things but is offered to us for a purpose which will take longer than the whole length of our lives to live out.

It’s just one of those things that people can sometimes interpret however they want to suit their own desires. To me, I think that things that may seem like “minors” (like what are you going to do and how are you going to live now that you’ve decided to follow Jesus) are inseparable from the “major” point of the decision to do so.

I think that even the “majors” can be a misunderstood point if the focus is on a checklist of steps to get to heaven (or whatever one’s concept of being “saved” is, if it doesn’t involve every ongoing aspect one’s life). I think Jesus talks plenty of times (like in Matt. 7:21-23, Matt. 25, etc.) about people who believe that they are following him but are not living in ways that reflect that claim. I can see that in the greater western church culture that we are in danger of that type of thing when we talk about “salvation” in the sense of walking people through a formula and having them sign a card or pray a prayer “repeat after me” style, if you know what I mean.

I guess what I’m trying to say is that it’s hard for me to isolate a “major” like salvation, since I think that everything else stems from it. I can see the point behind the original inclusion in the list though, which is probably that nothing should be placed at an equal level to leading people to/towards God.

]]> By: Kristen http://natealderson.org/2006/09/11/church/#comment-3256 Kristen Sat, 16 Sep 2006 00:54:08 +0000 http://natealderson.org/2006/09/11/church/#comment-3256 oops! I didn't see Nicks response but I also agree with what he said. oops! I didn’t see Nicks response but I also agree with what he said.

]]> By: Kristen http://natealderson.org/2006/09/11/church/#comment-3255 Kristen Sat, 16 Sep 2006 00:51:28 +0000 http://natealderson.org/2006/09/11/church/#comment-3255 I agree with what your saying about the church being a community and I guess I wouldn't have even read those without that thought in mind. I do think its clear that there is church leadership who is responsible for the health of the community. (1Peter 5:1-4) With that said it is the responsibility of christian brothers and sisters to hold each other accountable whether they are in leadership or not (Matt 18 & 2Thess 3)which means you shouldn't leave a church without seeking all avenues of repair and reconciliation. On #4 I think the religious leaders of Jesus' day is a perfect example of majoring on the minor and can be used as a good example for us to learn from. Plus they wouldn't have been considered part of the church in the sense that we are talking. Another example is Paul's writings to the Corinthian church about there right to eat meat from idols, which they were focusing on, when they should have been focusing on how it a affects there brothers and sisters around them (liberties in Christ). So if a body of believers is faithful to point #1, majoring on minor should be easily recognized. I can see however that what you were saying could apply to certain theological debates that are not really important to the essentials of our faith. I agree with what your saying about the church being a community and I guess I wouldn’t have even read those without that thought in mind. I do think its clear that there is church leadership who is responsible for the health of the community. (1Peter 5:1-4) With that said it is the responsibility of christian brothers and sisters to hold each other accountable whether they are in leadership or not (Matt 18 & 2Thess 3)which means you shouldn’t leave a church without seeking all avenues of repair and reconciliation.

On #4 I think the religious leaders of Jesus’ day is a perfect example of majoring on the minor and can be used as a good example for us to learn from. Plus they wouldn’t have been considered part of the church in the sense that we are talking. Another example is Paul’s writings to the Corinthian church about there right to eat meat from idols, which they were focusing on, when they should have been focusing on how it a affects there brothers and sisters around them (liberties in Christ). So if a body of believers is faithful to point #1, majoring on minor should be easily recognized. I can see however that what you were saying could apply to certain theological debates that are not really important to the essentials of our faith.

]]> By: Nick http://natealderson.org/2006/09/11/church/#comment-3254 Nick Sat, 16 Sep 2006 00:03:25 +0000 http://natealderson.org/2006/09/11/church/#comment-3254 I think these statements refer to the leadership of the church for the most part, and I don't think that that goes against the idea of the church as the community of believers that it is comprised of. I agree that the phrase "the church" should refer to that community of believers, but there are also leadership roles within a church that are clearly defined in the Bible. I also agree with your statement about how the church should respond if it is failing in any of those 5 points, especially if it is the leadership that is leading the church towards fulfilling any of those. However, if, for example, the leadership is teaching erroneous doctrine, and will not change, then I think the only thing you can do is leave the church. As far as the majors and minors, I think it is pretty well accepted that the majors are things that are essential to salvation, and the minors are things that are not, and I think that most Christian churches agree on the things that are essential to salvation, since those things are very well defined in the Bible. It is views on the minor issues that vary greatly from church to church. I think these statements refer to the leadership of the church for the most part, and I don’t think that that goes against the idea of the church as the community of believers that it is comprised of. I agree that the phrase “the church” should refer to that community of believers, but there are also leadership roles within a church that are clearly defined in the Bible. I also agree with your statement about how the church should respond if it is failing in any of those 5 points, especially if it is the leadership that is leading the church towards fulfilling any of those. However, if, for example, the leadership is teaching erroneous doctrine, and will not change, then I think the only thing you can do is leave the church.

As far as the majors and minors, I think it is pretty well accepted that the majors are things that are essential to salvation, and the minors are things that are not, and I think that most Christian churches agree on the things that are essential to salvation, since those things are very well defined in the Bible. It is views on the minor issues that vary greatly from church to church.

]]> By: JaredB http://natealderson.org/2006/09/11/church/#comment-3252 JaredB Fri, 15 Sep 2006 21:47:35 +0000 http://natealderson.org/2006/09/11/church/#comment-3252 It (that list) can be good and it can be misunderstood as well. I totally understand the point behind it, and agree with it for the most part, but there are also parts that I think could be easy to get confused about. The primary one is the use of the phrase "the church" in the first five points. I believe so much in the fact that "the church" (in a local group sense) IS the community that it is comprised of, that any statements about "the church" should be referring to the people that make it up (not just the ones that teach up front, etc.). If any parts of "the church" are failing in one of those first 5 points, it's the responsibility of the rest of "the church" to approach them about it and resolve it, in love. Number 4 is a little ambiguous as well, since the opinion of what constitutes a "major" vs. "minor" issue varies so greatly among people who all are solidly committed to God. Even in Jesus's day, most of the religious leaders viewed him in a negative light, because he didn't hold some things in as high regard as they did, and went about living and sharing His life in ways they did not approve of. If he came today, I suspect the reaction of many "churches" would be similar. *NOTE: not trying to start an argument here, since (like I said) I understand and agree with most of the underlying points here, just trying to add additional context to be considered. It (that list) can be good and it can be misunderstood as well. I totally understand the point behind it, and agree with it for the most part, but there are also parts that I think could be easy to get confused about.

The primary one is the use of the phrase “the church” in the first five points. I believe so much in the fact that “the church” (in a local group sense) IS the community that it is comprised of, that any statements about “the church” should be referring to the people that make it up (not just the ones that teach up front, etc.).

If any parts of “the church” are failing in one of those first 5 points, it’s the responsibility of the rest of “the church” to approach them about it and resolve it, in love.

Number 4 is a little ambiguous as well, since the opinion of what constitutes a “major” vs. “minor” issue varies so greatly among people who all are solidly committed to God. Even in Jesus’s day, most of the religious leaders viewed him in a negative light, because he didn’t hold some things in as high regard as they did, and went about living and sharing His life in ways they did not approve of. If he came today, I suspect the reaction of many “churches” would be similar.

*NOTE: not trying to start an argument here, since (like I said) I understand and agree with most of the underlying points here, just trying to add additional context to be considered.

]]> By: Martha http://natealderson.org/2006/09/11/church/#comment-3246 Martha Fri, 15 Sep 2006 02:52:06 +0000 http://natealderson.org/2006/09/11/church/#comment-3246 I'd like to email that to a few people. That's pretty good. I’d like to email that to a few people. That’s pretty good.

]]> By: Kristen http://natealderson.org/2006/09/11/church/#comment-3242 Kristen Thu, 14 Sep 2006 19:44:09 +0000 http://natealderson.org/2006/09/11/church/#comment-3242 Since a few of you seem to be talking about specific situations that I don't full understand I thought this list also posted by our pastor might be of interest. When should a person leave a church? 1. Because the church is no longer faithful to God's Word. 2. Because the church is teaching erroneous doctrine. 3. Because the church is practicing a philosophy of ministry that is seriously in contradiction to what God"s Word teaches. 4. Because the church is majoring on what may be consider as minor, secondary issues. 5. Because the church is overlooking obvious and flagrant ungodliness on the part of the leaders or congregation. 6. Because you are being called to fulfill a ministry somewhere else that no one else is fulfilling. Point being that church commitment should be taken seriously. Since a few of you seem to be talking about specific situations that I don’t full understand I thought this list also posted by our pastor might be of interest.
When should a person leave a church?
1. Because the church is no longer faithful to God’s Word.
2. Because the church is teaching erroneous doctrine.
3. Because the church is practicing a philosophy of ministry that is seriously in contradiction to what God”s Word teaches.
4. Because the church is majoring on what may be consider as minor, secondary issues.
5. Because the church is overlooking obvious and flagrant ungodliness on the part of the leaders or congregation.
6. Because you are being called to fulfill a ministry somewhere else that no one else is fulfilling.

Point being that church commitment should be taken seriously.

]]> By: Dave Z http://natealderson.org/2006/09/11/church/#comment-3231 Dave Z Wed, 13 Sep 2006 20:58:11 +0000 http://natealderson.org/2006/09/11/church/#comment-3231 I like what everyone is saying. Seems like God is moving in this area. Hopefully I can follow Him. I like what everyone is saying.

Seems like God is moving in this area. Hopefully I can follow Him.

]]> By: mama jacquie http://natealderson.org/2006/09/11/church/#comment-3210 mama jacquie Tue, 12 Sep 2006 13:26:50 +0000 http://natealderson.org/2006/09/11/church/#comment-3210 It's amazing how hungry we tryly are for the real experience of Church, but how easily we follow after the counterfit. Humans love to create their own little controlable systems. I've caught myself doing it over the years even though my dad preached relationship over religion to his dying day. But the bottom line for spreading the Gospel, as we have been commissioned to do, is: "all men will know you are My disciples by your love, one for another." If that's not the primary goal of our gathering we're definitely off track. Fantastic article Kristen! Great sermon Nick! Wise words Jared! (and all you others) It’s amazing how hungry we tryly are for the real experience of Church, but how easily we follow after the counterfit. Humans love to create their own little controlable systems. I’ve caught myself doing it over the years even though my dad preached relationship over religion to his dying day. But the bottom line for spreading the Gospel, as we have been commissioned to do, is: “all men will know you are My disciples by your love, one for another.” If that’s not the primary goal of our gathering we’re definitely off track.

Fantastic article Kristen! Great sermon Nick! Wise words Jared! (and all you others)

]]>