Liberal churches. Christian or not?

[OnceConvinced]

I am writing this thread with my God glasses on.

In another thread Drs said:

It would be better for the churches to judge and keep order and have all who are offended walk out bitter and angry because they have no place with CHRIST if they refuse Him and deny His word.

This came up on a discussion about judging. Drs maintains that members must be judged. Now I'm not saying I entirely disagree with his opinions on that, but I do disagree with the way he suggests going about it.

I have seen way too many people walk out of churches due to being judged. This only serves to push people away from Christ. And I have certainly seen it here on this site, some Chirstians judging others, spreading illwill and turning people off Christianity rather than attracting them to it.

I have been guilty in the past of judging a person of another religion and as a result this person refused to talk to me ever again. I thus messed up my chances of ever being able to convert this person. If perhaps I had been more sensitive to him, it may have been a different story.

Scare church members away and they may not get the teaching they need to get them back on the right track. You may be condemning them to hell yourself. I don't think it shows love, mercy, patience, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, Christian grace or any of the good things Jesus showed to the people everybody disliked.

Drs would condemn liberal churches as not teaching true Christianity. He would rather see people leave the church offended, than to change his methods and deal with people in a more sensitive manner.

So are liberal churches right in being little more tolerant of people?
Or should all churches take a dogmatic approach and judge it's members, thus risking detering them from attending?
What are the ramifications?
What are the advantages?

[Skyler]

So are liberal churches right in being little more tolerant of people?
Or should all churches take a dogmatic approach and judge it's members, thus risking detering them from attending?
What are the ramifications?
What are the advantages?

Liberal churches are, I think, taking the "tolerance" issue too far. Of course it's not right to simply lay down hard-and-fast laws that all church members must obey under threat of excommunication, but it's important to avoid both ditches.

The equivalent of the liberal churches, if we were to swap in a different religion, would be that if I put on a turban, say "Allah" once or twice a week, and put a Koran on my shelf, I would be a Muslim, regardless of what else I believed or did. This is simply not the case as nearly all Muslims will tell you.

So we need to strike a balance between the two extremes.

Skyler

[msmcneal]

The idea that Christianity should be all-inclusive goes back to Jesus himself. In the Gospels, reading about what Jesus said and did, one gets the idea that he himself was somewhat liberal. His friends were those considered sinners, who were rejected by the religious elite. He befriended anyone. I think the liberal churches tend to try to follow this ideal that Jesus gave the example for. So no, I don't think they take tolerance too far. However, I will agree with Skyler on one point. It seems to me to be rather pointless to take liberalism so far that what you are believing and practicing has little semblance with Christianity at all. Then there would be no point in calling yourself a Christian. But me, personally; I'd rather be on the more liberal side. Look at alot of the Christian charities. Most tend to be funded and run by the more liberal churches. I know here where I live, all the charities and places where people can receive help are run by the liberal churches. I'm not sure how true this is anywhere else, though, so I can't really say for sure that it's the norm. But there seems to be a connection between the liberals' tolerance and their willingness to help those in need, whereas the more conservative churches tend to be less caring about the poor and needy.

[Skyler]

The idea that Christianity should be all-inclusive goes back to Jesus himself. In the Gospels, reading about what Jesus said and did, one gets the idea that he himself was somewhat liberal. His friends were those considered sinners, who were rejected by the religious elite. He befriended anyone. I think the liberal churches tend to try to follow this ideal that Jesus gave the example for. So no, I don't think they take tolerance too far. However, I will agree with Skyler on one point. It seems to me to be rather pointless to take liberalism so far that what you are believing and practicing has little semblance with Christianity at all. Then there would be no point in calling yourself a Christian. But me, personally; I'd rather be on the more liberal side. Look at alot of the Christian charities. Most tend to be funded and run by the more liberal churches. I know here where I live, all the charities and places where people can receive help are run by the liberal churches. I'm not sure how true this is anywhere else, though, so I can't really say for sure that it's the norm. But there seems to be a connection between the liberals' tolerance and their willingness to help those in need, whereas the more conservative churches tend to be less caring about the poor and needy.

Yes, and in fact Richard Wiseman(as related in his book "Quirkology") did a study on this. They discovered that the liberal churches were usually more generous, while the conservative churches were usually willing to help unless it involved dipping into their pocketbooks.

I would comment that while many conservative churches are wrong in withdrawing from the world, this doesn't mean they should be accepting of them "just as they are". As they are, the world is comprised of guilty sinners. But it's those people who most desperately need Jesus' sacrifice.

[Avariel]

Yes, and in fact Richard Wiseman(as related in his book "Quirkology") did a study on this. They discovered that the liberal churches were usually more generous, while the conservative churches were usually willing to help unless it involved dipping into their pocketbooks.

I would comment that while many conservative churches are wrong in withdrawing from the world, this doesn't mean they should be accepting of them "just as they are". As they are, the world is comprised of guilty sinners. But it's those people who most desperately need Jesus' sacrifice.

And it's those people Jesus hung out with on a daily basis when he was alive.

I think the Liberal Churches have it more right on than the more conservative ones, honestly. While I certaintly realize that Christians are supposed to be "not of the world" they should follow the connotations of their name and be "Christ like." Christ spoke to whomever approached him, and with the masses at his teachings being the size they were, you can probably imagine the number of adulterers, sinners, sexual deviants, alcoholics, etc that flocked to hear what he had to say. He never told any of them to leave; and in truth, I remember a lot of the different Jewish sects becoming angry with him because he taught things like accepting gentiles into the inner temple and about kind, lowly, Samaritan dogs, portraying them as the heroes of the story instead of the lower class citizens that Jews believed them to be.

The Elitism, frankly, needs to stop. The idea of having to stand up for your Christian laws and preaching your truth is one thing, and that is something that you should do as Christians (even though I don't believe it myself) but every single Christian is a sinner...every, single, one. There is nothing about you that makes you worthy to judge another human being, not even your state as an accepted believer; and if you're in right state with God, it will only be a matter of time before you're in the wrong again, and on a level playing field with everyone else you're so fond of judging. I think the Liberal Churches have the right way of it; if anything, they're more aware of how human and fallible they really are, and that when it comes down to it, they're just a gathering of worshippers every Sunday that are trying to do the right thing.

If you're judging, you're wrong, plain and simple, and definitely not "Christ like."

[kiwimac]

Yes, and in fact Richard Wiseman(as related in his book "Quirkology") did a study on this. They discovered that the liberal churches were usually more generous, while the conservative churches were usually willing to help unless it involved dipping into their pocketbooks.

I would comment that while many conservative churches are wrong in withdrawing from the world, this doesn't mean they should be accepting of them "just as they are". As they are, the world is comprised of guilty sinners. But it's those people who most desperately need Jesus' sacrifice.

And it's those people Jesus hung out with on a daily basis when he was alive.

I think the Liberal Churches have it more right on than the more conservative ones, honestly. While I certaintly realize that Christians are supposed to be "not of the world" they should follow the connotations of their name and be "Christ like." Christ spoke to whomever approached him, and with the masses at his teachings being the size they were, you can probably imagine the number of adulterers, sinners, sexual deviants, alcoholics, etc that flocked to hear what he had to say. He never told any of them to leave; and in truth, I remember a lot of the different Jewish sects becoming angry with him because he taught things like accepting gentiles into the inner temple and about kind, lowly, Samaritan dogs, portraying them as the heroes of the story instead of the lower class citizens that Jews believed them to be.

The Elitism, frankly, needs to stop. The idea of having to stand up for your Christian laws and preaching your truth is one thing, and that is something that you should do as Christians (even though I don't believe it myself) but every single Christian is a sinner...every, single, one. There is nothing about you that makes you worthy to judge another human being, not even your state as an accepted believer; and if you're in right state with God, it will only be a matter of time before you're in the wrong again, and on a level playing field with everyone else you're so fond of judging. I think the Liberal Churches have the right way of it; if anything, they're more aware of how human and fallible they really are, and that when it comes down to it, they're just a gathering of worshippers every Sunday that are trying to do the right thing.

If you're judging, you're wrong, plain and simple, and definitely not "Christ like."

QFT

Jesus was called a sinner because he visited with sinners, he was called a glutton and drunkard because he fellowshipped with those the religious folk of his day would have nothing to do with.

[drs]

I am writing this thread with my God glasses on.

In another thread Drs said:

It would be better for the churches to judge and keep order and have all who are offended walk out bitter and angry because they have no place with CHRIST if they refuse Him and deny His word.

This came up on a discussion about judging. Drs maintains that members must be judged. Now I'm not saying I entirely disagree with his opinions on that, but I do disagree with the way he suggests going about it.

I have seen way too many people walk out of churches due to being judged. This only serves to push people away from Christ. And I have certainly seen it here on this site, some Chirstians judging others, spreading illwill and turning people off Christianity rather than attracting them to it.

I have been guilty in the past of judging a person of another religion and as a result this person refused to talk to me ever again. I thus messed up my chances of ever being able to convert this person. If perhaps I had been more sensitive to him, it may have been a different story.

I did say in the other thread that judging and discerment go together and it is not a simple task of yes or no.

A church leader must be right with GOD first otherwise he will not be able to shepard his flock.

Leader ship must be taken very seriously because they will be accountable to GOD for what they teach others.

drs
Church leader ship must follow true and sound doctrine and preach the gospel the way CHRIST and His disciples and did keep order in the church.

If they are unwilling to do this then they should not become pastors

Individual encounters with people may be unique and again I stress wisdom discernment and good judgment are needed.

drs
Also note I have tried my very best to explain to you that judgment and discernment go together.

I have even quoted the meaning of judgment from Stongs concordence

GOD is calling for righteous judgment/discernment in all situations all area's of your life which include for a disciple of CHRIST judging and discerning church doctrine and those that claim to be fellow brothers.

It Is not a simple task calling for rash ,hypocritical judgment based on misinformation and personal prejudace.


To judge and discern properly church doctrine and who is and is not following CHRIST must be approched with caution through the HOLY SPIRIT who is the teacher of those in CHRIST, uncorrupted knowledge of scripture is needed which can only be obtained through GOD.

Now with this one must be bestowed wisdom and understanding from GOD to make good and wise decisions.(judgments/discernments)



To judge and discern properly is a complex operation in the mind.

One has to take all these things listed below into account.




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

krin - judge

1) to separate, put asunder, to pick out, select, choose

2) to approve, esteem, to prefer

3) to be of opinion, deem, think, to be of opinion

4) to determine, resolve, decree

5) to judge

a) to pronounce an opinion concerning right and wrong

1) to be judged, i.e. summoned to trial that one's case may be examined and judgment passed upon it

b) to pronounce judgment, to subject to censure

1) of those who act the part of judges or arbiters in matters of common life, or pass judgment on the deeds and words of others

6) to rule, govern

a) to preside over with the power of giving judicial decisions, because it was the prerogative of kings and rulers to pass judgment

7) to contend together, of warriors and combatants

a) to dispute

b) in a forensic sense

1) to go to law, have suit at law

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now I will quote the meanging of discern fron Stongs concordence

dokimaz - discern Luke 12:56

1) to test, examine, prove, scrutinise (to see whether a thing is genuine or not), as metals

2) to recognise as genuine after examination, to approve, deem worthy

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
diakrin - discern Matthew 16:3

1) to separate, make a distinction, discriminate, to prefer

2) to learn by discrimination, to try, decide

a) to determine, give judgment, decide a dispute

3) to withdraw from one, desert

4) to separate one's self in a hostile spirit, to oppose, strive with dispute, contend

5) to be at variance with one's self, hesitate, doubt

Scare church members away and they may not get the teaching they need to get them back on the right track. You may be condemning them to hell yourself. I don't think it shows love, mercy, patience, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, Christian grace or any of the good things Jesus showed to the people everybody disliked.

Drs would condemn liberal churches as not teaching true Christianity. He would rather see people leave the church offended, than to change his methods and deal with people in a more sensitive manner.

So are liberal churches right in being little more tolerant of people?
Or should all churches take a dogmatic approach and judge it's members, thus risking detering them from attending?
What are the ramifications?
What are the advantages?

It is not about scaring church members away but teaching proper doctrine and having church disipline

If you teach the truth of CHRIST and proper doctrine and people are offended, they may leave the church.

It is not for leadership to comprimise truth and doctrine to accommodate the individuale beliefs and feelings of the people who come to the church.

It is for the leadership to be true to GOD above all and properly disciple those that come to the church through the teaching of correct doctrine.

drs
Specifactly here I am judging the leadership of the church and those who determine doctrine and belief's which I have a valid case according to what they list in these sections because they are contrary to scripture and they are not minor differences.

drs
My above explanation of judgment should cover this.

My major problem is with church doctrine and leadership who I blame for teaching what is false and wrong to those who seek to serve CHRIST.

Individual people will have to be dealt with according to each situation with carefull discernment and wisdom from GOD

[blipverts45]

I am writing this thread with my God glasses on.

In another thread Drs said:

It would be better for the churches to judge and keep order and have all who are offended walk out bitter and angry because they have no place with CHRIST if they refuse Him and deny His word.

This came up on a discussion about judging. Drs maintains that members must be judged. Now I'm not saying I entirely disagree with his opinions on that, but I do disagree with the way he suggests going about it.

I have seen way too many people walk out of churches due to being judged. This only serves to push people away from Christ. And I have certainly seen it here on this site, some Chirstians judging others, spreading illwill and turning people off Christianity rather than attracting them to it.

I have been guilty in the past of judging a person of another religion and as a result this person refused to talk to me ever again. I thus messed up my chances of ever being able to convert this person. If perhaps I had been more sensitive to him, it may have been a different story.

Scare church members away and they may not get the teaching they need to get them back on the right track. You may be condemning them to hell yourself. I don't think it shows love, mercy, patience, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, Christian grace or any of the good things Jesus showed to the people everybody disliked.

Drs would condemn liberal churches as not teaching true Christianity. He would rather see people leave the church offended, than to change his methods and deal with people in a more sensitive manner.

So are liberal churches right in being little more tolerant of people?
Or should all churches take a dogmatic approach and judge it's members, thus risking detering them from attending?
What are the ramifications?
What are the advantages?

I guess from what I understand about the Bible, the words "liberal" or "conservative" are not anything which creates a "good Christian." And...any such judgment of the fruits of someone life would have to be made by "God" at judgment day. Of what I know about Religious history, it has usually been the ones labeled "liberal" (ie, Unitarian, etc), which have made the strides toward progressing the "Church" out of the rut it often gets into. Martin Luther would have been considered a liberal, but at the time of the reformation was often labeled heretic.

[Munchskreem]

It is not about scaring church members away but teaching proper doctrine and having church disipline

If you teach the truth of CHRIST and proper doctrine and people are offended, they may leave the church.

It is not for leadership to comprimise truth and doctrine to accommodate the individuale beliefs and feelings of the people who come to the church.

It is for the leadership to be true to GOD above all and properly disciple those that come to the church through the teaching of correct doctrine.

That's the problem, though. If you approach somebody in a way in which you are guaranteed to offend, then chances are that you won't get anywhere. Obviously, if you believe in a fairly strict set of rules you won't deviate much from them, and if somebody disagrees irreconcilably with a major point of doctrine then they will inevitably leave, but it would be senseless to chastise people for disagreement.

Explaining to them why these things would be necessary would be a better option. All to often, I've seen people get pissed because they've been treated like dirt for having a disagreement which could have been resolved in a more civil way than to say, "This is what it is, so sit down and shut up while I lay it down to you." There's no encouragement to know why it is that way.

In a sense, the preacher loses sheep because of his own failure to recognize that other people don't always think like him. Thus, mutual misunderstanding leads to division.

[Mere_Christian]

Liberal churches. Christian or not?

Per Jude?

Jude, a servant of Jesus Christ and a brother of James,
To those who have been called, who are loved by God the Father and kept by Jesus Christ:

Mercy, peace and love be yours in abundance.


Dear friends, although I was very eager to write to you about the salvation we share, I felt I had to write and urge you to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints.

For certain men whose condemnation was written about long ago have secretly slipped in among you.

They are godless men, who change the grace of our God into a license for immorality and deny Jesus Christ our only Sovereign and Lord.

It seems like the answer would be "NOT," in several "Churches" we have among us today.