Figuring Out Religion

[Mountaineer]

Thanks for the hand of fellowship extended to the pagan anti-Christ.

Good to be a part of the discussion. When religious threads go negative I simply leave as I don't see the point. While I've held on to my faith since I was a teenager I've always felt I needed to engage with science, secular philosophy and my own church's history and theological evolution and doctrines. In many areas I can probably take the other side of a debate as well as anyone. I've always figured if I couldn't stand the heat then I probably didn't have deep enough roots. I don't really do that too much anymore as after a while you don't run into anything new and when it comes to science it is quite easy as a Latter Day Saint to have a foot in both camps. Ultimately my faith is and remains based on a very specific spiritual experience I had while I was a teenager. But more than anything as my faith and knowledge has deepened I think Christ's teachings in the NT are pretty clear as to what the expectations are for those who follow Him. Definitely in my top 10 NT passages: Matthew 25: 31-46. I've always found it intriguing how those on the right were surprised at their reward while those who "knew Him" were on the left and found lacking.

His message and teachings are simple and easy to understand for every one. And anyone who has even a basic understanding of how the Bible came to be understands there was a lot of "message shaping" going on for the several hundred years of its creation until it settled in the form and content we have now.

Ironically I've found the Bible to be a much more interesting book now that I'm able to look at it without all of the religious dogma. The "message shaping" in the gospels is a very good example. If you cling to the belief that the Bible is the inerrant word of God then you have to resolve all the discrepancies and contradictions to make one cohesive story out of it and it just never seems to work no matter how hard you try. You start with Mark which has no birth narrative and ends abruptly with two females discovering an empty tomb but not telling anyone out of fear (the snake-handling, tongue-talking verses at the end are generally considered inauthentic). Then along comes Matthew and Luke copying Mark almost word for word in many places but also supplying the missing birth narratives including detailed genealogies and also post resurrection appearances. Unfortunately, the narratives are impossible to reconcile without great mental gymnastics. Finally, you have John which is a horse of a completely different color. The apocalyptic warnings of the synoptic gospels are replaced with Jesus making statements about his own divinity which the authors of Mark, Matthew, and Luke apparently failed to take notice of.

The bolded sentence above intrigues me. I do believe the Bible is the inspired Word of God revealed to us to tell us about the need for a Savior (OT) and what the Savior did (NT). I've never viewed it as something with a bunch of discrepancies and contadictions; I've always thought it was my problem and not God's if I did not understand something and then studied a lot to learn more. It's interesting to me that the more I've studied, the more the Scriptures seem a cohesive whole and the more they make sense. For example, I think the 4 Gospels are written by 4 different people; if they all said exactly the same thing I'd think the story was likely cooked rather than the same events being described by 4 different points of view. I fully agree that we cannot by our reason explain doctrines such as the Trinity, the resurrection, the two natures of Christ. I've also pretty much always thought the Bible was authored by God and written by men and says exactly what God wanted to be said with the main points being "Man screwed up in Genesis 3 (the fall and subsequent curse) and spent the rest of the OT trying various ways to save himself, unsuccessfully; thus the need for a savior. I am forgiven because of what Jesus Christ did on the cross and God sees my sins no more; I am saved and will spend eternity on the new earth with a new perfect body/soul in the perfect presence of God". If I understood everything that God authored, I'd be putting myself on the same plane as God (the original sin of Genesis 3) and there would be little or no reason for faith. I think if the resurrection is ever disproven we can pack up our bags and throw in the towell; all the Bible would be then is a guide or self-help book on moral living just like the other major religions have - no Savior Jesus.

So, given my brief take which I explained above, and yours, would you unpack your sentence I bolded above a bit more? I'd appreciate better understanding why you have the view you do. I'm not saying you are wrong and I'm not going to browbeat you regardless of how you answer, I just want to understand. Thanks in advance if you choose to respond or if you do not.

[jacksonM]

Thanks for the hand of fellowship extended to the pagan anti-Christ.

Good to be a part of the discussion. When religious threads go negative I simply leave as I don't see the point. While I've held on to my faith since I was a teenager I've always felt I needed to engage with science, secular philosophy and my own church's history and theological evolution and doctrines. In many areas I can probably take the other side of a debate as well as anyone. I've always figured if I couldn't stand the heat then I probably didn't have deep enough roots. I don't really do that too much anymore as after a while you don't run into anything new and when it comes to science it is quite easy as a Latter Day Saint to have a foot in both camps. Ultimately my faith is and remains based on a very specific spiritual experience I had while I was a teenager. But more than anything as my faith and knowledge has deepened I think Christ's teachings in the NT are pretty clear as to what the expectations are for those who follow Him. Definitely in my top 10 NT passages: Matthew 25: 31-46. I've always found it intriguing how those on the right were surprised at their reward while those who "knew Him" were on the left and found lacking.

His message and teachings are simple and easy to understand for every one. And anyone who has even a basic understanding of how the Bible came to be understands there was a lot of "message shaping" going on for the several hundred years of its creation until it settled in the form and content we have now.

Ironically I've found the Bible to be a much more interesting book now that I'm able to look at it without all of the religious dogma. The "message shaping" in the gospels is a very good example. If you cling to the belief that the Bible is the inerrant word of God then you have to resolve all the discrepancies and contradictions to make one cohesive story out of it and it just never seems to work no matter how hard you try. You start with Mark which has no birth narrative and ends abruptly with two females discovering an empty tomb but not telling anyone out of fear (the snake-handling, tongue-talking verses at the end are generally considered inauthentic). Then along comes Matthew and Luke copying Mark almost word for word in many places but also supplying the missing birth narratives including detailed genealogies and also post resurrection appearances. Unfortunately, the narratives are impossible to reconcile without great mental gymnastics. Finally, you have John which is a horse of a completely different color. The apocalyptic warnings of the synoptic gospels are replaced with Jesus making statements about his own divinity which the authors of Mark, Matthew, and Luke apparently failed to take notice of.

The bolded sentence above intrigues me. I do believe the Bible is the inspired Word of God revealed to us to tell us about the need for a Savior (OT) and what the Savior did (NT). I've never viewed it as something with a bunch of discrepancies and contadictions; I've always thought it was my problem and not God's if I did not understand something and then studied a lot to learn more. It's interesting to me that the more I've studied, the more the Scriptures seem a cohesive whole and the more they make sense. For example, I think the 4 Gospels are written by 4 different people; if they all said exactly the same thing I'd think the story was likely cooked rather than the same events being described by 4 different points of view. I fully agree that we cannot by our reason explain doctrines such as the Trinity, the resurrection, the two natures of Christ. I've also pretty much always thought the Bible was authored by God and written by men and says exactly what God wanted to be said with the main points being "Man screwed up in Genesis 3 (the fall and subsequent curse) and spent the rest of the OT trying various ways to save himself, unsuccessfully; thus the need for a savior. I am forgiven because of what Jesus Christ did on the cross and God sees my sins no more; I am saved and will spend eternity on the new earth with a new perfect body/soul in the perfect presence of God". If I understood everything that God authored, I'd be putting myself on the same plane as God (the original sin of Genesis 3) and there would be little or no reason for faith. I think if the resurrection is ever disproven we can pack up our bags and throw in the towell; all the Bible would be then is a guide or self-help book on moral living just like the other major religions have - no Savior Jesus.

So, given my brief take which I explained above, and yours, would you unpack your sentence I bolded above a bit more? I'd appreciate better understanding why you have the view you do. I'm not saying you are wrong and I'm not going to browbeat you regardless of how you answer, I just want to understand. Thanks in advance if you choose to respond or if you do not.

There's no way to disprove the resurrection so I think Christianity will forever be safe on that point.

As for the discrepancies and contradictions in the gospels, they are well documented on the Internet so I'm not going to list them all here. And also with Google as your friend I know you can find answers from Christian apologists to help you resolve a lot of them. Sometimes the apologists make good points and sometimes they are right in claiming that the contradictions are trivial. Sometimes however, they seem to be really stretching.

For example, why are the genealogies in Matthew and Luke completely different? I remember the very first time I read them I wondered that so I looked it up somewhere in the pre-internet age and learned that one was Mary's genealogy and one was Joseph's. I thought exactly the way you do at the time so I said okay, that's good enough for me. I don't know how they are being reconciled today because I haven't looked in a long time.

Another example would be why the gospel of John has Jesus crucified on a different day than the other three gospels. The obvious reason to me is that John was trying to make the theological point that Jesus was the sacrificial lamb of God so he had him crucified at the same time as the passover lamb. In other words, the story just told better that way.

If you say these things don't really matter because they don't take away from the main theme of the story then I completely agree with you. My problem is with the cognitive dissonance of the claim that the Bible is "inerrant". It's just something that doesn't compute in my brain.

[Mountaineer]

Ironically I've found the Bible to be a much more interesting book now that I'm able to look at it without all of the religious dogma. The "message shaping" in the gospels is a very good example. If you cling to the belief that the Bible is the inerrant word of God then you have to resolve all the discrepancies and contradictions to make one cohesive story out of it and it just never seems to work no matter how hard you try. You start with Mark which has no birth narrative and ends abruptly with two females discovering an empty tomb but not telling anyone out of fear (the snake-handling, tongue-talking verses at the end are generally considered inauthentic). Then along comes Matthew and Luke copying Mark almost word for word in many places but also supplying the missing birth narratives including detailed genealogies and also post resurrection appearances. Unfortunately, the narratives are impossible to reconcile without great mental gymnastics. Finally, you have John which is a horse of a completely different color. The apocalyptic warnings of the synoptic gospels are replaced with Jesus making statements about his own divinity which the authors of Mark, Matthew, and Luke apparently failed to take notice of.

The bolded sentence above intrigues me. I do believe the Bible is the inspired Word of God revealed to us to tell us about the need for a Savior (OT) and what the Savior did (NT). I've never viewed it as something with a bunch of discrepancies and contadictions; I've always thought it was my problem and not God's if I did not understand something and then studied a lot to learn more. It's interesting to me that the more I've studied, the more the Scriptures seem a cohesive whole and the more they make sense. For example, I think the 4 Gospels are written by 4 different people; if they all said exactly the same thing I'd think the story was likely cooked rather than the same events being described by 4 different points of view. I fully agree that we cannot by our reason explain doctrines such as the Trinity, the resurrection, the two natures of Christ. I've also pretty much always thought the Bible was authored by God and written by men and says exactly what God wanted to be said with the main points being "Man screwed up in Genesis 3 (the fall and subsequent curse) and spent the rest of the OT trying various ways to save himself, unsuccessfully; thus the need for a savior. I am forgiven because of what Jesus Christ did on the cross and God sees my sins no more; I am saved and will spend eternity on the new earth with a new perfect body/soul in the perfect presence of God". If I understood everything that God authored, I'd be putting myself on the same plane as God (the original sin of Genesis 3) and there would be little or no reason for faith. I think if the resurrection is ever disproven we can pack up our bags and throw in the towell; all the Bible would be then is a guide or self-help book on moral living just like the other major religions have - no Savior Jesus.

So, given my brief take which I explained above, and yours, would you unpack your sentence I bolded above a bit more? I'd appreciate better understanding why you have the view you do. I'm not saying you are wrong and I'm not going to browbeat you regardless of how you answer, I just want to understand. Thanks in advance if you choose to respond or if you do not.

There's no way to disprove the resurrection so I think Christianity will forever be safe on that point.

As for the discrepancies and contradictions in the gospels, they are well documented on the Internet so I'm not going to list them all here. And also with Google as your friend I know you can find answers from Christian apologists to help you resolve a lot of them. Sometimes the apologists make good points and sometimes they are right in claiming that the contradictions are trivial. Sometimes however, they seem to be really stretching.

For example, why are the genealogies in Matthew and Luke completely different? I remember the very first time I read them I wondered that so I looked it up somewhere in the pre-internet age and learned that one was Mary's genealogy and one was Joseph's. I thought exactly the way you do at the time so I said okay, that's good enough for me. I don't know how they are being reconciled today because I haven't looked in a long time.

Another example would be why the gospel of John has Jesus crucified on a different day than the other three gospels. The obvious reason to me is that John was trying to make the theological point that Jesus was the sacrificial lamb of God so he had him crucified at the same time as the passover lamb. In other words, the story just told better that way.

If you say these things don't really matter because they don't take away from the main theme of the story then I completely agree with you. My problem is with the cognitive dissonance of the claim that the Bible is "inerrant". It's just something that doesn't compute in my brain.

Thank you for the response. I appreciate it.

[Kbg]

If one comes at the scriptures with a secular rational approach looking for historical inaccuracies and contradictions, it's going to be like shooting fish in a barrel...too easy. And for the human "editors" ? of the NT, running down historical inaccuracies/contradictions was likely not a major driver. Their purpose (with decent evidence historically) was how to tell the story of Jesus in a world of competitive religions and different cultures, Aramean, Jewish, Greek, Roman etc.

1 Cor 2: 9-14 is a good read...verse 14 gets to the heart of the matter.

[jacksonM]

If one comes at the scriptures with a secular rational approach looking for historical inaccuracies and contradictions, it's going to be like shooting fish in a barrel...too easy. And for the human "editors" ? of the NT, running down historical inaccuracies/contradictions was likely not a major driver. Their purpose (with decent evidence historically) was how to tell the story of Jesus in a world of competitive religions and different cultures, Aramean, Jewish, Greek, Roman etc.

1 Cor 2: 9-14 is a good read...verse 14 gets to the heart of the matter.

It's obviously possible to believe the story of Jesus despite the historical inaccuracies and contradictions. People have been doing it for over 2000 years and I did it myself for about 20. The fact that all of those discrepancies in the gospel accounts exist tells you that there wasn't much tampering with the gospel stories once they were in circulation. I couldn't have been the first one to notice that the genealogies in Matthew and Luke were different or that the birth and resurrection stories were hard to reconcile but apparently nobody said let's clean the stories up before we publish them all together.

Where I start having a problem is when people insist as an unquestionable article of faith that there are no historical inaccuracies and contradictions in the Bible when there clearly are.

[Mountaineer]

This is a nice Table Prayer for use at Thanksgiving. Have a blessed Thanksgiving Day with friends and family or by yourself if your loved ones are absent; Jesus' gifts will be present with us regardless.


Let us pray. Lord God, Creator of all that is visible and invisible . . .

For the food we are about to share and for those who have worked to harvest, provide, prepare and serve it, we give you thanks.

For the lives and memories of our friends and family members who have died and are not with us at the table today, we give you thanks.

For moments of happiness and joy that brighten our days, we give you thanks.

For every good night’s sleep and every good day filled with work or school or retirement, we give you thanks.

For strong bodies and minds and for opportunities to learn and grow, we give you thanks.

For giving us life and breath and all that we need from day to day, we give you thanks.

For your Son Jesus Christ, who lived and died and now lives again so that we can have everlasting life, we give you thanks.

Lord God, we lift up our praise and gratitude to you on this Thanksgiving Day.

Amen.

[jacksonM]

This is from Alex Jones so take it for what it's worth.

I knew people were leaving church in large numbers but I didn't know they were this large.

Even though I've become a non-believer myself I'm not so sure America will be better off for this. Doesn't seem to have made Europe a better place.

As you will see below, between 6,000 and 10,000 churches are dying in the United States every single year, and that means that more than 100 will die this week alone.

https://www.infowars.com/between-6000-a ... this-week/

[Mountaineer]

Here is a somewhat related study to the previous post with a lot of data:

http://www.pewforum.org/2018/08/01/why- ... par=1&trk=

I too think that declining Christianity will not be a good thing for the US, especially if one thinks history repeats itself. However, as a believer, I believe God is in charge and does or allows all things for His good purposes. It seems the big growth in Christianity has moved from the Middle East/Northern Africa to Europe, to the Americas, and now to sub-Saharan Africa. Time to learn Arabic? Think you don't like Christianity? Wait until God gives us what we want/deserve and sends in the Islamic hordes.

[Ad Orientem]

There are a number of factors causing this. First is that the world is becoming increasingly secular, at least in the West. To some degree this also translates into at least moderately anti-religious prejudice. Secondly far too many churches are tripping over each other in a mad rush to see which one can accommodate themselves to the spirit of the age most rapidly and completely. And that of course is driving people away in droves. Given a choice between a church that actually stands for something, or one that is little more than a left wing social club, I will either take the church that demands something of me... or just join the ranks of those who get to sleep in on Sundays.

[jacksonM]

There are a number of factors causing this. First is that the world is becoming increasingly secular, at least in the West. To some degree this also translates into at least moderately anti-religious prejudice. Secondly far too many churches are tripping over each other in a mad rush to see which one can accommodate themselves to the spirit of the age most rapidly and completely. And that of course is driving people away in droves. Given a choice between a church that actually stands for something, or one that is little more than a left wing social club, I will either take the church that demands something of me... or just join the ranks of those who get to sleep in on Sundays.

The statistics in the link posted by Mountaineer tends to confirm what you are saying - that liberal church membership is declining while more conservative ones like Mountaineers' own denomination are actually growing (I think it was 20%).

Time may prove me wrong but I tend to think a lot of those people looking for a church that actually stands for something are going to end up eventually not liking what they actually stand for when they have to take a hard look at it. Some will end up moving on to the place where I'm at. I see it as Christianity's dilemma of being caught between a rock and a hard place.

[Mountaineer]

There are a number of factors causing this. First is that the world is becoming increasingly secular, at least in the West. To some degree this also translates into at least moderately anti-religious prejudice. Secondly far too many churches are tripping over each other in a mad rush to see which one can accommodate themselves to the spirit of the age most rapidly and completely. And that of course is driving people away in droves. Given a choice between a church that actually stands for something, or one that is little more than a left wing social club, I will either take the church that demands something of me... or just join the ranks of those who get to sleep in on Sundays.

The statistics in the link posted by Mountaineer tends to confirm what you are saying - that liberal church membership is declining while more conservative ones like Mountaineers' own denomination are actually growing (I think it was 20%).

Time may prove me wrong but I tend to think a lot of those people looking for a church that actually stands for something are going to end up eventually not liking what they actually stand for when they have to take a hard look at it. Some will end up moving on to the place where I'm at. I see it as Christianity's dilemma of being caught between a rock and a hard place.

Between Mt Sinai and Mt Zion?

[Ad Orientem]

How To Break A Church...

https://www.theamericanconservative.com ... -lgbt-crc/

[jacksonM]

There are a number of factors causing this. First is that the world is becoming increasingly secular, at least in the West. To some degree this also translates into at least moderately anti-religious prejudice. Secondly far too many churches are tripping over each other in a mad rush to see which one can accommodate themselves to the spirit of the age most rapidly and completely. And that of course is driving people away in droves. Given a choice between a church that actually stands for something, or one that is little more than a left wing social club, I will either take the church that demands something of me... or just join the ranks of those who get to sleep in on Sundays.

The statistics in the link posted by Mountaineer tends to confirm what you are saying - that liberal church membership is declining while more conservative ones like Mountaineers' own denomination are actually growing (I think it was 20%).

Time may prove me wrong but I tend to think a lot of those people looking for a church that actually stands for something are going to end up eventually not liking what they actually stand for when they have to take a hard look at it. Some will end up moving on to the place where I'm at. I see it as Christianity's dilemma of being caught between a rock and a hard place.

Between Mt Sinai and Mt Zion?

I get the metaphor about law vs grace but not how you are using it.

If Christians are leaving liberal churches for ones with a more rigid set of beliefs which one is Sinai and which is Zion?

Or am I totally missing the point?

[Mountaineer]

The statistics in the link posted by Mountaineer tends to confirm what you are saying - that liberal church membership is declining while more conservative ones like Mountaineers' own denomination are actually growing (I think it was 20%).

Time may prove me wrong but I tend to think a lot of those people looking for a church that actually stands for something are going to end up eventually not liking what they actually stand for when they have to take a hard look at it. Some will end up moving on to the place where I'm at. I see it as Christianity's dilemma of being caught between a rock and a hard place.

Between Mt Sinai and Mt Zion?

I get the metaphor about law vs grace but not how you are using it.

If Christians are leaving liberal churches for ones with a more rigid set of beliefs which one is Sinai and which is Zion?

Or am I totally missing the point?

You are close. The point I was trying to make is balance (or from the old Kung Fu TV show - "balance Grasshopper, balance") is what is important in hearing the Word and understanding Scripture. If a congregation or denomination has an off-balance heavy focus on Law (do this, don't do that, judge this, etc.) they fall off the horse on one side. If a congregation or denomination has an off-balance heavy focus on grace, i.e. Gospel reductionism (love is all there is, accept all behaviors, etc.) they fall of the horse on the other side.

My perspective is the denominations/traditions that last, retain people and are not a revolving door, are those that proclaim all of what Scripture is about - the OT is about how mankind spirals downward when they ignore God's will, the NT is about Jesus and how He fulfilled, but not abolished, the Law; the purpose of Law is to drive one to repentance and back to the Gospel; only the Gospel creates saving faith. The denominations that view Scripture as a rule book typically are the ones that drive people away from Christianity as they appear very judgemental. The denominations that tolerate all behaviors are mirrors of the culture and have little to offer about the real historical Jesus who entered time and space to fulfill God's plan for saving mankind. The basic question is "Who is going to be God?" Sub questions can be: Do we want to be in control, or are we willing to say "God's will be done"? Do we believe that God has forgiven us because of Christ's work, no matter how big our sin, or do we follow our hearts and the prodding of Satan to believe we cannot be redeemed or that God's Word does not matter? Do we only believe what our reason can prove, or are we willing to believe that only God in His Word can reveal that which we cannot prove, that is believe God's promises? Do we believe the means of grace, Word and Sacrament, are gifts given by God and all we do is receive and then give thanks, or can we not accept the mysteries?

Perhaps said another way, a congregation that has an external benchmark, objective and outside of themselves, i.e. the authority of Scripture, is a congregation that lasts and is part of the eternal everlasting church made up of believers from all time; a congregation that tells people what they want to hear, i.e. is based on evoking internal subjective feelings, is ultimately shallow and fades away (remember the Crystal Cathedral?) to disappear into the worldly culture. A metaphor for that is a mountain (unmovable, lasting) and an iceburg (blows around with the currents and winds of today and ultimately melts into the sea).

Anyway, that is my take on the situation and I believe the tradition/denomination that I am a part of is balanced re. Law and Gospel and believes in the authority of Scripture and that Scripture is God's inspired Word revealed for mankind. Thanks for asking for clarity and thanks for the discussion. Have a great day.

[jacksonM]

Between Mt Sinai and Mt Zion?

I get the metaphor about law vs grace but not how you are using it.

If Christians are leaving liberal churches for ones with a more rigid set of beliefs which one is Sinai and which is Zion?

Or am I totally missing the point?

You are close. The point I was trying to make is balance (or from the old Kung Fu TV show - "balance Grasshopper, balance") is what is important in hearing the Word and understanding Scripture. If a congregation or denomination has an off-balance heavy focus on Law (do this, don't do that, judge this, etc.) they fall off the horse on one side. If a congregation or denomination has an off-balance heavy focus on grace, i.e. Gospel reductionism (love is all there is, accept all behaviors, etc.) they fall of the horse on the other side.

My perspective is the denominations/traditions that last, retain people and are not a revolving door, are those that proclaim all of what Scripture is about - the OT is about how mankind spirals downward when they ignore God's will, the NT is about Jesus and how He fulfilled, but not abolished, the Law; the purpose of Law is to drive one to repentance and back to the Gospel; only the Gospel creates saving faith. The denominations that view Scripture as a rule book typically are the ones that drive people away from Christianity as they appear very judgemental. The denominations that tolerate all behaviors are mirrors of the culture and have little to offer about the real historical Jesus who entered time and space to fulfill God's plan for saving mankind. The basic question is "Who is going to be God?" Sub questions can be: Do we want to be in control, or are we willing to say "God's will be done"? Do we believe that God has forgiven us because of Christ's work, no matter how big our sin, or do we follow our hearts and the prodding of Satan to believe we cannot be redeemed or that God's Word does not matter? Do we only believe what our reason can prove, or are we willing to believe that only God in His Word can reveal that which we cannot prove, that is believe God's promises? Do we believe the means of grace, Word and Sacrament, are gifts given by God and all we do is receive and then give thanks, or can we not accept the mysteries?

Perhaps said another way, a congregation that has an external benchmark, objective and outside of themselves, i.e. the authority of Scripture, is a congregation that lasts and is part of the eternal everlasting church made up of believers from all time; a congregation that tells people what they want to hear, i.e. is based on evoking internal subjective feelings, is ultimately shallow and fades away (remember the Crystal Cathedral?) to disappear into the worldly culture. A metaphor for that is a mountain (unmovable, lasting) and an iceburg (blows around with the currents and winds of today and ultimately melts into the sea).

Anyway, that is my take on the situation and I believe the tradition/denomination that I am a part of is balanced re. Law and Gospel and believes in the authority of Scripture and that Scripture is God's inspired Word revealed for mankind. Thanks for asking for clarity and thanks for the discussion. Have a great day.

Thanks for your answer but what you are saying doesn't seem to explain why people are leaving the liberal churches in favor of more conservative ones like your own. You can hardly say that it's because the liberal churches are too legalistic and judgmental. It would appear to me that those of the exodus are looking for something more legalistic rather then less, or at least they are leaving behind cheap grace for a more costly version.

[Mountaineer]

I get the metaphor about law vs grace but not how you are using it.

If Christians are leaving liberal churches for ones with a more rigid set of beliefs which one is Sinai and which is Zion?

Or am I totally missing the point?

You are close. The point I was trying to make is balance (or from the old Kung Fu TV show - "balance Grasshopper, balance") is what is important in hearing the Word and understanding Scripture. If a congregation or denomination has an off-balance heavy focus on Law (do this, don't do that, judge this, etc.) they fall off the horse on one side. If a congregation or denomination has an off-balance heavy focus on grace, i.e. Gospel reductionism (love is all there is, accept all behaviors, etc.) they fall of the horse on the other side.

My perspective is the denominations/traditions that last, retain people and are not a revolving door, are those that proclaim all of what Scripture is about - the OT is about how mankind spirals downward when they ignore God's will, the NT is about Jesus and how He fulfilled, but not abolished, the Law; the purpose of Law is to drive one to repentance and back to the Gospel; only the Gospel creates saving faith. The denominations that view Scripture as a rule book typically are the ones that drive people away from Christianity as they appear very judgemental. The denominations that tolerate all behaviors are mirrors of the culture and have little to offer about the real historical Jesus who entered time and space to fulfill God's plan for saving mankind. The basic question is "Who is going to be God?" Sub questions can be: Do we want to be in control, or are we willing to say "God's will be done"? Do we believe that God has forgiven us because of Christ's work, no matter how big our sin, or do we follow our hearts and the prodding of Satan to believe we cannot be redeemed or that God's Word does not matter? Do we only believe what our reason can prove, or are we willing to believe that only God in His Word can reveal that which we cannot prove, that is believe God's promises? Do we believe the means of grace, Word and Sacrament, are gifts given by God and all we do is receive and then give thanks, or can we not accept the mysteries?

Perhaps said another way, a congregation that has an external benchmark, objective and outside of themselves, i.e. the authority of Scripture, is a congregation that lasts and is part of the eternal everlasting church made up of believers from all time; a congregation that tells people what they want to hear, i.e. is based on evoking internal subjective feelings, is ultimately shallow and fades away (remember the Crystal Cathedral?) to disappear into the worldly culture. A metaphor for that is a mountain (unmovable, lasting) and an iceburg (blows around with the currents and winds of today and ultimately melts into the sea).

Anyway, that is my take on the situation and I believe the tradition/denomination that I am a part of is balanced re. Law and Gospel and believes in the authority of Scripture and that Scripture is God's inspired Word revealed for mankind. Thanks for asking for clarity and thanks for the discussion. Have a great day.

Thanks for your answer but what you are saying doesn't seem to explain why people are leaving the liberal churches in favor of more conservative ones like your own. You can hardly say that it's because the liberal churches are too legalistic and judgmental. It would appear to me that those of the exodus are looking for something more legalistic rather then less, or at least they are leaving behind cheap grace for a more costly version.

Re. your last sentence: I would probably use the word(s) truthful, or faithful to the Word as revealed in Scripture, rather than legalistic but I understand your point. I concur they are likely leaving behind cheap grace for a more costly version in this temporal realm, but a far more valuable version (e.g. Revelation 21) in the new creation. My mind sometimes works in strange ways and I tend to see connections between disparate thoughts that make my wife shake her head and give me weird looks - she is probably correct. As I read your comments above it somehow made me think that those who always eat hamburger have no idea what they are missing by not having a filet mignon.

Edit to add: I also think people are attracted to congregations/denominations that have a doctrine of "you can help God" or "pray harder to get what you want"; perhaps that mindset is more prevalent in many mainline denominations than in liberal denominations. People want to think they matter and need to do SOMETHING NO MATTER HOW SMALL, and to believe that Jesus did it ALL for them is a tough pill to swallow, especially in a culture that is based on "the protestant work ethic" and "work hard and you will succeed" and "be a good boy or girl" mantras. Thus all the various traditions that teach "works righteousness" or "make a decision for Christ" or "get on board with the latest social justice movement" are attractive to many. Who knows? Thanks again for the comments.

[jacksonM]

You are close. The point I was trying to make is balance (or from the old Kung Fu TV show - "balance Grasshopper, balance") is what is important in hearing the Word and understanding Scripture. If a congregation or denomination has an off-balance heavy focus on Law (do this, don't do that, judge this, etc.) they fall off the horse on one side. If a congregation or denomination has an off-balance heavy focus on grace, i.e. Gospel reductionism (love is all there is, accept all behaviors, etc.) they fall of the horse on the other side.

My perspective is the denominations/traditions that last, retain people and are not a revolving door, are those that proclaim all of what Scripture is about - the OT is about how mankind spirals downward when they ignore God's will, the NT is about Jesus and how He fulfilled, but not abolished, the Law; the purpose of Law is to drive one to repentance and back to the Gospel; only the Gospel creates saving faith. The denominations that view Scripture as a rule book typically are the ones that drive people away from Christianity as they appear very judgemental. The denominations that tolerate all behaviors are mirrors of the culture and have little to offer about the real historical Jesus who entered time and space to fulfill God's plan for saving mankind. The basic question is "Who is going to be God?" Sub questions can be: Do we want to be in control, or are we willing to say "God's will be done"? Do we believe that God has forgiven us because of Christ's work, no matter how big our sin, or do we follow our hearts and the prodding of Satan to believe we cannot be redeemed or that God's Word does not matter? Do we only believe what our reason can prove, or are we willing to believe that only God in His Word can reveal that which we cannot prove, that is believe God's promises? Do we believe the means of grace, Word and Sacrament, are gifts given by God and all we do is receive and then give thanks, or can we not accept the mysteries?

Perhaps said another way, a congregation that has an external benchmark, objective and outside of themselves, i.e. the authority of Scripture, is a congregation that lasts and is part of the eternal everlasting church made up of believers from all time; a congregation that tells people what they want to hear, i.e. is based on evoking internal subjective feelings, is ultimately shallow and fades away (remember the Crystal Cathedral?) to disappear into the worldly culture. A metaphor for that is a mountain (unmovable, lasting) and an iceburg (blows around with the currents and winds of today and ultimately melts into the sea).

Anyway, that is my take on the situation and I believe the tradition/denomination that I am a part of is balanced re. Law and Gospel and believes in the authority of Scripture and that Scripture is God's inspired Word revealed for mankind. Thanks for asking for clarity and thanks for the discussion. Have a great day.

Thanks for your answer but what you are saying doesn't seem to explain why people are leaving the liberal churches in favor of more conservative ones like your own. You can hardly say that it's because the liberal churches are too legalistic and judgmental. It would appear to me that those of the exodus are looking for something more legalistic rather then less, or at least they are leaving behind cheap grace for a more costly version.

Re. your last sentence: I would probably use the word(s) truthful, or faithful to the Word as revealed in Scripture, rather than legalistic but I understand your point. I concur they are likely leaving behind cheap grace for a more costly version in this temporal realm, but a far more valuable version (e.g. Revelation 21) in the new creation. My mind sometimes works in strange ways and I tend to see connections between disparate thoughts that make my wife shake her head and give me weird looks - she is probably correct. As I read your comments above it somehow made me think that those who always eat hamburger have no idea what they are missing by not having a filet mignon.

Edit to add: I also think people are attracted to congregations/denominations that have a doctrine of "you can help God" or "pray harder to get what you want"; perhaps that mindset is more prevalent in many mainline denominations than in liberal denominations. People want to think they matter and need to do SOMETHING NO MATTER HOW SMALL, and to believe that Jesus did it ALL for them is a tough pill to swallow, especially in a culture that is based on "the protestant work ethic" and "work hard and you will succeed" and "be a good boy or girl" mantras. Thus all the various traditions that teach "works righteousness" or "make a decision for Christ" or "get on board with the latest social justice movement" are attractive to many. Who knows? Thanks again for the comments.

Thanks for the reply. I wrote an absolutely brilliant reply in response but when I went to post it I somehow lost the whole damn thing. Maybe it was God's will.

Any way, I'm going on a trip for a couple of weeks starting tomorrow morning to visit my mother for her 100th birthday. Maybe I will revisit the conversation or maybe not.

[Mountaineer]

A blessed Pearl Harbor Remembrance Day for all who died, and for all who then sacrificed to assure we have the freedom we now enjoy. 77 years ago, WOW how time flies!

[jacksonM]

Are you an intrinsically evil person?

The Bible says you are, so you need to repent.

I don't believe this any more.

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=i+ ... ORM=VRDGAR

[Xan]

Would you say that you love God with all your heart, mind, and soul; and that you love your neighbor as yourself? Always?

[jacksonM]

Would you say that you love God with all your heart, mind, and soul; and that you love your neighbor as yourself? Always?

No, I would not say that.

How about you?

[Xan]

Would you say that you love God with all your heart, mind, and soul; and that you love your neighbor as yourself? Always?

No, I would not say that.

How about you?

Definitely I would not. I'm intrinsically self-centered and need to repent, as I believe we all are and do.

[jacksonM]

Would you say that you love God with all your heart, mind, and soul; and that you love your neighbor as yourself? Always?

No, I would not say that.

How about you?

Definitely I would not. But I'm not denying that I'm intrinsically self-centered and in need of repentance.

I didn't deny that I was intrinsically self-centered. This is common to every creature on planet earth.

I said I didn't think this made me intrinsically evil.

(And BTW, I was so drunk I have no recollection of making the post where I said that though I do remember listening to the song I linked to. As to what the song has to do with the topic I'll have to think about it.)

[Ad Orientem]

But I say to you,' the Lord says, 'love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, pray for those who persecute you.' Why did he command these things? So that he might free you from hatred, sadness, anger and grudges, and might grant you the greatest possession of all, perfect love, which is impossible to possess except by the one who loves all equally in imitation of God. -St. Maximus the Confessor

[stuper1]

Jesus said that only the sick need a physician. If you're not sick, you don't need Him. Very simple.