Adrian, no need to be the least bit defensive. I am not setting myself up as better than anyone. Peter had some challenges with some of the things Paul said, but he was able to accept that perhaps Paul had a piece of revelation that he didn’t (2nd Peter 3:15-16). He didn’t feel inferior about it or think that Paul was setting himself up as the better man.

Dell, forgive me for neglecting to address Paul and Barnabas’ little row involving John Mark. Barnabas was an encourager. He encouraged Paul, as I know you know. Their split wasn’t due to doctrine. It was because Paul didn’t feel like he could trust John Mark because he had gotten homesick on an earlier journey and left. Paul didn’t want the same thing to happen again, so they had to split. The result? Paul and Silas went on to do greater things and Barnabas, in his role of encourager, helped John Mark. John Mark, who wrote the brilliantly concise Gospel of Mark needed Barnabas’ nurturing and to bring out what he had in him.

Unless you think Paul and Barnabas were speaking different things, their split doesn’t support the notion of denominations. They needed to split to further the gospel in the ancient world. And, all too often denominations speak different things. They set one above the other. They set their polity/disciline/doctrine above the the others. The refuse others the sacraments–all kinds of silly garbage. Maybe denominations can further the gospel without creating a greater schism in the Body of Christ. I am not holding my breath that they will, simply because they are man-made organizations that subject the glory of God to the whims/attitudes/appetites of men.

The focus has to be on the sinner being reconciled to God though the atoning sacrifice of Jesus the Messiah. Not on an organization/social club. I am not the first one to feel like this, nor will I be the last. There are most assuredly others who can and still others that will be able to articulate this better than I ever could, to the glory of God. That is what it is all about anyway. Elohim baruch HaShem. Peace.

Acts 15:37 -37 And Barnabas determined to take with them John, whose surname was Mark. 38 But Paul thought not good to take him with them, who departed from them from Pamphylia, and went not with them to the work. 39 And the contention was so sharp between them, that they departed asunder one from the other: and so Barnabas took Mark, and sailed unto Cyprus; 40 And Paul chose Silas, and departed, being recommended by the brethren unto the grace of God…

My point on denominations is that if Paul and Barnabas had such a dissention, but were still able to remain brothers and Christ and pursue the goal of Christ how can not ‘denominations’ do the same?

The only problem I have with denominations, is when one puts denominationalism above the love we are supposed to have for our brothers. Other than that, different perspectives on direction, as long as it isn’t basically heretical, are OK by me.

Again, in terms of church structure. Like I said, it is:

Organistic – We are the ‘church’ the eccelesia as you state. The composite body of Christ. This is evident to you already in the scripture so I won’t quote.

However…the church is also:

Organizational – Meaning it has a definitive structure as prescribed in the bible by Paul. This is different that what I think you are saying, which is that the church shouldn’t be ‘institutional’ or only ‘instuctional’ meaning that all church structures and processes should be the same.

By organization, I mean a structure of leadership, discipline, and conduct than can translate into many institutional settings, from house churches, to mega-churches to cyber-churches.

Like the bible says, obedience is better than sacrifice, and complete liberty in Christ is only liberty within his Word and will.

May I speak as a brother here?

On what basis do you claim superior insight into what Christianity is than Dell and I have? Isn’t there a danger od setting yourself up as a one man rule, authority, church, whatever—all the while saying you reject those things?

In HIM,

Adrian

Should there be leadership? Surely there should be. I will say again that I am not against church atendance. I am saying that the church is too invested in maintaining power over its subjects. The biggest and most evil example of this is Roman Catholicism. Roman Catholic, Jr., bka the Prostestant Movement, isn’t much better. I can’t see how denominations (which by their very nature DIVIDE the body) can get us all to speak the same thing (see Ephesians 4:1-17).

Polity makes me want to vomit sometimes. So do “disciplines”. Polity isn’t biblical, Dell. I found that too many folks actually put polity/discipline ahead of the Scriptures. That isn’t a good thing.

Do I believe the bible? I do, implicity and explicitly. I don’t know where your journey/studies have taken you, but I want to suggest that you begin to explore the original languages, if you haven’t done so already. I am by no means an expert, but I have been able to see how scripture has been manipulated to ensure that power was concentrated in the hands of a few. Others more learned than I have seen and reported on the same thing.

I don’t doubt your sincerity one bit, I just am coming from (I believe) a deeper place. Does that make you wrong? No, it doesn’t. I suspect I have been where you are. God is moving me in a different direction, towards COMPLETE liberty in Him. No need for the middle man, to borrow a phrase. THAT is where we all(hopefully) will be one day. I figure if it was good enough for Paul (Galatians), it is good enough for me.

Unless you don’t believe in the bible Rafael, then you can’t legitimately make the claim that there is no institutionalization (even at the micro-level) in Christianity.

Paul laid out structure, and organizational politics. Yes, Christianity is organistic in nature, in terms of its not being ‘bound’ by walls, but the same way we are physical beings who operate in a physical reality but worship in spirit, so is the church a spiritual entity manifested in an organizational setting.

When you have polity, and a generally prescribed organizational structure as stated in the epistles, how can you legitimately claim that the church is not institutional in nature?

In terms of disagreement and denominations, the bible also states the differences in the ‘body’, and Paul and Barnabas had extreme disagreements on whether one of the younger brothers should accompany them. The disagreement was so severe it led them to split up.

As long as the foundation of grace, faith, and word are in place, there is a place for different perspectives which lead to different expressions in the ‘body’ of Christ.

I find spiritual phariseeism in the so-called religious right. By the way, I am going to plagiarize your phrase.

Jesus didn’t start a new religion, on that point I believe we agree. Messianic Judaism comes closer to the 1st century ecclesia than anything I have encountered.

Yes, the Lord has only one body, and there is no Scriptural basis for a multiplicity of denominations. But it does not follow that no ecclesial body today in existence has a right to claim to be, or to represent, the one body in a special way.

The Church is not just spirit. It’s also institution. The New Testament shows both sides: the freedom of the children of God, on the one hand, and a visible body, with authority, common worship, etc., on the other.

Yes, the institutional side can be abused. But so can the spiritual side. There is such a thing as spiritual phariseeism: “Oh God, I thank you that I don’t go in for instititutions and dogmas . . . like other men.”

I believe this is the ancient way. There is such a thing as historic Christianity, which has a better claim to be the Christianty o the N.T. than anything else.

Cheers.

Adrian

Adrian, you make an interesting point. I’d like you to consider this: in the whole of the accepted canon of scripture, where is the authority/biblical reason to create denominations? When you research the issue fully, you will see that the religious structure that is accepted by the public-at-large is a man-made thing that has the effect of seperating folks from God rather than brining them to Him. “Church” isn’t supposed to be so hierarchal. It is supposed to be one in unity (Hebrew “echad”) as God has revealed himself to be. A community of One, not a group of islands seperated by dogma/doctrine/ritual.

I am not against church attendance. I do find however that the ritual of church attendance and adherance to doctrines that supplant the counsel of scripture are troublesome. Yes, we live and move in a modern world, but we need to go down the ancient path if we are to hope to find redemption.

If I understand you, you’re making the point that being saved and being “religious” aren’t the same, so that believers ought not to place their trust in people’s religiosity. Right?

It seems to me that your argument would be better served if you simply said that you distinguish between merely professing Christians and true ones, and that the simple fact of, say, church attendance, isn’t by itself sufficient to tell which is which.

I think that most believers would agree with you on that. But it doesn’t follow that, because mere church attendance isn’t enough, it has nothing to do with being a true Christian. If you take the New Testament as a whole, and not just isolated passages, the Church you see is one in which Christians gather for common worship, have an ecclesiastical authority structure, common beliefs, etc.—in short, are religious.

Christianity purifies religion, without doing away with it. Yes, there is no true religion without deeds of love. But there is also no true religion without common worship of the true God. There is no biblical reason to oppose the two things.

Of course, it may be that yo are using the word religion in a private, idiosyncratic sense to mean hypocritical going through the motions. But insofar as that is a private meaning, no one else is obliged to accept it on your authority alone.

Cheers.

Adrian

All I’m saying is every neighbor or coworker or fellow student or whoever that I’ve met that could be classified as religious has a certain amount of the following:
1) spiritual searching
2) hypocrasy
3) rituals they practice in church

Even though they are hypocritical and don’t live perfectly and practice ritualistic denominational specifics, they just aren’t they people I’m fearing or worrying about usually.

And maybe you don’t fear like the word fear means.

But you know what, this conversation started with the question and it gave a golden opportunity I think for those on the left who do fear religious people and how they vote and what not to see another point of view.

Mostly Christians are trying to do right no matter what they rituals they practice and/or how much of a hypocrate they are.

I truly belive that liberals who have a problem with the religious right are sort of obsessed and focused on the wrong set of people and behaviors that need to be worried about.

And for all of the hand ringing that goes on by the left calling conservatives mean-spirited and trying to help people understand that as Christians we are supposed to be generous and compassionate and trying to equate conservatism as being non-compassionate and therefore not very Christian…… it goes to show that liberals have been emersed in their liberalism so long and do not CARE to understand a conservatives position.

We actually believe that our position is more caring and will help the U.S. and it’s citizens prosper more which in turn helps us do things like focus on the environment and helping other countries. Liberals have it backwards. They look at the disparity in prosperity in the world and look at us as the perpetrators and the poor countries as the victims. When we give so much help and aid to hurting countries liberals don’t see us as being generous enough. One of the things that conservatives understand is that the free market is the answer to prosperity. Communism/Marxism/socialism/dictators are the key to enslavement, poverty, lack of infrastructure and a worse environment.

And to tie it all together…. We are free to worship and practice our faith. The debate in politics should be about issues and policy and what this country should do to protect itself (national security). Sometimes the debate deals with how we should handle criminals. Sometimes how we should change tax policy and/or what the government spends money on.

I just never seem to understand though why all the handwringing by liberals about the “religious right”. Keeping in mind that there are between 30% – 40% of religious people who attend church regularly that are to the left.

I stand on my statement regarding people being Hell-bound because they don’t see Jesus in so-called religious people. That doesn’t mean I think people are dumb, far from it. The fact of the matter is this: humanity LIKES sin and will do anything to stay in it. If they see someone who purports to be pious being a hateful jerk, why should they even consider changing their lifestyle? To them they are being perfectly logical and reasonable because it looks like the Christ Event had no bearing on the life of that pious one.

I don’t obsess about religious folk. Shoot, I used to BE one. I understand the emptiness inherent in going through the motions. I am grateful that my spiritual journey has taken me beyond that. I want to see all those that believe or want to believe get free of the shackles that man-made religion (as opposed to God centered relationship) has put on them. I do not take pleasure in seeing folk starve when they don’t have to.

Baklava, I should fear NOTHING. I am sorry you read the attention getter in the paragraph and failed to see big picture that was being painted. If I was unclear, I apologize.

I wish the religious right no ill will. I just wish their agenda was SPIRITUAL instead of political.
I wish they were more loving than legalistic. I wish they were more interested in healing divisions than their political agenda makes them appear to be. People DO look at them and use them for an excuse NOT to repent and believe the gospel.

And, I completely realize that you do not overstand my position. You would have to have had different experiences to even fathom what I am speaking of. That was the risk I knowingly took when I responded to your post. So I don’t hold your inability to overstand against you, I really don’t. I sincerely hope that one day you (and anyone else that needs to) will understand the difference between being a religious, legalistic drone and basking in the warm glow of the Light God has provided mankind through His Word.

Does that bother you? Why? Why is it offensive to be told that you should believe in Jesus, but not offensive to be told that you should believe in wisdom of the ACLU or People For The American Way? Who made them the ultimate court of right-and-wrong? I suspect the answer has something to do with fearing and therefore hating the truth.

The lawsuit is today’s version of stoning.

OK, so some fellers had panties put on their heads, were stacked naked on top of each other (some of ‘em probably enjoyed that), and were embarassed.

But you know what? Ask any of ‘em if they would rather have their fingers removed one-by-one by a bolt cutter or have a pair of panties, even dirty ones, slipped over their heads…well, I leave it to you. Even the dimmest lights among you can guess the obvious answer.

OK! It wasn’t nice, it wasn’t what soldiers should be doing to captives, but it wasn’t torture either. Let me repeat that in big print for the myopic: IT WASN’T TORTURE! Even the evil American military acknowledges that a line was crossed and has prosecuted some folks who were involved. You can whine all day about how they didn’t go far enough up the chain of command, but you got your pound of flesh. Take it and go away.

By the way, since the Koran also comes in paperback form, it is quite possible to flush one or part of one down a regular flush toilet one page at a time.