This past week my blogsite became the object of critical and curious eyes. But regardless of the circumstances that brought these new readers in my direction, I welcome the opportunity to share my faith and answer any question that comes my way.
One person, who will remain nameless until a time when he reveals himself, asked me to develop my thoughts more fully regarding one of the statements I made in my post entitled I believe in God, but not the church. This post is dedicated to that purpose.
The phrase I have been asked to develop is found in the following sentence: The more I think about the frustration and disappointment expressed by many toward the modern version of the church with all of its man-made baggage and theological pollution, the more I understand their cry and identify with their feelings.
What do I consider man-made baggage and theological pollution? This is a great question, one with a rather surprisingly simple answer.
Used as a contrast to the pure, unpolluted living water of Jesus; the phrases man-made baggage and theological pollution describe the rules, regulations and interpretational laws that man has added to, mixed with or used in place of the pure teachings of Christ and his apostles. The result of this man-made baggage and theological pollution is a tainted gospel and distorted image of the Savior. Shame on us!
One person suggested that if the church can’t comfort the broken-hearted, put its arm around the woman who chokes on her loneliness, give strength to the addict who struggles everyday with his addiction, can’t be a family to the widow, give hope to the single mom who feels overwhelmed, if it can’t give peace, joy and purpose for this life, then call it something else, but don’t call it church.
Amen, and amen again!
But, I am almost positive that the one who questioned my usage of those terms is looking for more; for me to list some of the baggage and pollution that I feel is tainting the gospel message and distorting the image of the Savior. If he returns to my blog and requests such a list I will be more than happy to provide one for him.
However, for now, I would like to know what you think. Do you think there is man-made baggage and theological pollution tainting the pure message of Christ? If so, share your thoughts with me.
January 26, 2009 at 10:51 pm |
Strange, this post arrived in my RSS in the same session.
My biggest gripe for “theological pollution” is the concept of “investigate scriptures” and “study to show yourself approved” and then when I do, I’m slammed and kicked out because I came to different conclusions. If you want me to study, don’t get mad when I don’t need you to tell me how and what to believe!
My biggest gripe for “man-made baggage” is the idea of being “one in Christ” somehow makes us all believe the same thing. I’ve said at other venues “I was born an individual, I was saved as an individual, I will be judged as an individual; why would I join a movement that strips me of my individuality?”
January 27, 2009 at 6:25 am |
When we look at the New Testament, at the churches we see there, the biggest issue being addressed is the inclusion of “man-made baggage” with the gospel message. I do a radio program in Spanish and have been offering a readers guide to each Bible book. Going through the letters, I couldn’t help but notice that the majority of them led me to say, “This letter was written to combat false teaching that had crept into the church.”
It was common then, it’s common now. That’s why we have to constantly be returning to the book. Some think the church in 2009 should teach what the church in 1979 taught. It’s that sort of thing that kills the church. We have to constantly be going back to the source, not just looking back one generation.
Grace and peace,
Tim
January 27, 2009 at 7:06 am |
Benjamin Williams,
Welcome to my blog site. The current header I am utilizing for my site doesn’t display the title as I would like it to, so I have disabled it; but the theme for my site is “Rediscovering Faith.” I mention this because your comments lead me to believe that you are frustrated with the “faith” you were exposed to and led to believe would satisfy you. The purpose for this “I believe in God, but not the church” post was to encourage us to seek nothing more than Jesus and the pure, living, satisfying water he provides; for nothing compares to him or it.
You have provide us with some interesting thoughts. I am at work and it is almost time to begin, therefore I am going to let them stew in my mind and will comment more later.
Thanks for stopping by and for taking part in this discussion.
January 27, 2009 at 7:29 am |
Tim,
I appreciate your thoughts and am glad you shared them with us.
I am especially intrigued with the statement that some think the church in 2009 should teach what the church in 1979 taught. I wish you would expound on that just a bit more for our readers so that they may truly understand your thoughts.
The reason this statement intrigues me is because I was having a conversation the other day with someone who felt we needed to be the church of the first century. I reject that thought; because we are to be the church of the twenty-first century, for that is the century in which we live. Our culture is not the same as that of the first century, therefore to think that we are to do things exactly the way they did it seems absurd to me. However, having said that, let me make it clear that I do believe that the principles taught in the first century are just as valid and true today as they were back then. Eternal principles, or truth, never change.
When I talk those those who complain about the sinful changes that have taken place in the church, more times that not I am discovering that they are upset because the church doesn’t worship exactly as it did back in the 1960’s.
We will stop here for now, see what others have to offer, and then continue our thoughts later.
Again, I appreciate your thoughts.
January 27, 2009 at 11:40 am |
Chris,
I actually read a statement on a conservative website that said, “We believe what the churches of Christ believed in the 1970s.” That can’t be our attitude. We can never be satisfied with our “restoration” of what God wants. When the Restoration Movement becomes “the Restored Movement,” we’ve missed the mark.
And I agree with what you say about restoring the first century church. In the first place, which version of the first century church? The one in Jerusalem, where thousands of the members were “zealous for the Law”… and that’s considered a good thing? The one in Corinth? The one in Ephesus that was orthodox and hardworking… and about to lose the right to call itself the Lord’s church?
In the second place, well, you’ve hit the nail on the head, I think. We must learn to be the twenty-first century church. We stand on the shoulders of those that went before. We learn from their victories and from their mistakes. But our highest call is to be what God would have us be today.
Grace and peace,
Tim
January 27, 2009 at 12:02 pm |
Tim,
Thank you for returning and expounding on your previous thoughts. I loved the statement regarding our standing on the shoulders of those that went before, for as you state, we do learn from their victories and their mistakes.
Our goal should always be the pure, untainted living water of Christ.