Denominations Suck
That's right, I said it. I'm so sick of people leaving churches because they "weren't getting fed." These are people who have been Christians for decades, not new believers. Do you somehow believe that, because you've been in the family for a longer time, you're suddenly allowed to crap all over its unity? I love what my pastor says to people who claim to "not be getting fed." He calmly tells them to pick up their own spoon and dig in. It's not the responsibility of the pastor to hand-feed you the Bible. Learn it for yourself. Take some pride in your faith. Stand up, wipe the drool from your chin, and get to work. People who leave a church because the teaching "just doesn't do it" for them are weak crybaby Christians, and they give the rest of us a bad name. A Catholic friend of a friend once asked, "Why are there so many different denominations in the Christian church?" He received no answer. We don't even know why we want to go to certain church. Mainly, it's because of the worship and the teaching. Grow up. You people make me sick. The bulk of your faith should be evident in your life, not in whether or not your church allows dancing in the aisles or your pastor uses a certain translation. I say again: grow up. Take some responsibility for your own faith and learn scripture for yourself. The idea that the clergy were the only ones allowed to read the Bible is what split the Catholic church in the first place. Don't focus on what we disagree on, or we're all in a lot of trouble.
posted by Vaughan at
3:04 PM
15 Comments:
I would like to propose a solution to the problem. Everyone should join my denomination, commonly known as Hehoff's denomination of hatred toward everyone who does not agree with him. I hope that you will acknowledge the wisdom of joining my denomination and forsaking all others, and therefore, spare yourself the trouble of worrying about me hunting you down and killing you.
Affectionately
Hehoff
You just said it, Chris. The idea of denominations remains active because people want to see a clear illustration of the DIFFERENCES between them. We needn't focus on differences, or we're in trouble. As one of my favorite teachers would say, "Let's major on the majors and minor on the minors."
Paul himself consistently encourages Christian's to be sure of their doctrine. Sure it would be better if every church preached sound doctrine, but that will never happen. So it is your job to find a church with the most accurate teaching. I agree that the whole "being fed" thing is crap, but our first focus should be on the accuracy of the teaching not being a big happy family. That's how things get screwed up.
People aren't leaving churches because the preacher is teaching that Jesus was married or gay. They're leaving because they're intellectually lazy, and everyone knows it.
Andrew,
I'm tired of churches that relax in the armchair of passivity. A burned out paster recycling old sermons, along with a couple of elders who are there, but aren't sure why. I don't blame people from going to churches that are more dynamic and active. Some churches I have visited take all the enthusiasm and excitement of being a child of God. What a privelege the redeemed have! I agree with you that a person wanting to be "spoon-fed" could cause one to switch churches, but if the leaders of God's house aren't being leaders, I wouldn't want to be led by them down the avenue of apathy. -mep-
I've never heard of a church that has been "relaxing in the armchair of passivity." Besides, that's not my point. The point I was trying to make was that PEOPLE are being passive, not clergy. Wanting to change to a "better" church with a pastoral staff that is more dynamic is a perfect example of the intellectual laziness I mentioned earlier.
I'm going to walk into the line of fire real quick. I have to say that I don't think "I'm not getting fed" is an entirely invalid reason for leaving a church. There are a lot of churches in town where I can't see the possibility of being fed, and that is the purpose of teaching. However, I do think that "I'm not getting fed" is generally a cop-out for those that are lazy. That's one of the reasons I like my church - the teaching is solid, but I never feel, nor am I told (like at some unnamed places) like it is enough. I always leave feeling excited about digging in further personally.
You people are totally missing my point. "Getting fed" is NOT the purpose of teaching. Getting INFORMATION is its purpose. We need to be taught from the Bible correctly, I'm not disputing that. Our spiritual food, however, comes from a personal study time. "Getting fed" is a completely passive idea. You might as well just sit there. You have no more control over whether or not you're "getting fed" than you do over whether or not you're "getting killed" or "getting raped" or "getting cancer." You see what I mean. You might as well say, "I have absolutely no desire to work at all on my relationship with Christ. He should just come to me and do everything, and if not, then it's still his fault." That, in essence, is what you're saying when you "aren't getting fed." Feed yourself. Don't expect God to do it all. If you do, you're no better than the Catholics.
And another thing about churches that are teaching incorrect interpretations of scripture: the only churches that actually do this are filled with people who are already too brainwashed to think of leaving (i.e. churches that teach the idea that homosexuality is not a sin). The churches where people are leaving in droves in my area are all non-denominational churches where people are tired of a certain style of preaching or worship. Those of you who are arguing with my assertion that people should just stick to a church are doing so based on the faulty premise that there are major theological problems to be found in the teachings of the churches who are losing members. Sorry to disappoint you, but this is not the case.
I didn't miss your point, I just disagree with you. If I say, "Last night I went to my parents house and they fed me." I don't mean that my mom put the food on the spoon and put the spoon in my mouth, I mean that my mom prepared food, gave it to me, and I ate it. In that sense, getting fed IS the purpose of teaching. That is the purpose of a pastor, to feed the flock - to prepare it and to present it. Sure, it's your job and your decision to eat, but saying, "I'm not being fed," can be a valid assertion - especially in those churches where the pastor fleeces the flock rather than feeding it.
I can't BELIEVE how badly you missed my point. Churches where the pastors "fleece the flock" AREN'T losing members to other denominations. People are staying there. THAT'S my point. The problem I have is not with people who go to "unorthodox" churches. It's with this constant infighting among the denominations that actually have the major stuff right to begin with. Plus, on another note, the point of teaching is not to provide "spiritual food." That's already there in the Bible. I've even heard this rumor that it's actually the inspired word of God. Or, do you need to be told what's important and what isn't? In that case, I'll refer you to my previous comment concerning intellectual laziness. If it's not the case, then there's really nothing to discuss.
Oh, and by the way, you didn't follow your analogy to its final conclusion. Let's say you "got fed" at your parents' house. That means you ate. YOU ATE. If your mom cooked a fabulous meal, but you simply chose not to eat it, then, despite your mom's best efforts, you didn't get fed. You can't even call it "getting fed" unless you, yourself, decide to eat.
um...Read the post again - I did follow it to the logical conclusion that it is your responsibility to eat. You must have stopped reading after the first sentence. But hey, apparently there is no point to teaching other than to provide a venue for you to be lazy, so let's do away with it all together. No public reading of the scripture, because then you don't have to read it yourself. No interpretation because that means that allows you to not think about the word at all. So let's just start meeting in bowling alleys, have some worship time and then bowl - that's fellowship, right? In fact, let's go back through the Bible and erase all of the places where it said somebody was teaching here or there for this and that length of time. Back on your original point, you're kidding yourself if you don't think people are leaving the churches that fleece the flock. You seem to be as out of touch with the church outside your congregation as you are critical of it.
Oh, and by the way, I also can't get fed if I go to my parents house at dinner time and there's no food.
I don't like having words put in my mouth. Also, it kinda bugs me when people argue with me for long periods of time based on faulty premises and straw-man arguments. That being said, it's clear we're both believers with very different interpretations of certain (insignificant, mind you) aspects of the modern Christian church, so I don't want this to turn antagonistic or personal in any way. According to C.S. Lewis, that's Satan's greatest trick, and besides, like George Costanza, I feel uncomfortable when people don't like me. Let me explain a couple things.
I wasn't writing about the church outside my own congregation. I was writing an essay specifically targetted at my own church. Some people are leaving for (trust me on this one) some quite asinine reasons, and I wanted to voice my disgust with their flippancy.
The churches where the pastor "fleeces the flock" are major congregations made up of thousands of people, many of whom prefer to remain passive and nameless in the activities normally befitting a church. These are the kind of people that go to church because their family has always gone to church, and so are far less likely (statistically speaking) to delve any deeper into the word. If you don't believe that, then I don't think I'm the one who's out of touch. It's the truth. I know what I'm talking about.
I know you said it was your own responsibility to get fed. I wasn't disputing that, and I did, in point of fact, read the whole comment. You said, "In that sense, getting fed IS the purpose of teaching. That is the purpose of a pastor, to feed the flock - to prepare it and to present it." I now see what was causing the confusion between us: simple semantics. You're saying (I believe) that feeding is simply presenting the information correctly for the congregation to assimilate, so to speak. I'm saying the EXACT same thing, but I THOUGHT you were saying that the interpretation, research, and further application all fell under the category of "feeding." That's what I was calling the "eating" part of the analogy.
OK, I think we might have reached that final and inevitable impasse. Hope I cleared up some of the confusion and what appeared to be the beginnings of bad blood. Hope you'll continue to read and post thought-provoking comments.
By the by, is this Taylor?
By the by, yes, it's Taylor. Let me say first and foremost, that I have a lot of respect for you and your opinions. Second, I think this illustrated a good point - "simple semantics" are often extremely important (not to imply that you were saying they aren't) - I often hear the phrase "it's just semantics" but often, those semantics are important. Third, I think that we agree on some key issues, and disagree on some of the issues contained in this blog...I also think that a lot of it comes from not talking through it, but debating it out through typed posts. Also, for whatever reason, it's in my personality to argue for the sake of arguing - this just happens to be one of the things I like to argue just for arguments sake. You're a cool cat, look forward to future entries.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home