Evangelicals and Trump

[Guest]

26 minutes ago, troph said:

I don’t know what you mean by a medal but I’ll tell you hard core evangelicalism has a lot in common with cults. The faith provides meaning, a mission, a community and the fear of being rejected causes you to want to please leaders. And if that sounds radical, so is Jesus’ teachings.

 

See how that works?

 

(That and I didn’t out us. /shrug)

I poorly conveyed that you should not have ever had to endure that.

zero sarcasm. 

[workswithseed 2204]

19 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Great post.  And bolded for emphasis.  One of the great breaks I see between a core element of Christianity and American "Christianity" is the worship of individualism, hinted at in the whole "my personal relationship with Jesus Christ."  It has been so perverted that we have made an inviolable, sanctified God out of "me, my, mine."  At the complete and total expense fo the community.

The entirety of the Gospels is pretty clear -- while personal meditation/prayer etc. is of course included, PRACTICE of the faith is a community endeavor.  We are expressly called to be in community.  Gathering and practicing faith as a group is specifically called out - "For where two or three gather in my name, there am I with them."  We are called to help carry each other from time to time, because we ALL are broken, and we ALL will sometimes need it.  Creation was not of "a man."  It was of "mankind."

Oh....and I'm old-school.  We beat the Baptists to Luby's or Wyatt's back in the day.

Y'all Bible thumped them to Luby's in a Bible thump fight? Hard core.

[Wulaw Horn 19582]

10 hours ago, troph said:

I once was hauled in front of a hundred people and made to confess I had sex with my girlfriend out of wedlock. It was Acts style discipline and it was the most damaging thing I ever experienced in the name of God. We had meetings with our pastor, our head pastor, the elders then our student congregation. They claimed the goal was to follow the Word to the letter, Acts and Paul style discipline. They were immovable and insisted infallible authority. To question it, to stand up for my rights was seen as an act of lawlessness, rebellion and an unrepentant heart. Anyone who truly know me will find I am as repentant of a human as anyone can probably find. We were trapped in a process that was so damaging.

 

We weren’t told to leave but no one would talk to us at church on Sundays. We quietly left out the back about 6 months later. We tried 3-4 other churches over the next few years and I left The Church for good about 5 years later.

 

Be careful for wanting what you think is the end all be all of Christianity based on a few thin pages in the Bible. Paul’s letters were for a place and time and while they are relatable to all times they are not meant to be literally applied. To do so can and does hurt a lot of people.

Here’s what I don’t understand about this story and didn’t understand 5 years ago when you first told it:

What was your response when they came to you 1 on 1?  Because that’s how church discipline starts, with an elder coming and taking about your sin. Did you try to tell them it wasn’t sin? Did you take an attitude of defiance and say I will do whatever I want?  Because in order to get to the congregational level, if they are doing it right, you should have had 3 or 4 chances to repent and say you’d attempt to go on and stop engaging at that sin. 

I’ve only ever seen this done, btw, with an affair or something else that was destructive to someone else so that’s kind of odd to me that they’d pull out the big guns for pre marital sex. We’re you in some manner of leadership position where more is to be expected then from a typical parishioner?

Finally, why did you continue to go to church there?  Like, how did it get to that point?  Y’all obviously disagreed. Unless the church wasn’t even following the playbook in the Bible this had to be over a protracted period of time and had to be protracted “sin” and my guess is what- you argued at every level what you were doing wasn’t wrong?  Or something like everyone else is doing it?  They shouldn’t have found out you did something wrong and hauled you in front of everyone in the congregation- this is a tactic for people living in a state of sin away from fellowship to get them to come back into the fold. At least if they are doing it the way it’s supposed to be done. 

[workswithseed 2204]

Yeah, we've had a few who came forth and repentanted thier sins in front of the congregation, and after that they weren't treated like an animal. Some of it was some hard stuff too. 

[F250 29199]

10 hours ago, troph said:

I once was hauled in front of a hundred people and made to confess I had sex with my girlfriend out of wedlock. It was Acts style discipline and it was the most damaging thing I ever experienced in the name of God. We had meetings with our pastor, our head pastor, the elders then our student congregation. They claimed the goal was to follow the Word to the letter, Acts and Paul style discipline. They were immovable and insisted infallible authority. To question it, to stand up for my rights was seen as an act of lawlessness, rebellion and an unrepentant heart. Anyone who truly know me will find I am as repentant of a human as anyone can probably find. We were trapped in a process that was so damaging.

 

We weren’t told to leave but no one would talk to us at church on Sundays. We quietly left out the back about 6 months later. We tried 3-4 other churches over the next few years and I left The Church for good about 5 years later.

 

Be careful for wanting what you think is the end all be all of Christianity based on a few thin pages in the Bible. Paul’s letters were for a place and time and while they are relatable to all times they are not meant to be literally applied. To do so can and does hurt a lot of people.

This practice is usually only found in congregational churches. Those type of churches tend to rely heavily on the threat of being ostracized by the body. There is also an element of public humiliation involved as well.

I remember having a similar discussion years ago with some friends and a Catholic friend was blown away by the concept. His observation was that people would just hide their sin better in those situations out of fear of public humiliation. Then we discussed the merits of Catholic confession which is the opposite practice of public call outs.

 

[troph 25204]

20 minutes ago, Wulaw Horn said:

Here’s what I don’t understand about this story and didn’t understand 5 years ago when you first told it:

What was your response when they came to you 1 on 1?  Because that’s how church discipline starts, with an elder coming and taking about your sin. Did you try to tell them it wasn’t sin? Did you take an attitude of defiance and say I will do whatever I want?  Because in order to get to the congregational level, if they are doing it right, you should have had 3 or 4 chances to repent and say you’d attempt to go on and stop engaging at that sin. 

I’ve only ever seen this done, btw, with an affair or something else that was destructive to someone else so that’s kind of odd to me that they’d pull out the big guns for pre marital sex. We’re you in some manner of leadership position where more is to be expected then from a typical parishioner?

Finally, why did you continue to go to church there?  Like, how did it get to that point?  Y’all obviously disagreed. Unless the church wasn’t even following the playbook in the Bible this had to be over a protracted period of time and had to be protracted “sin” and my guess is what- you argued at every level what you were doing wasn’t wrong?  Or something like everyone else is doing it?  They shouldn’t have found out you did something wrong and hauled you in front of everyone in the congregation- this is a tactic for people living in a state of sin away from fellowship to get them to come back into the fold. At least if they are doing it the way it’s supposed to be done. 

I won't ever be in that position again.  we were very repentant, I tried to explain that is one of my defining characteristics.  we wanted to stay because all of our friends were there.  without that church family we had no family.  what part of "like a cult" didn't make sense?  yes I was a volunteer leader, she received a stipend from the church ($200 per month I believe) and had her own network of donors that paid her to "preach the gospel", it was a home group style church, fundamentalist, charismatic, evangelical church.  the kind you find everywhere now.  What's odd is we didn't have to tell her donors.  we just had to tell 150 people in our church community, she had to resign, I had to step down, and we were told when we healed they would consider us again.  then the scarlet A was sealed and we tried hard to stick around but again, no one would talk to us.

look, I'm sure you've been in congregations where it worked, but if you aren't close to those people who were put through that, you actually don't know if it worked.  that church of ours, they'd say it worked too.  They'd say, see?  "he's" living in sin now, never really repented and now is living in sin more than ever.  Let that be a warning to you, don't be like that "guy" be repentant.  we'll I was.  I submitted 100% to their prayerfully considered plan.  they said if we submitted to it things would be okay.  but it wasn't.  but it didn't work, not even close.  In fact, it cemented my view that evangelicals by and large as a group are others focused and I believe the Gospel is 99% self focused.  I'm not mad at G-d but I have no desire to be within 200 feet of a non-denom church and I won't be within 1000 of a conservative church.  I do like me a United Methodist church from time to time.  

even adultery, that's no one's business.  even in leadership - yeah, require them to step down, but provide loving and merciful cover.  maybe a pastoral counselor and a head pastor but whether repentant or not, that public confession is not okay in this world.  And it runs contrary to 1 Chorithians 13 - love always protects.  It runs afoul of many scriptures.  Instead these churches rely on first century teachings that were written for the first century church.  I will go to my grave and my G-d believing the greater sin was how we were treated. 

and one more thing, pre-marital sex.  okay it's a "sin" whatever.  why are people who are judgmental assholes not called on their shit?  why is pre-marital sex a sin that requires such drastic consequences?  the sins of the heart are much more deadly in my opinion and folks stay in leadership with nary a word.  

First century style church discipline is a recipe for disaster.

And of course everyone was sleeping with each other.  we were college students.

 

[Wulaw Horn 19582]

15 minutes ago, troph said:

I won't ever be in that position again.  we were very repentant, I tried to explain that is one of my defining characteristics.  we wanted to stay because all of our friends were there.  without that church family we had no family.  what part of "like a cult" didn't make sense?  yes I was a volunteer leader, she received a stipend from the church ($200 per month I believe) and had her own network of donors that paid her to "preach the gospel", it was a home group style church, fundamentalist, charismatic, evangelical church.  the kind you find everywhere now.  What's odd is we didn't have to tell her donors.  we just had to tell 150 people in our church community, she had to resign, I had to step down, and we were told when we healed they would consider us again.  then the scarlet A was sealed and we tried hard to stick around but again, no one would talk to us.

look, I'm sure you've been in congregations where it worked, but if you aren't close to those people who were put through that, you actually don't know if it worked.  that church of ours, they'd say it worked too.  They'd say, see?  "he's" living in sin now, never really repented and now is living in sin more than ever.  Let that be a warning to you, don't be like that "guy" be repentant.  we'll I was.  I submitted 100% to their prayerfully considered plan.  they said if we submitted to it things would be okay.  but it wasn't.  but it didn't work, not even close.  In fact, it cemented my view that evangelicals by and large as a group are others focused and I believe the Gospel is 99% self focused.  I'm not mad at G-d but I have no desire to be within 200 feet of a non-denom church and I won't be within 1000 of a conservative church.  I do like me a United Methodist church from time to time.  

even adultery, that's no one's business.  even in leadership - yeah, require them to step down, but provide loving and merciful cover.  maybe a pastoral counselor and a head pastor but whether repentant or not, that public confession is not okay in this world.  And it runs contrary to 1 Chorithians 13 - love always protects.  It runs afoul of many scriptures.  Instead these churches rely on first century teachings that were written for the first century church.  I will go to my grave and my G-d believing the greater sin was how we were treated. 

and one more thing, pre-marital sex.  okay it's a "sin" whatever.  why are people who are judgmental assholes not called on their shit?  why is pre-marital sex a sin that requires such drastic consequences?  the sins of the heart are much more deadly in my opinion and folks stay in leadership with nary a word.  

First century style church discipline is a recipe for disaster.

And of course everyone was sleeping with each other.  we were college students.

 

Yeah, the last paragraph is what I meant when I said “can’t believe they’d pull out the big guns for pre marital sex” especially in a young church. 
Pre marital sex is certainly a sin, I could go through a whole host of reasons why God doesn’t want us to do it for our own good, it had some devestating consequences in my own life, but it’s also not something that will rip apart the fabric of a church, especially a younger skewed church, so I don’t get that. 
Adultery is not “your own business”. It destroys lives of innocent victims and if it’s at the clergy level it can destroy a church. When you get into a leadership position the Bible is abundantly clear, in many different places, you are held to a higher standard. 
The part of your story that I’m just not understanding is why it continued to escalate. If you were repentant and prayerful and on the plan then what was the purpose and rationale for it ever getting beyond a 1 on 1 scenario with a preacher/elder?  How did they justify that?  
Was she considered staff?  Staff discipline is certainly different. I’ve been in churches where staff weren’t allowed to drink, or use Tobacco and any sexual impurity would be considered verboten, of course, but yeah- it’s a higher standard if y’all are staff I assume, is where that came from.  
 

[Mole 4338]

The church I was in where it "worked" was:

1. extremely small, so interpersonal hurts were pretty hard to hide

2. full of very close-knit friendships, many going back decades - the relationships were well-established, so everyone felt empowered to draw appropriate boundaries

3. with dispersed and diluted authority - not really a pastor, but some folks I guess operated as something like an elder, but it wasn't formalized and was more of a group understanding that arises in many groups of close friends; preaching was an open forum for anyone who felt called

4. supremely concerned with not hurting their friends and loving them well

5. pretty diverse theologically, even on the social issues of the day

6. self-aware - the movie Marjoe was a popular topic of discussion and seen as an important movie for new believers; if you're going to walk this walk, it's important to be aware of how you might be taken advantage of

7. even though it almost reads like it, they were not Quakers; the meetings sometimes felt like Quaker meetings in terms of organization and the patience required

 

I think it can work in a culture where everyone is fully empowered to make a defense for themselves and where everyone loves one another more than they "hate sin." If there's a central authority leading the group or a culture of deference, that seems like a recipe for disaster. I've known very few pastors that I would trust with that kind of authority. The ones I would trust wouldn't take on that kind of authority.

Edited July 16, 2020 by Mole

[formermav43 4623]

1 hour ago, troph said:

I won't ever be in that position again.  we were very repentant, I tried to explain that is one of my defining characteristics.  we wanted to stay because all of our friends were there.  without that church family we had no family.  what part of "like a cult" didn't make sense?  yes I was a volunteer leader, she received a stipend from the church ($200 per month I believe) and had her own network of donors that paid her to "preach the gospel", it was a home group style church, fundamentalist, charismatic, evangelical church.  the kind you find everywhere now.  What's odd is we didn't have to tell her donors.  we just had to tell 150 people in our church community, she had to resign, I had to step down, and we were told when we healed they would consider us again.  then the scarlet A was sealed and we tried hard to stick around but again, no one would talk to us.

look, I'm sure you've been in congregations where it worked, but if you aren't close to those people who were put through that, you actually don't know if it worked.  that church of ours, they'd say it worked too.  They'd say, see?  "he's" living in sin now, never really repented and now is living in sin more than ever.  Let that be a warning to you, don't be like that "guy" be repentant.  we'll I was.  I submitted 100% to their prayerfully considered plan.  they said if we submitted to it things would be okay.  but it wasn't.  but it didn't work, not even close.  In fact, it cemented my view that evangelicals by and large as a group are others focused and I believe the Gospel is 99% self focused.  I'm not mad at G-d but I have no desire to be within 200 feet of a non-denom church and I won't be within 1000 of a conservative church.  I do like me a United Methodist church from time to time.  

even adultery, that's no one's business.  even in leadership - yeah, require them to step down, but provide loving and merciful cover.  maybe a pastoral counselor and a head pastor but whether repentant or not, that public confession is not okay in this world.  And it runs contrary to 1 Chorithians 13 - love always protects.  It runs afoul of many scriptures.  Instead these churches rely on first century teachings that were written for the first century church.  I will go to my grave and my G-d believing the greater sin was how we were treated. 

and one more thing, pre-marital sex.  okay it's a "sin" whatever.  why are people who are judgmental assholes not called on their shit?  why is pre-marital sex a sin that requires such drastic consequences?  the sins of the heart are much more deadly in my opinion and folks stay in leadership with nary a word.  

First century style church discipline is a recipe for disaster.

And of course everyone was sleeping with each other.  we were college students.

 

I certainly don’t think that church handled your situation properly by the sound of it. But I think you’ll find it hard to rest on 1Cor 13 for opposition to public confession in general when Paul spends an entire chapter of the same letter talking about the need to withdraw from someone living in open sexual sin.

[Wulaw Horn 19582]

2 hours ago, F250 said:

This practice is usually only found in congregational churches. Those type of churches tend to rely heavily on the threat of being ostracized by the body. There is also an element of public humiliation involved as well.

I remember having a similar discussion years ago with some friends and a Catholic friend was blown away by the concept. His observation was that people would just hide their sin better in those situations out of fear of public humiliation. Then we discussed the merits of Catholic confession which is the opposite practice of public call outs.

 

Yeah- I’ve done both. I think each has its place.  

[Wulaw Horn 19582]

39 minutes ago, formermav43 said:

I certainly don’t think that church handled your situation properly by the sound of it. But I think you’ll find it hard to rest on 1Cor 13 for opposition to public confession in general when Paul spends an entire chapter of the same letter talking about the need to withdraw from someone living in open sexual sin.

Replace congregant with staff member and it starts to make more sense though, right? 

[troph 25204]

1 hour ago, formermav43 said:

I certainly don’t think that church handled your situation properly by the sound of it. But I think you’ll find it hard to rest on 1Cor 13 for opposition to public confession in general when Paul spends an entire chapter of the same letter talking about the need to withdraw from someone living in open sexual sin.

we weren't.  she voluntarily confessed to her mentor and we stopped.  there was no open sin, there was no living in sin, there was nothing but repentant kids asking for help. wrong passage to apply.  and that doesn't even consider contextual arguments.

higher standard for leadership?  resignation was fine.  forced public emotional lynching?  not so much.

for a lot of you this is shit about Christianity is actually still very theoretical.  Until you are ground up in a Church trying to exercise it's power over you, you really can't see what this crap does.  It's awful.

but let's talk about the 1 Chorinthians 13 passage you mention and without historical context:

 I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people— ¹⁰ not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. ¹¹ But now I am writing to you that you must not associate with anyone who claims to be a brother or sister^[c] but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or slanderer, a drunkard or swindler. Do not even eat with such people.

¹² What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? ¹³ God will judge those outside. “Expel the wicked person from among you.

I guess they did the right thing, we were effectively expelled.  a young engaged to be married couple.  My question - when is the "money first" lead tither gonna be expelled?  certainly you aren't going to the Church retreat at his ranch are you?  What about the guy that seems to borrow money from friends but just never can pay it back.  is he kicked out?  and you boys and your hidden porn... uh oh.  so much can be done with this passage.  But what happens?  Evangelicals LOOOOOVE them some good old fashion SEX SIN.  it's a modern day lynching.

6 If any of you has a dispute with another, do you dare to take it before the ungodly for judgment instead of before the Lord’s people? ² Or do you not know that the Lord’s people will judge the world? And if you are to judge the world, are you not competent to judge trivial cases? ³ Do you not know that we will judge angels? How much more the things of this life! ⁴ Therefore, if you have disputes about such matters, do you ask for a ruling from those whose way of life is scorned in the church? ⁵ I say this to shame you. Is it possible that there is nobody among you wise enough to judge a dispute between believers? ⁶ But instead, one brother takes another to court—and this in front of unbelievers!

yikes.  lawyers are OUT!  and that guy in the lawsuit with his business partner! shame on him, why isn't he taking it to the church elders?

² But since sexual immorality is occurring, each man should have sexual relations with his own wife, and each woman with her own husband. ³ The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. ⁴ The wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband. In the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body but yields it to his wife.

officer, I can't be charged with raping my wife, she does not have authority over her own body it really belongs to me.  and yeah, works the other way if by rare circumstance the man is raped.  no dice.  

³ Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? ¹⁴ Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him, ¹⁵ but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For long hair is given to her as a covering. ¹⁶ If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice—nor do the churches of God.

I don't even know what to do with the head covering passages in 1 Chorinthians 13. lord it's confusing.  is long hair the covering or not and how short is shaved, I mean the pixie cut is pretty short (and hawt too!)... so confused.

³⁴ Women^[f] should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. ³⁵ If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.^[g]

uh.... someone want to take this one?

if you're going to take one single historical passage as literal but throw out another, then let's meet up at the throne of G-d and compare sins in front of him then.  he wasn't mad at the woman at the well but he sure as heck had contempt for the money changers and the Pharisees.   and guess which one the pick and chose literalists are more like?  

we can do this all day long.  Every single letter from Paul and the minor epistles too.  context is everything.  read 1 Chorinthians cover to cover in one sitting without looking for deciphered code, just read it.  It's entirely contextual and most be read and handled in light of the circumstances.  Heck the entire chapter about sexual immorality, Paul led with - guys, if you can stop fucking that would be great.  just stop.  all of you.  it's out of control and you're acting like those Pagans and if you keep it up we will lose what we have.  So either stop all together which I prefer or get married so everyone knows it's just the two of you because otherwise the orgy will keep going and we can't have that.   But for whatever reason, these sex passages can't be read in context like the woman's body belongs to her husband.  They can't be read like the "woman shut up" passage or any others that are summarily dismissed today as not relevant.

I think modernity demands a different look and interpretation.  yeah, if orgies were breaking out in the youth group, gotta deal with it.  yes I agree affairs/adultry are damaging.  committed couples, sorry I just don't see it anymore.  and while that might be blasphemy, if that isn't open to being dismissed, or at least having a conversation about it then you need to expel the business first rich guy and you need to tell your wife to sit down and shut up.

 

 

 

Edited July 16, 2020 by troph

[troph 25204]

38 minutes ago, Wulaw Horn said:

Replace congregant with staff member and it starts to make more sense though, right? 

nope.  not at all.  there is no justification for open mandatory confessions for people seeking help.  none at all.  

this is theoretical for you.  but this is the point.  pick and choose literalism is one of the biggest problems in the Church today.  

[formermav43 4623]

Again, I wasn’t referring to your specific situation, which I already said seems as if it was not handled correctly. I was only responding to your suggestion that any public acknowledgement of sin is inappropriate. The “open sexual sin” is that of 1 Cor 5, not you.

[troph 25204]

9 minutes ago, formermav43 said:

Again, I wasn’t referring to your specific situation, which I already said seems as if it was not handled correctly. I was only responding to your suggestion that any public acknowledgement of sin is inappropriate. The “open sexual sin” is that of 1 Cor 5, not you.

I think the appropriate circumstance, if it exists, is rare.  consequences like resignation are fine, rules are rules.  and if leadership really wants to invoke public confession, they better damn be sure to deal with the certain fallout because it's coming.  and dismissing the failout and concluding the process worked is a cop out at best, more likely it damages a number of people along the way.  Personally, I know of three other instances and I have not seen any restoration the way church leaders claim will happen.  I see broken people destroyed by it.

[formermav43 4623]

Without writing (too much of) an essay on it, I think the problem with it is rooted in the same individualism Brisket was lamenting in the contemporary American church. We are called to live in community, not just be isolated people who happen to gather together in a building once or twice a week.  We are SUPPOSED to be “in each other’s business”-but not in the sense of Puritanically lording it over others or tearing them down to self-righteously build ourselves up. But because we truly love and care for each other. And no one is going to take to any sort of rebuke, even if it’s well intentioned (and it usually isn’t) if that relationship isn’t established first.

By the same token, we shouldn’t be afraid to be vulnerable and admit our sins. To confess our faults to each other and pray for each other. But we’re too prideful to allow ourselves to look weak, too individualistic to answer to anyone, or too afraid of how we’ve seen others have their shortcomings weaponized against then like you did. Or all of the above.

In any case, that sort of negative, public church discipline should only be exercised in the rarest of cases, when every other avenue has been exhausted. I agree with you that it doesn’t usually work-and that’s because in most of the churches that practice it, all the rest of that, the positive discipline of living life together, has never been tried.

[F250 29199]

22 minutes ago, troph said:

and while that might be blasphemy, if that isn't open to being dismissed, or at least having a conversation about it then you need to expel the business first rich guy and you need to tell your wife to sit down and shut up.

The one group that is never called out are the people that obviously live a gluttonous lifestyle. It's hard to take a preacher seriously when he is close 100 pounds overweight while preaching about sinful lifestyles. I've seen that many times.

[Mole 4338]

14 minutes ago, formermav43 said:

Without writing (too much of) an essay on it, I think the problem with it is rooted in the same individualism Brisket was lamenting in the contemporary American church. We are called to live in community, not just be isolated people who happen to gather together in a building once or twice a week.  We are SUPPOSED to be “in each other’s business”-but not in the sense of Puritanically lording it over others or tearing them down to self-righteously build ourselves up. But because we truly love and care for each other. And no one is going to take to any sort of rebuke, even if it’s well intentioned (and it usually isn’t) if that relationship isn’t established first.

By the same token, we shouldn’t be afraid to be vulnerable and admit our sins. To confess our faults to each other and pray for each other. But we’re too prideful to allow ourselves to look weak, too individualistic to answer to anyone, or too afraid of how we’ve seen others have their shortcomings weaponized against then like you did. Or all of the above.

In any case, that sort of negative, public church discipline should only be exercised in the rarest of cases, when every other avenue has been exhausted. I agree with you that it doesn’t usually work-and that’s because in most of the churches that practice it, all the rest of that, the positive discipline of living life together, has never been tried.

The church of mine where it worked was exactly like that. We formally met for church/community 2 or 3 times a week and regularly hung out with each other during our leisure time. Sunday church was often all day, but much of it was food, games, and watching sports. They were my closest friends.
 

Of course, there can be a point where that can lead to questionable situations as well or simply becoming too insular, but mature, responsible, open, community leadership can avoid those pitfalls. 

Absent deep church community (Koinonia isn’t just a smokin’ Christian jazz fusion band), church discipline is an invitation for abuse.

I also appreciate anyone sharing about abusive church experiences. It’s good to learn, grow, and see how our actions and beliefs might cause others harm.

[Guest]

Never have agreed with confessing my transgressions to another man, with regard to penance. Of course, clear the slate with someone you have wronged, but like in Troph's situation, whose fucking business within the church is that?  They cannot forgive you in the eyes of the Lord.

Always has seemed a fool's errand to me...  a control mechanism.  Wielding of a power they do not possess.

Edited July 16, 2020 by slorch

[troph 25204]

so with all of that, it's not as cut and dried.  we were very much committed to being in community as a church family.  both us the two of us and us the whole church, it's like the churches you both describe.  The thing is, unless you know the person in that hot seat in a deep and meaningful way you have no idea how that type of process went.  and for me, that ain't happening again with that level of vulnerability, ever.  so yeah, it's none of your business.

But I think think it goes to the issue with evangelicals and trump (to get back on track).  the picking and choosing of truth and lies, lies and truth.  the convenience of being others focused not self-focused.  the vilifying of people who are not like them and the list goes on and on has caused the kind of damage to our country that this particular church caused to me.  it's a systemic american evangelical christianity issue IMO.  

 

 

 

 

[Guest]

vilification is rampant across the board.

[Wulaw Horn 19582]

1 hour ago, troph said:

nope.  not at all.  there is no justification for open mandatory confessions for people seeking help.  none at all.  

this is theoretical for you.  but this is the point.  pick and choose literalism is one of the biggest problems in the Church today.  

If you confessed the sin in the first place, agreed to back away from it and were repentant I don’t understand why they did what they did. They seem totally and completely outside of the realm of what they are called to do such that I’m having a really hard time believing it happened like you said it did- it’s so far outside the bounds of how the church is supposed to act.  I’m not calling you a liar here I’m saying I literally haven’t ever set foot within a million miles of a church that would act like that so I can’t even conceptualize it in my head. 

[Wulaw Horn 19582]

1 hour ago, F250 said:

The one group that is never called out are the people that obviously live a gluttonous lifestyle. It's hard to take a preacher seriously when he is close 100 pounds overweight while preaching about sinful lifestyles. I've seen that many times.

As a fatty I’m completely cognizant of the fact that I wear my sin, day in and day out, for all the world to see. 

[workswithseed 2204]

1 hour ago, Wulaw Horn said:

If you confessed the sin in the first place, agreed to back away from it and were repentant I don’t understand why they did what they did. They seem totally and completely outside of the realm of what they are called to do such that I’m having a really hard time believing it happened like you said it did- it’s so far outside the bounds of how the church is supposed to act.  I’m not calling you a liar here I’m saying I literally haven’t ever set foot within a million miles of a church that would act like that so I can’t even conceptualize it in my head. 

If they cannot forgive, and then lead someone astray, that is thier sins.

[Wulaw Horn 19582]

40 minutes ago, workswithseed said:

If they cannot forgive, and then lead someone astray, that is thier sins.

Yeah. I’ve just never witnessed anything like that take place, nor heard of anyone else witness it take place. 

[troph 25204]

If you confessed the sin in the first place, agreed to back away from it and were repentant I don’t understand why they did what they did. They seem totally and completely outside of the realm of what they are called to do such that I’m having a really hard time believing it happened like you said it did- it’s so far outside the bounds of how the church is supposed to act.  I’m not calling you a liar here I’m saying I literally haven’t ever set foot within a million miles of a church that would act like that so I can’t even conceptualize it in my head. 

Their non-biblical reasoning if I recall was because if we keep it secret people will talk when we aren’t leading home groups and “discipling” other 20 year olds. And then mumbo jumbo about dark and light and Jesus and Acts, Gospel in action, hallelujah.

 

and you don’t see it because the only sins that get evangelicals wrapped around the axel involve penises and/or vaginas and most evangelicals are smart enough to keep their sex “sins” private. That level of judgment though? It’s par for the course for those of us (LGBTQ folk) that can’t avoid being visibly different than evangelicals.

 

Well, except for sex sins involving Donald Trump.

[F250 29199]

I know someone that was told by the elders that they must apologize in front of the congregation for causing a Facebook kerfuffle. Apparently it was about Baby Shower invitations, no cursing or hateful stuff just internet bickering.

[Mole 4338]

Sounds like justifiable grounds for excommunication to me.

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, Mole said:

Sounds like justifiable grounds for excommunication to me.

and getting laid is the only salve for that wound...

[Jhawkmvp 1514]

On 7/14/2020 at 3:59 AM, workswithseed said:

I can't do either. I see them both as terrible people.

Quite a few very effective presidents before now have been terrible people. The reason to vote for Biden over Trump is that like almost every president in recent history, Biden will bring in people with expertise in areas of government and listen to them. The best leaders delegate and then let their people with expertise lead the way and only step in when needed. That is not possible with Trump because he thinks he knows more than everyone about everything and eventually he fucks up any decent government plan of action with his "gut" instincts. Trump has no plan and listens to nobody for long. That is why our government has been such a disaster for going on 4 years.

[Guest]

31 minutes ago, Jhawkmvp said:

Quite a few very effective presidents before now have been terrible people. The reason to vote for Biden over Trump is that like almost every president in recent history, Biden will bring in people with expertise in areas of government and listen to them. The best leaders delegate and then let their people with expertise lead the way and only step in when needed. That is not possible with Trump because he thinks he knows more than everyone about everything and eventually he fucks up any decent government plan of action with his "gut" instincts. Trump has no plan and listens to nobody for long. That is why our government has been such a disaster for going on 4 years.

LOLz.  Biden will not be the POTUS, even if he wins the election.

The only question is who the influencers/ string pullers are.

[troph 25204]

and getting laid is the only salve for that wound...

Agree! And it was worth it. Got 20 years of beautiful marriage out of that sinful escapade.

[Jhawkmvp 1514]

1 hour ago, slorch said:

LOLz.  Biden will not be the POTUS, even if he wins the election.

The only question is who the influencers/ string pullers are.

Maybe. It was true of Reagan and Bush II. Either way will be better than the shit sandwich in office right now.

Edited July 17, 2020 by Jhawkmvp

[crash_davis 23468]

This is the man that evangelicals love. Absolutely astonishing. Again when a "christian" tells me he loves Trump, I know what type of "christian" he is.

 

[NWBuck 8629]

My evangelical pastor and very Republican father posted a link to this article on the book of face:

https://www.foxnews.com/us/2020-jesus-campaign-yard-signs-christianity

His over-educated and also religiously motivated son responded as follows-

I'd totally vote for Jesus!

• Heals people without worrying about underlying causes or pre-existing conditions or who was going to pay for it,
• Affirms the work and worth of women,
• Provides food to those who need no matter the circumstances (physical AND spiritual food),
• Teaches about a Kindgom based first and foremost on love of God and Neighbor (and not "what's best for business"),
• Remembers that all people are God's children no matter their cultural or ethnic origin,
• Meets survivors of sexual brokenness with love and grace,
• Has a heart that loves children (born and unborn) no matter their circumstances- even is very direct about people who would harm them.
• Looks to change systems and structures along with individual hearts,
• Reminds all that wealth and prosperity is not foundational for God's plan,
• AND offers eternal life and restoration to relationship with God?

Yup. I'm in. #Jesus2020

What I ddn't say? "No way in hell he'd get elected here- Republicans would have a field day about his questionable conception, his anti-nationalist stance, his being a Jew, and the fact that he's brown."

Edited August 23, 2020 by NWBuck

[pyrohornIII 4846]

Today I had a conversation with a friend and she brought up the word dominionism.  Frankly I had no clue what it meant,  but she explained it a bit and told me to google it concerning Texas conservative politics.     What I get from it is there is a nearly secretive movement to set the country up to be governed along basically old testament laws.   I feel they have quietly co-opted evangelism as a cover for what they are trying to accomplish.  Patrick, Cruz, Pence, Perry and lots more are some form of dominionists.  Either soft of hard.    This all makes a lot of sense but I think the following Texas Observer article from 2016 explains much of it better than I.

Still I think they are doing things in the name of Jesus, that have nothing to do with his teachings.  But it makes accepting their ideals easier for Joe Christian.  They have tied their movement to fundamental christianity and along with the prosperity movement have destroyed many of the ideal preached 50 years ago.

It's just a way for white males to retain power.  Since democracy is moving towards taking their position away with more 'people who don't look like them' voting, they now turn to bastardizing a religion to maintain their control.  Ironic they are breaking all the fundamental precepts of that religion to use it.  But no one cares, because that base has traded their souls for their riches.  

Going back to that documentary on The Family, I have to wonder how they fit into this puzzle.

https://www.texasobserver.org/dominion-theology/

Quote

The Radical Theology That Could Make Religious Freedom a Thing of the Past

Even devout Christians should fear these influential leaders' refusal to separate church and state.

Though it’s seldom mentioned by name, it’s one of the major forces in Texas politics today: dominion theology, or dominionism. What began as a fringe evangelical sect in the 1970s has seen its influence mushroom — so much so that sociologist Sara Diamond has called dominionism “the central unifying ideology for the Christian Right.” (Italics hers.) That’s especially true here in Texas, where dominionist beliefs have, over the last decade, become part and parcel of right-wing politics at the highest levels of government.

So, what is it? Dominionism fundamentally opposes America’s venerable tradition of church-state separation — in fact, dominionists deny the Founders ever intended that separation in the first place. According to Frederick Clarkson, senior fellow for religious liberty at the non-profit social justice think tank Political Research Associates, dominionists believe that Christians “have a biblical mandate to control all earthly institutions — including government — until the second coming of Jesus.” And that should worry all Texans — Christians and non-Christians alike.

Dominionism comes in “soft” and “hard” varieties. “Hard” dominionism (sometimes called Christian Reconstructionism), as Clarkson describes it, explicitly seeks to replace secular government, and the U.S. Constitution, with a system based on Old Testament law.

The father of hard dominionism, the late Presbyterian theologian R.J. Rushdoony, called for his followers to “take back government … and put it in the hands of Christians.”

Rushdoony’s legacy has been carried on by his son-in-law, Tyler-based economist Gary North, an unapologetic theocrat who in 1982 called for Christians to “get busy in constructing a Bible-based social, political, and religious order which finally denies the religious liberty of the enemies of God.” (North, founder of the Institute for Christian Economics, did not respond to my request for comment.)

Perhaps the most powerful dominionist in Texas politics is Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick.  Patrick said that elected officials must look to Scripture when they make policy, “because every problem we have in America has a solution in the Bible.” Mainstream Texas political figures don’t go quite that far. Instead they trade in “soft” dominionism. While soft dominionists do not advocate replacing the Constitution with biblical law, they do believe that Christians need to regain the control over political and cultural institutions that they (supposedly) lost after the Founding period.

 

Top Texas political figures have had links to dominionism for years. In 2011, the Observer covered then-Governor Rick Perry’s ties to a branch of the movement, the New Apostolic Reformation. Since then, the relationship between dominionism and right-wing politics has become even cozier.

Case in point: Ted Cruz. Although Cruz is too politically savvy to openly endorse dominionism, key figures on his team are explicit dominionists.

The most important may be his father, evangelist Rafael Cruz, a frequent surrogate for Cruz on the political stage.

Cruz père espouses Seven Mountains Dominionism, which holds that Christians must take control of seven “mountains,” or areas of life: family, religion, education, media, entertainment, business and government. Speaking at the Texas GOP Convention in Dallas in May, Rafael Cruz claimed that God inspired the Founders to produce the Constitution, and declared that “biblical values” have made America the greatest country on earth. He encouraged Christian pastors to run for public office at every level, and called upon all Christians to exercise their “sacred responsibility” to vote for candidates who uphold biblical values.

As for what Thomas Jefferson famously called America’s “wall of separation between Church & State,” Cruz claimed in a 2016 sermon that it was meant to be a “one-way wall” — preventing government from interfering in religion but allowing the Church to exercise dominion over government. (I have to wonder whether a “one-way wall” is really a wall at all.…)

Another Seven Mountains Dominionist active in Cruz’s failed presidential bid was David Barton, who managed one of Cruz’s super PACs. On a 2011 radio program Barton said that Christians need to “be able to influence and control” the “mountains” in order to “establish God’s kingdom.” An amateur historian, outspoken Christian Americanist, and long-time Texas GOP activist, Barton runs WallBuilders, an Aledo group that seeks to “exert a direct and positive influence in government” and to assist public officials in developing “policies which reflect Biblical values.” (Barton also played a key role in incorporating Christian Americanism into the Texas curriculum standards.)

Perhaps the most powerful dominionist in Texas politics is Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick. In a 2012 sermon and again at the 2015 Texas Tribune Festival, he said that the United States was founded on the Bible. Patrick has also made it clear he believes the Bible should determine public policy. In 2014, Patrick said that elected officials must look to Scripture when they make policy, “because every problem we have in America has a solution in the Bible.” (Where the Bible addresses problems like greenhouse gas emissions or cybersecurity, I’m at a loss to explain, even with 20 years of biblical study behind me.) His call for a “biblically-based” policy mindset “doesn’t mean we want a theocracy,” he insisted. “But it does mean we can’t walk away from what we believe.” For Patrick, not “walking away” seems to mean basing policy on his own religious beliefs — as he showed when he opposed same-sex marriage on biblical grounds. (Patrick also did not respond to my request for comment.)

Steve Hotze  CHRISTOPHER HOOKS

Another dominionist active in Texas politics is conservative firebrand-slash-medical-doctor Steven Hotze. Hotze is linked to Gary DeMar, a dominionist writer and lecturer. DeMar has called for the United States to be governed by Old Testament law, including instituting the death penalty for gay/lesbian sex. As recently as 2013, Hotze was an officer of DeMar’s dominionist think tank American Vision; its mission is “to Restore America to its Biblical Foundation.”

Hotze also heads the influential (and hate-group certified) Conservative Republicans of Texas (CRT). In a promotional video, Hotze explains that CRT “is committed to electing Republicans” who will “defend the constitutional liberties that arose from the Christian heritage of our Founding Fathers.” (Hotze did not respond to my requests for comment.)

Government officials have a duty to uphold the Constitution, not to enact their personal religious convictions. They are obliged to serve all of the people, not just members of the officials’ own religious community. In short, dominionism has risen from an obscure fringe movement to the highest reaches of government here in Texas. No doubt Rushdoony would be pleased. The rest of us, however, have good reason to be troubled.

 

The dominionist goal of having Christianity shape law and policy amounts to the very governmental establishment of religion that the First Amendment explicitly prohibits. It would also appear to violate the Texas Bill of Rights, which states that “no preference shall ever be given by law to any religious society or mode of worship.”

Of course, dominionists insist that none of this matters, because the Founders intended to create a “Christian nation.”

Even if some of the Founders did mean for Christianity to be normative for law and policy, the question today is: Which Christianity? Christians disagree sharply on a whole host of issues, and dominionists simply don’t speak for many Texas Christians. For example, Hotze’s CRT supports capital punishment and wants to eliminate entitlement programs, and would deny marriage to same-sex couples, while Patrick would deny Texans reproductive choice and transgender people access to appropriate public restrooms. Those positions directly oppose the gospel as many Christians, myself included, understand it. And in seeking to make law and policy conform to the Bible, dominionists don’t speak for the growing number of non-Christians and religious “nones” — those who are religiously unaffiliated, including atheists and agnostics.

To be clear, I’m not saying that religion has no place in the public square. Far from it: religious persons have just as much right as anyone else to advocate laws and policies that line up with their beliefs and values. Government officials, however, are in a different position. No, they don’t have to “walk away from what they believe,” as Patrick puts it. Their religious beliefs can inform their personal morality in office — don’t lie, don’t steal, and so on — and give them comfort and hope or motivate them to serve others. But they can’t make policy based on those beliefs. Government officials have a duty to uphold the Constitution, not to enact their personal religious convictions. They are obliged to serve all of the people, not just members of the officials’ own religious community.

Ironically, for all their talk about what those Founders intended, it seems that dominionists have failed to heed the wisdom of two of the most prominent, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. Madison warned that when government prefers one religion over others, religion suffers. A government that can make Christianity the official religion, he observed, can just as easily prefer one form of Christianity over others — for instance, Catholicism over evangelicalism.

For his part, Jefferson appealed to history. Whenever government officials “have assumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible” (my emphasis), he wrote, they have ended up creating “false religions.”

Christians who seek political domination would do well to heed those wise words.

 

[tx 3 putt 78672]

white jesus or brown jesus ?

no way evangelicals are voting for non white 

[Bevo14 8468]

14 minutes ago, tx 3 putt said:

white jesus or brown jesus ?

no way evangelicals are voting for non white 

Hey I'd vote for VY