MennoNet.com

Wade wrote:From first hand experience regarding this title, I highly recommend this sermon!

The ideas shared reminds me of the early Anabaptists, which is full of faith in Christ - rather than sectarianism...

http://www.followers-of-the-way.org/med ... nvideo/255

The irony of such a message is that often the person giving it can be quite sectarian - full of confidence they have found "the way" and everyone else is lost.

Josh wrote:

Wade wrote:From first hand experience regarding this title, I highly recommend this sermon!

The ideas shared reminds me of the early Anabaptists, which is full of faith in Christ - rather than sectarianism...

http://www.followers-of-the-way.org/med ... nvideo/255

The irony of such a message is that often the person giving it can be quite sectarian - full of confidence they have found "the way" and everyone else is lost.

Interesting... But opposite of my experience.

Wade wrote:

Josh wrote:

Wade wrote:From first hand experience regarding this title, I highly recommend this sermon!

The ideas shared reminds me of the early Anabaptists, which is full of faith in Christ - rather than sectarianism...

http://www.followers-of-the-way.org/med ... nvideo/255

The irony of such a message is that often the person giving it can be quite sectarian - full of confidence they have found "the way" and everyone else is lost.

Interesting... But opposite of my experience.

The person speaking in that video spent hours trying to convince me I'm unsaved because I don't share the same theological opinions he does on mode of baptism and marriage.

This thread confuses me. Suppose a Christian came to your church every Sunday and murdered a member of the church. If the church isn't judgemental, then it should welcome the weekly murderer in the church. If it is going to ban the weekly murderer, then it is being judgemental and the only question is where to draw the line. Dressing immodestly is just milder version of the same question because this is also harmful to other members of the church. Other rules like dietary restrictions are more indirect but the argument is still the same because these rules are needed as exercises in self-disciple and those who do not do these exercises are more likely to act immorally to other members of the church.

The lack of rules is the greatest flaw in modern Christianity. Islam and Judaism don't have this problem.

Franklin wrote:This thread confuses me. Suppose a Christian came to your church every Sunday and murdered a member of the church. If the church isn't judgemental, then it should welcome the weekly murderer in the church. If it is going to ban the weekly murderer, then it is being judgemental and the only question is where to draw the line. Dressing immodestly is just milder version of the same question because this is also harmful to other members of the church. Other rules like dietary restrictions are more indirect but the argument is still the same because these rules are needed as exercises in self-disciple and those who do not do these exercises are more likely to act immorally to other members of the church.

The lack of rules is the greatest flaw in modern Christianity. Islam and Judaism don't have this problem.

Killing someone is clearly a violation of state law and moral law. What is seen as immodest is a matter of opinion. Paul is clear in Romans 14 that we are not to judge or criticize one another over matters where we have different religious interpretations.

By the way, Judaism and Islam have both split, with different factions having different rules.

Franklin wrote:This thread confuses me. Suppose a Christian came to your church every Sunday and murdered a member of the church. If the church isn't judgemental, then it should welcome the weekly murderer in the church. If it is going to ban the weekly murderer, then it is being judgemental and the only question is where to draw the line. Dressing immodestly is just milder version of the same question because this is also harmful to other members of the church. Other rules like dietary restrictions are more indirect but the argument is still the same because these rules are needed as exercises in self-disciple and those who do not do these exercises are more likely to act immorally to other members of the church.

The lack of rules is the greatest flaw in modern Christianity. Islam and Judaism don't have this problem.

I know plenty of Muslims and Jewish people, and they seem to deal with the same challenges Christians do.

Really, none of us can handle the modern world and we cannot cope with individuality.

Franklin wrote:This thread confuses me. Suppose a Christian came to your church every Sunday and murdered a member of the church. If the church isn't judgemental, then it should welcome the weekly murderer in the church. If it is going to ban the weekly murderer, then it is being judgemental and the only question is where to draw the line. Dressing immodestly is just milder version of the same question because this is also harmful to other members of the church. Other rules like dietary restrictions are more indirect but the argument is still the same because these rules are needed as exercises in self-disciple and those who do not do these exercises are more likely to act immorally to other members of the church.

The lack of rules is the greatest flaw in modern Christianity. Islam and Judaism don't have this problem.

I think there is a big difference in someone involved in murder than a person wearing immodest clothing. Romans 14 is about a believer and how they learn and practise on-going sanctification. Unrepented murder and other sins that are explicitly mentioned in the scriptures are not to be tolerated within a community of believers. These folks are not to be recognized as part of the community.

I believe Romans 14 is a pretty strong case for not having rules beyond what scripture says. Since scripture says to dress modestly, then teach what is meant by dressing immodestly and why without defining any specific style of clothing. Then encourage and help those that need help in that area. If they resist that kind of help, then that is a different sin that first needs to be worked on. Regardless the process of sanctification is not one to be mandated as far as I can see in scripture.

Christianity is not like Judaism or Islam as we believe the Holy Spirit works in our hearts to cause us to desire holiness. Romans 14 warns us about condemning fellow believers in how they serve the Lord. What I think is lacking today is that the more weightier aspects of right living are not being taught and practised. We can throw out the 613 OT laws and replace them with our own lists of laws and miss the point that God now writes His laws on our hearts. As we encourage and give space to one another in how we serve the Lord, we allow for spiritual growth to occur.

I think Franklin is making the point that our choices, actions, etc., have an effect on others in our church.
And I agree that modern Christianity has imbibed too much from of American society. Modern Christianity seems to believe and promote the idea that all that matters is myself, and I shouldn't have to really conform or bend to anyone. Be and let be. This is exactly what our society says too, and I don't think this mindset is healthy or beneficial or really scriptural.

I do think church rules, or standards, are a good tool for disciplining ourselves both as individuals and the group. Society loves the idea of self discipline too, but hates the idea of someone else having a hand in it to the extent that they would rather do away with discipline. We are rebellious people.

Franklin wrote:Suppose a Christian came to your church every Sunday and murdered a member of the church.

What basis do you have for calling this person a Christian?

RZehr wrote:I think Franklin is making the point that our choices, actions, etc., have an effect on others in our church.
And I agree that modern Christianity has imbibed too much from of American society. Modern Christianity seems to believe and promote the idea that all that matters is myself, and I shouldn't have to really conform or bend to anyone. Be and let be. This is exactly what our society says too, and I don't think this mindset is healthy or beneficial or really scriptural.

I do think church rules, or standards, are a good tool for disciplining ourselves both as individuals and the group. Society loves the idea of self discipline too, but hates the idea of someone else having a hand in it to the extent that they would rather do away with discipline. We are rebellious people.

The problem is - when we set these standards; are we willing to come down to peoples level and support others in it? Christ did.

Here is what I mean: Say the church has a stand against being part of something like a union. A revival sweeps through town and 20 men quit there job and come to your church. Are you willing to really step down and let your family suffer that those people now without jobs can support their families? What if they are truly converted and have huge debt to pay off, are you going to help them pay there bills? How about one family?...

The most frustrating thing you can do for any person is expect something from them while they don't have the resources, means, knowledge, skill, or whatever to do it...

When a newcomer hears stuff like this and they have actually forsaken all but are poor because of previous poor choices we are not looking for handouts but rather have made those choices through faith and cannot afford these standards most walk away and never return... Who is selfish then?

The newcomer didn't come because they wanted to change the standard or for it to be lessened or for handouts... What do both sides do then?

Should we make new church for the poor so the well off can be left alone?