What are signs that a church is becoming secular?

[The Rogue Tomato]

Books have also had a big impact on my religious views: Books by Alan Watts and C.S. Lewis were decisive in changing me first from an agnostic to a Zen/Tao/Vedanta Eastern syncretist, and then to a Christian.

The first few chapters of Mere Christianity convinced me that Jesus was not only real, but that he is God. 

Until that point, I was an agnostic coming around to the idea that God is real.  Before that, I was a full-fledged anti-Christian atheist.  And way before that, I was a Greek Orthodox kid who hated church because I had to spend so much time standing up and listening to language I didn't understand.  But at least the communion bread was awesome. 

 

[Izdaari]

A few questions raised by the discussion on #8 so far:

1) Born that way or not? I suppose that's a matter for bio scientists. Anything beyond opinionated speculation is beyond my competence on the matter, and probably yours too. I don't think we have any geneticists in the group. Maybe partly genetic, maybe various factors while growing up. I'm not sure how much is nature vs. nurture. But I do know it has happened with identical twins that one grew up straight, and the other grew up gay. Their genes were at least almost identical, and presumably so were their upbringings.

I also know that gays are mostly not yielding to a temptation that non-gays don't feel. Many of them are simply not able to be hetero. They either cannot feel an attraction to, or cannot perform with the opposite sex. They could be celibate of course, if they so choose and are able, but aside from just no sex, that also means a lonely single  life.

2. Whether born that way or not, it's also important to Christians whether it's sinful or not. I don't think it is, but I don't know if that's a discussion we can actually have here. I will not participate in a debate that's more of a verbal food fight.

3) Why do people just focus on the men? Women can be homosexual too ya know. My gay friends include plenty of both.

How do you fit Leviticus 18:22, Leviticus 20:13, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, & Romans 1:26-28 into your view?

I can answer all those, but do you really want me to? I really need an answer to my question #2 from several people before I'm willing to proceed with opening that giant can o' worms.

I believe it is a sin. But, so are many things that we do from day to day. Some point out that homosexuality is an "abomination" .... but I note that so is a person who stirs up conflict in the community (Proverbs 6:19).

For me, homosexuality is a sin that people accept, encourage, and promote.

Thanks, Tim. That's a fair, courteous and reasonable answer. My view is a little different. As I see it, most people are naturally attracted to the opposite sex, and that's a good thing, because otherwise the human race would die out. A relatively small percentage are attracted to the same sex, and a similarly small percentage are attracted to both. I think it's how God made them, whether by nature or nurture. I don't just mean how God made them as individuals, but also that He made the human race that way on purpose.

But as I said, to go into the Scriptures usually cited to condemn homosexuality, I believe would, in this venue at least, be a nasty, ugly debate, and I'd rather not go there. Possibly I can be convinced, but we shall see.

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

As I see it, most people are naturally attracted to the opposite sex, and that's a good thing, because otherwise the human race would die out.

In fact, according to the hypothesis of evolution, if homosexuality was genetic, wouldn't the genetic trait have died out by now? 

Actually, this is a good argument for NOT asking or expecting homosexuals to deny their impulses.  If they can stick to being homosexual ONLY, then the world should be free of homosexuals in just a few generations, or however many generations it takes for the recessive gene to stop being passed on. 

 

[Izdaari]

Books have also had a big impact on my religious views: Books by Alan Watts and C.S. Lewis were decisive in changing me first from an agnostic to a Zen/Tao/Vedanta Eastern syncretist, and then to a Christian.

The first few chapters of Mere Christianity convinced me that Jesus was not only real, but that he is God. 

Until that point, I was an agnostic coming around to the idea that God is real.  Before that, I was a full-fledged anti-Christian atheist.  And way before that, I was a Greek Orthodox kid who hated church because I had to spend so much time standing up and listening to language I didn't understand.  But at least the communion bread was awesome.

The communion bread is one of the strong points of my present church. It's homemade, organic and unleavened, possibly similar to what Jesus and the Twelve actually used. We also use homemade, and very good, red wine.

I've never seriously considered converting  to Orthodoxy. Certainly all the standing and the ethnocentricity that's common in it, if not universal, are deterrents. But I do think the Orthodox have significant bits of theology more right than the West.

For me, the decisive Lewis book was Surprised by Joy, his spiritual autobiography, in which he explained the process by which, starting from being a skeptical atheist intellectual, he gradually became convinced that Christianity was probably true.

 

[bgwilkinson]

I was surprised that I didn't see anything on the list about the modern corporate monetary income tithing doctrine. Of course it is not mentioned once in the Bible.

I know it is not in the statement of faith of most IFB congregations but it seems to rank right near the top of the list in practice and preaching.

No mention of the prosperity teaching called Faith Promise Giving where the preacher tells us from personal experience how much he has given and God always gives him back more.

Yep, that is the prosperity gospel for sure in an IFB church. You can't out-give God is their axiom without any proof scripture or otherwise.

 

[Walt]

And you believe that's historical narrative, instead of belonging to the creation myth genre? I think that's the core of our difference. Note that I'm using "myth" in the technical literary sense. It doesn't mean untrue. Cf. Lewis, Tolkien and MacDonald on "True Myth".

Whether a myth or historical narrative, words have meaning. In Genesis 1, "earth" means "earth," "animals" means "animals," so why must "first day" be anything other than a literal day (even if this was a myth)?

Note that Moses, the same writer of Genesis notes, once again, the days of Creation and uses the seventh day (Sabbath) in the context of a literal day.

"For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy. " (Ex 20:11).

You are free to show us any other example where "first day...." means anything other than a normal day. If you have an example from a myth, that will be fine.

Not to mention that Genesis "and the evening and the morning were the first day" -- that sure sounds like "day" in Genesis refers to a single, 24-hour day.

 

[Izdaari]

And you believe that's historical narrative, instead of belonging to the creation myth genre? I think that's the core of our difference. Note that I'm using "myth" in the technical literary sense. It doesn't mean untrue. Cf. Lewis, Tolkien and MacDonald on "True Myth".

Whether a myth or historical narrative, words have meaning. In Genesis 1, "earth" means "earth," "animals" means "animals," so why must "first day" be anything other than a literal day (even if this was a myth)?

Note that Moses, the same writer of Genesis notes, once again, the days of Creation and uses the seventh day (Sabbath) in the context of a literal day.

"For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy. " (Ex 20:11).

You are free to show us any other example where "first day...." means anything other than a normal day. If you have an example from a myth, that will be fine.

Not to mention that Genesis "and the evening and the morning were the first day" -- that sure sounds like "day" in Genesis refers to a single, 24-hour day.

If the story isn't intended by its author to be taken literally, whether a day is 24 hours or not is of little significance. That's why the genre matters. The historical narrative genre is normally meant to be taken literally. The creation myth genre, like the parable genre, is not.