|
Post by Josh on Feb 27, 2010 8:21:40 GMT -8
Well, at least she didn't go into an anti-semitic rant with the police officer like Mel So, a question on another but related vein of this subject: seeing as how the bible says that Christians shouldn't get "drunk" and that church leaders shouldn't be "given to much wine", etc.. what is the predominate attitude in Germany to how much pastors, priests, and other clergy can and should drink? Also, was Kasseman really drunk, or did she just have a drink or two and get caught? This might be a good one for Steve to chime in on as well.
|
|
steve
Advanced Member
Advanced Member
Posts: 93
|
Post by steve on Feb 27, 2010 12:45:30 GMT -8
I've never heard anything that would lead me to believe she was a drunk. However, on that night, the level of alchohol in her blood could legimately be discribed as "three sheets to the wind". Nonetheless, let he who is without sin, post the first Youtube video. Although that was bad decision on her part, I must confess I find her generally very refreshing. She is non-pretentious and gracious. She also preaches what we would describe as "the Word". From what I've gathered, the predominant attitude towards alchohol in the church here, is enjoy it, but don't overdo it. If you overdo it, don't overdo it frequently, if you overdo it frequently, don't do it in public. We go to a foursquare church here in Frankfurt in which the members do enjoy an occasional pint, and almost never overdo it. They are quite relaxed about it I believe because they never had a prohibition movement here. Also, it doesn't seem to be the objective here at parties to drink as much as possible in the smallest amount of time like in America. * I still remember our pastor holding a meeting at the church for all of those who worked in ministry, and standing at the pulpit drinking a bottle of Becks. At that moment, I realised how conditioned I had been to view that as profane. I have been drinking alchohol regularly since I was 18, but I never would have thought about doing it in a church until that day. My friend, mentor and the worship pastor at our church is a swiss man named Heiri who also happens to be our neighbor. We meet frequently, and usually have a few Hefeweizens. The subject of alcohol has never come up. At the risk of hijacking this thread, I would like to dispute which I believe to be an underlying current in this discussion. We seem to be discussing the acceptability of certain actions as they pertain to being a Christian. I think when you go down that road, you run the risk of reducing Christianity to a moral movement. I am of the opinion that this is one thing which Christianity is not. Christ did not come that we may have morals and have them more abundantly. Rather He came because we had no chance fulfilling them and therefore needed saving. (forgive me if I'm preaching at the choir ) He brought us the one thing which we had lost and needed more than anything: contact with God. I'm of the opinion that any moral behavior which results out of that contact in nice, but very much not the point. Relationship with God is liberating, transformative and lifegiving. It's not stodgy, manipulative, or teetolling. Therefore, I don't really mind if the Christian church opens the doors up wide to homosexuals or anyone for that matter. If there's something in their lives that needs to be changed, that's between them and God. To quote Graham Cooke in reference to this very subject, "Yeah, God doesn't much care for their lifestyles, but He probably doesn't care much for yours either!" Larry Norman sums it all up: You can be a righteous rocker, you can be a holy roller You could be most anything, You could be a Leon Russell, or a super muscle, You could be a corporate king, You could be a wealthy man from Texas, or a witch with heavy hexes, But without love, you ain't nothing without love Without love you ain't nothing, without love. You could be a brilliant surgeon, or a sweet young virgin, or a harlot out to sell, You could learn to play the blues, or be Howard Hughes or the Scarlet Pimpernel, Or you could be a French provincial midwife, or go from door to door with a death-knife, But without love you ain't nothing, without love, Without love you ain't nothing, without love. You could be a woman feeler, or a baby stealer, you could drink your life away, Or you could be a holy prophet, get a blessing off it, Or you could fast for fifty days, You could shake hands with the devil, or give your life to God on the level, But without love you ain't nothing, without love, Without love you ain't nothing, without love. *I admit, these are my subjective experiences. Please excuse my generalisations. The point of generalising is to indicate something which is thought to be generally true.
|
|
|
Post by carebear on Feb 27, 2010 18:09:03 GMT -8
This is good Steve....greatest thing is love. without it, it's nothing. This is one thing I always need to remember. I can get proud.
This reminded me of something I heard a pastor say in the "Furious Love" movie on 2/14/10.....He had a dream where he was preaching in a church and all these people were there....homosexuals, prostitutes, drug dealers, etc. and they were doing all sorts of things in the pews during the service (selling drugs, getting high, intercourse, etc.) and he was like "Hey everyone, how can you do this here?! You are disrespecting this place! You need to get out of here!" And God said to him, "Hey, you said you wanted the lost......just show them My love and I will change them". (That was paraphrased so I might be forgetting some thoughts) but it was a good reminder! Obviously the man isn't saying that God "ok's" these actions in the pews, but he says we must start with God's love and Him doing the changing (because we all have something God is saving us from).
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Feb 27, 2010 19:37:53 GMT -8
Steve, can I play devils advocate here, for a minute? First off, I'm largely in agreement with the sentiments in your last post, but...
The above sentence makes it sound like we are not to help others live more righteous and God-fearing lives by, at times, directly addressing sin.
The New Testament is clear that one of the main ways he makes our "righteousness surpass that of the Pharisees" is through our interactions with each other in the body of Christ.
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Feb 27, 2010 21:15:43 GMT -8
And I'd like to play the devil's advocates' assistant legal aid ;D steve wrote: I thought the discussion was about qualifications of Christian leadership. Can I ask what your take is on Paul's pastoral epistles? Also, isn't it a pretty big non-sequitur to say that discussing (even challenging) the morality of people who claim the Christian faith is running the risk of reducing it to a moral movement? Jesus Himself and all the apostles did so and commanded us to do likewise. Certainly there are some moral lines you draw for those who call themselves Christians...don't you? What are they? I must have missed the part where someone said otherwise. Can you please help me out on that one? The question is, what kind of Christians would you feel comfortable placing in pastoral ministries? Amen! Can I now ask you what it transforms a believer into and what it liberates them from?
|
|
steve
Advanced Member
Advanced Member
Posts: 93
|
Post by steve on Feb 28, 2010 12:23:09 GMT -8
And to think, I thought no one was reading my posts. Josh said: The above sentence makes it sound like we are not to help others live more righteous and God-fearing lives by, at times, directly addressing sin.
If it sounded that way, I’m sorry. That is a bit more extreme than I was trying to get across. Perhaps I was ranting. What I did mean, is that any sort of assistance of this manner should be in the context of relationship with an enormous amount of trust in the goodness of God to do the work and help the person produce the fruit. Pastoral work should be that of encouraging people further up and in into a relationship with God, rather than a white-knuckled attempt to get one’s act together. I don’t think the role of the church is to call out sin. It would be rather hypocritical of us to do so given the fact that we don’t seem to be able to sin any less than anyone else. Furthermore, I don’t believe sin can separate us from God anymore. If it could, we’d all be screwed. So it seems to me a bit odd that homosexuality is where American Protestantism draws the line, and has managed to completely exclude gays and lesbians. This very topic is not such an easy one. People with this persuasion normally didn’t sit down one day and decide just for kicks to choose a lifestyle which would earn them shunning and persecution, but rather they felt that way from the beginning. (I’m not saying there aren’t exceptions) Generally, because a person perceives their sexual orientation as being quite indivisible from their identity, they are going to feel very abused from anyone calling it an abomination. Consequently, they are going to feel excluded from the get go and never want to set foot inside a church, and who can blame them. I suggest we just preach “cheap” grace to everyone and get them in contact with God and let Him do whatever He wants with them. It’s Saint Patrick mission concept. Everyone belongs even if they don’t believe. In regards to espousing morals, where I do make some exceptions, are with particular sins that involve the wanton neglect of the golden rule. i.e. robbery, rape, unrighteous war, swindling, and slander. With such sins, everyone, Christian and non, ought to speak up and, if necessary, hinder the person. I myself become enraged when I hear of people standing by while someone gets beaten to death in the train. Sometimes loving one’s neighbor means protecting them from the other neighbor. Chris said: I thought the discussion was about qualifications of Christian leadership.I was under the impression that we were talking about what Christians stand for. If I was wrong, i apologize. Chris: Can I ask what your take is on Paul's pastoral epistles?I’m not sure what you mean, or which thing you are referring to. Please specify. Chris said: Also, isn't it a pretty big non-sequitur to say that discussing (even challenging) the morality of people who claim the Christian faith is running the risk of reducing it to a moral movement? Jesus Himself and all the apostles did so and commanded us to do likewise. Maybe I jumped the gun. Chris: Certainly there are some moral lines you draw for those who call themselves Christians...don't you? What are they?Please see above in my response to Josh. Chris: I must have missed the part where someone said otherwise. Can you please help me out on that one? I actually wasn’t accusing anyone in this discussion of making the assertion, but I think you may agree with me that a great deal of the American protestant church does in fact operate this way. I was referring to the prevailing mindset on the matter. Chris: The question is, what kind of Christians would you feel comfortable placing in pastoral ministries?Someone like Josh. Chris: Amen! Can I now ask you what it transforms a believer into and what it liberates them from?Going back to my original statement that Christianity is not a moral movement; I would like utilize some an analogy from golf. If you are standing on the tee box ready to hit onto the green over a lake, you will find yourself hard-pressed to perform well or enjoy yourself if your focus is on simply “not hitting it in the water”. The joy of hitting the ball well should rather be the focus. Amazingly, this works much better than the latter. In the same way, Christianity is not a practice in avoidance. Don’t get me wrong; some avoidance with occur when one is in touch with God, but it will never be the point. Unfortunately, the church often inadvertantly makes it the point. That’s why I think the gospel really is the greatest news to ever be delivered. Jesus produced the single greatest loophole in the legality of the universe by removing from us all the penalty of sin, and the sting of death. Now we are free to hit the ball on the green with no worries.
|
|
|
Post by moritz on Feb 28, 2010 14:06:23 GMT -8
I was under the impression that we were talking about what Christians stand for. That's absolutely correct.
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Feb 28, 2010 17:35:08 GMT -8
Moritz wrote: Ok, my mistake. I think I was thrown by the fact that it started out with a divorced woman being named leader of the protestant church in Germany along with an on-going discussion of her failures. My bad. I'll respond to Steve's post separately.
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Feb 28, 2010 18:33:28 GMT -8
Hi Steve,
you wrote:
No disagreement here. But do you think that has to exclude pointing out disparity between our own version of humanity and God's intended version? Isn't it more loving to educate people about the truth rather than make them comfortable in the darkness they they are presently in bondage to?
I only half agree with you here (and maybe you only meant what I'm about to say). Certainly it is not the church's role to point out the sins of unbelievers (1Cor 5), but you would be mistaken if you think that Christians should not point out sins of other Christians. I'm happy to provide plenty of scripture references to that effect, if necessary, but I'm kind of hoping you'll tell me you meant only the former and spare me the effort.
Truthfully, has this really been your experience? I realize this is the general perception of outsiders and I would agree that the church has too many examples of this attitude (which the media is more than happy to exploit), but is it your experience in the actual American churches that you've been to that gays and lesbians are not welcome? Because honestly, that hasn't been my experience at all. Maybe I've had a sheltered Christian life, but most churches I've been to would welcome those struggling with homosexuality in. In an interview with Larry King, Billy Graham was asked if he would still love his daughter if he found out she was a lesbian and Billy's response was "I'd love her more". That's the attitude I've seen. I freely admit that there is struggle in the church on how to love homosexuals, but I think the love is definitely present.*
So Steve, let me just ask you plainly. Would you go so far as to say that the church should perform gay marriages? (which is one of the topics this thread started with).
Agreed. It's very complex psychologically, emotionally, and possibly even biologically. But....
Haven't you ever sat through a sermon and been convicted to change something you really, really, didn't want to change? I have. I didn't feel abused by it. Challenged? yes. Fearful? yes. Reluctant? yes. But if I believe that what is being taught to me are the very words of God, I'm thankful for the light that gives me the opportunity to have freedom from the bondage of my sin, and make me more human, more of the person God created me to be. That's true freedom (John 8:31-32).
If I don't believe that, then yes, I can see feeling picked on.
Isn't that overgeneralizing a bit given the fact that there are thousands of testimonies to the contrary?
Is that your impression of how Jesus preached? (see Luke 14)
I'll end this post by saying that I would agree that an unhealthy and unhelpful amount of emphasis has been given to the sin of homosexuality. I think this is a combination of reckless church leaders as well as a media that thrives on exploiting differences of opinion and fanning the flames of controversy. The church can do better in making all sinners feel equally welcome in the kingdom of God. Having said that, I don't think it is a more loving approach to affirm and even celebrate something that God has expressly stated is missing the mark.
*I will say that Christians have blown it big time by making it a political issue.
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Feb 28, 2010 20:56:01 GMT -8
I was under the impression that we were talking about what Christians stand for. That's absolutely correct. I was with Chris. I thought this thread was about what American Christians think about the lifestyle standards of European clergy.
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Feb 28, 2010 21:03:53 GMT -8
OK, I agree with Chris that the New Testament example of responsible Christian living does call us to "call out sin" in some cases and in a variety of ways (gently, but still to address it). It's not hypocritical to call out someone elses sin if you freely admit to your own.
Also, Jesus died that we might grow in righteousness and holiness. We should stand out from the world in regard to sin. It's a travesty if our lives look no different than the worlds. Do I need to quote a bucketload of Scripture on this topic as well?
Don't get me wrong. We all sin; we'd be liars to deny it, as John says. But, I don't think grace is cheap at all. Grace calls us to lay down our lives, to give them up so that God can make us 100% righteous. Legalism on the other hand tells us to work hard for a reasonable outcome (let's say 51% or 75%, or something humanly attainable).
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Feb 28, 2010 21:11:26 GMT -8
steve wrote:
If that's how it should be, why was the church founded on the message of repentance?
Luke 24:46-47
He told them, "This is what is written: The Christ will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, and repentance and forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.
Acts 26:20
First to those in Damascus, then to those in Jerusalem and in all Judea, and to the Gentiles also, I preached that they should repent and turn to God and prove their repentance by their deeds.
Ephesians 4:17-20
So I tell you this, and insist on it in the Lord, that you must no longer live as the Gentiles do, in the futility of their thinking. They are darkened in their understanding and separated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them due to the hardening of their hearts. Having lost all sensitivity, they have given themselves over to sensuality so as to indulge in every kind of impurity, with a continual lust for more. You, however, did not come to know Christ that way.
2 Tim. 2:19
"Everyone who confesses the name of the Lord must turn away from wickedness."
|
|
|
Post by moritz on Mar 1, 2010 0:37:09 GMT -8
Ok, my mistake. I think I was thrown by the fact that it started out with a divorced woman being named leader of the protestant church in Germany along with an on-going discussion of her failures. My bad. I was with Chris. I thought this thread was about what American Christians think about the lifestyle standards of European clergy. Discussions are of dynamic nature. They start at one point and end up somewhere entirely different. But that doesn’t mean the point where they end is not related to the topic. Certain issues can barely be isolated from their “environment”. Hence none of you is wrong: The question of the qualifications of Christian leadership arises with the discussion of the German Protestant approach and the individual failure of their Leader. The lifestyle standards of European clergy are also logical and on-topic follow-up questions. But the original point of this thread was what Steve pointed out. Here are some early remarks I made on this subject: I think those reports are remarkable and worth reading, because they raise awareness for the wide spectrum that is Christianity. (...) I do think it is important to be aware that Christians elsewhere in the world approach such matters differently. (...) I'm still stuck with the question of what Christianity is to begin with. And I can't help but noticing that Christianity ultimately stands for nothing. Or to be more accurate: that Christians make Christianity stand for nothing, by covering the entire spectrum of scripture interpretation and presenting fundamentally contradicting lifestyles and conclusions. I posted the artciles because the heterogenity of Christian world views is leaving me like . Ask 100 Christians a question and you get 100 different replies.
|
|
steve
Advanced Member
Advanced Member
Posts: 93
|
Post by steve on Mar 1, 2010 4:05:21 GMT -8
Gentlemen, I realize my last post was rather long, and you all being very busy as you are, might not have had the time to read the whole thing- but if you had, you might have found some of your proceeding interrogatives quelled. To quote myself, " In regards to espousing morals, where I do make some exceptions, are with particular sins that involve the wanton neglect of the golden rule. i.e. robbery, rape, unrighteous war, swindling, and slander. With such sins, everyone, Christian and non, ought to speak up and, if necessary, hinder the person. I myself become enraged when I hear of people standing by while someone gets beaten to death in the train. Sometimes loving one’s neighbor means protecting them from the other neighbor.As you can see, I do think there are times when we should actively call out evil and help the person in question to live more righteously. Chris: Quote: I don’t think the role of the church is to call out sin. It would be rather hypocritical of us to do so given the fact that we don’t seem to be able to sin any less than anyone else.
I only half agree with you here (and maybe you only meant what I'm about to say). Certainly it is not the church's role to point out the sins of unbelievers (1Cor 5), but you would be mistaken if you think that Christians should not point out sins of other Christians. I'm happy to provide plenty of scripture references to that effect, if necessary, but I'm kind of hoping you'll tell me you meant only the former and spare me the effort.I agree. Put the bible down! However, do you not concede that a signifigant number of Christian, in regards to the issue of homosexuality, do in fact point fingers? Josh said: Also, Jesus died that we might grow in righteousness and holiness. We should stand out from the world in regard to sin. It's a travesty if our lives look no different than the worlds. Do I need to quote a bucketload of Scripture on this topic as well?
Don't get me wrong. We all sin; we'd be liars to deny it, as John says. But, I don't think grace is cheap at all. Grace calls us to lay down our lives, to give them up so that God can make us 100% righteous. Legalism on the other hand tells us to work hard for a reasonable outcome (let's say 51% or 75%, or something humanly attainable). I was using the term "cheap grace" sarcastically. I'm aware it's not really cheap. The subtlety of my argument is this: I agree that fruit needs to be produce from the life of a believer, but we often get the cart in front of the horse. Repentance simply means to change directions and go towards God. If one really does this, is will have the consequence of producing fruit. In my argument, I was contesting what I feel to be a particuliarly negative side of American protestantism which, yes, has been my general experience. (with some exceptions) And that is the notion that one should first get there life in order, and then seek after God. Or that in getting one's life in order, one is pleasing God. Now that second thing may be partly true, but the entire point of the universe is relationship, and if you aren't pursing that, than any moral actions are meaningless. I've often heard the complaint that some people are watering down the gospel and making it too easy. This may be the case, but a great deal of Churches are doing just the opposite and making it harder. The way to God is already beset with danger, we don't need to up the anty. I believe one can seek after God in whatever condition their life is and find Him. If they do seek and find, the result will be among other things an increase in righteous living and a reduction in evil doing. But that is a result of contact with God and not the cause. Chris: Quote: Consequently, they are going to feel excluded from the get go and never want to set foot inside a church, and who can blame them.
Isn't that overgeneralizing a bit given the fact that there are thousands of testimonies to the contrary?It is of course a generalisation, but I don't think an unfair one. Do you really think the thousands of testimonies to the contrary are the rule and not the exception? I myself do not. Chris: So Steve, let me just ask you plainly. Would you go so far as to say that the church should perform gay marriages?No. But I also don't think they should protest against civil unions. I used to attend a church which did this. Josh, regarding your barrage of bible verses, I fail to see how they conflict with my view. Do you really disagree, or are you just trying to keep me on the forum longer? If this post doesn't answer your questions, than I propose a conference call via Skype, because I'm absolutely dreadful at organizing my thoughts on paper. Now if you'll excuse me, my wife is about to give birth.
|
|
|
Post by moritz on Mar 1, 2010 4:44:42 GMT -8
Josh, (...) Do you really disagree, or are you just trying to keep me on the forum longer? ;D Now if you'll excuse me, my wife is about to give birth.
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Mar 1, 2010 8:51:21 GMT -8
?
It sounded like you were downplaying the role of repentance, the idea of holiness, and the necessity of one believer to admonish another believer. I thought Scripture made the point I was trying to communicate better than I could.
BTW, how are we all going to know when your child is born? What kind of "light the beacons" system do you have in place that will ensure we're not finding out about it more than 24 hours after?
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Mar 1, 2010 9:14:07 GMT -8
Hi Steve, I have much to post in response, but I won't tempt you with that carrot at this time. You need to focus on your lamaz breathing techniques...ready? count with me [in whispery voice] he-he-he-he-he-he-he-he-he... ;D Seriously, congrats on the little blessing, can't wait for pics.
|
|