The Myriad Abuses of "Churchianity"

[Buff Scott Jr.]

The Myriad Abuses of “Churchianity“​

Our obsession with “church” and church idols (edifices) are not the only reasons we have an apostate establishment on our hands, nor are they the only culprits. For even “congregation,” “community,” and “assembly”—correct renderings of the Greek ekklesia—are not immune from ecclesiastical abuse. And if our English “church” had never surfaced, our people would have devised another foreign icon to use as their sacred cow.

When we adopt any label or title that separates us from our fellow Christians, as we have done with “church,” we become a divisive religious league—a party, sect. I like the way The Living Bible tenders Galatians 5:20. It identifies the party spirit as “the feeling that everyone else is wrong except those in your own little group.” I’m inclined to believe this strikes at the very core of our divisive predicament. The New English Bible renders “party intrigues,” and The Christian Bible describes the party spirit as “dissensions, sects.”

So we need to inquire: Have we adopted the “church” epithet to separate ourselves from other believers and to identify ourselves as a particular breed of Christians? To clarify, are we Baptist Christians, Methodist Christians, Church of Christ Christians, Lutheran Christians, Presbyterian Christians, Assembly of God Christians, or Church of God Christians?

If “yes” to any of the above, the Spirit justly charges us with possessing the party spirit (Gal. 5:20). No tossing of the coin will alleviate that fact. And if we are guilty of creating and/or promoting religious parties, how can we then claim that Jesus authored our churches? He founded the “one body” of believers, not our multicolored schisms (Eph. 4:4). His children are scattered among most sects—for wherever He has a child, we have a brother or a sister. But He is not the framer of our denominations, just as He was not the framer of the sects of his day.

There are, of course, other earmarks of a sect or religious party besides its name, label, or title. When a group of professed believers sets up a doctrinal platform, whether based on truth or fallacy, and rejects other believers who cannot accept it, that group becomes a religious party or sect. The “Christ party” at Corinth was as wrong as the “Paul party,” the “Apollos party,” and the “Cephas party” (I Cor. 1:12-13). It was wrong because it rejected other believers.
​

May your Thanksgiving be a great one​

 

[Josheb]

The Myriad Abuses of “Churchianity“​

Our obsession with “church” and church idols (edifices) are not the only reasons we have an apostate establishment on our hands, nor are they the only culprits. For even “congregation,” “community,” and “assembly”—correct renderings of the Greek ekklesia—are not immune from ecclesiastical abuse. And if our English “church” had never surfaced, our people would have devised another foreign icon to use as their sacred cow.

When we adopt any label or title that separates us from our fellow Christians, as we have done with “church,” we become a divisive religious league—a party, sect. I like the way The Living Bible tenders Galatians 5:20. It identifies the party spirit as “the feeling that everyone else is wrong except those in your own little group.” I’m inclined to believe this strikes at the very core of our divisive predicament. The New English Bible renders “party intrigues,” and The Christian Bible describes the party spirit as “dissensions, sects.”

So we need to inquire: Have we adopted the “church” epithet to separate ourselves from other believers and to identify ourselves as a particular breed of Christians? To clarify, are we Baptist Christians, Methodist Christians, Church of Christ Christians, Lutheran Christians, Presbyterian Christians, Assembly of God Christians, or Church of God Christians?

If “yes” to any of the above, the Spirit justly charges us with possessing the party spirit (Gal. 5:20). No tossing of the coin will alleviate that fact. And if we are guilty of creating and/or promoting religious parties, how can we then claim that Jesus authored our churches? He founded the “one body” of believers, not our multicolored schisms (Eph. 4:4). His children are scattered among most sects—for wherever He has a child, we have a brother or a sister. But He is not the framer of our denominations, just as He was not the framer of the sects of his day.

There are, of course, other earmarks of a sect or religious party besides its name, label, or title. When a group of professed believers sets up a doctrinal platform, whether based on truth or fallacy, and rejects other believers who cannot accept it, that group becomes a religious party or sect. The “Christ party” at Corinth was as wrong as the “Paul party,” the “Apollos party,” and the “Cephas party” (I Cor. 1:12-13). It was wrong because it rejected other believers.
​

May your Thanksgiving be a great one​

Do you think criticizing Christianity is sometimes abusive?

 

[Josheb]

So we need to inquire: Have we adopted the “church” epithet to separate ourselves from other believers and to identify ourselves as a particular breed of Christians? ​

The answer to that question depends on how a person defines the word "church." For most Christians the word is not an epithet. That would mean the question is a red herring. Most Christians do not use the word to separate themselves, either. A "breed" need not separate.

 

[Josheb]

To clarify, are we Baptist Christians, Methodist Christians, Church of Christ Christians, Lutheran Christians, Presbyterian Christians, Assembly of God Christians, or Church of God Christians?​

Yes.

 

[CrowCross]

The Myriad Abuses of “Churchianity“​

Our obsession with “church” and church idols (edifices) are not the only reasons we have an apostate establishment on our hands, nor are they the only culprits. For even “congregation,” “community,” and “assembly”—correct renderings of the Greek ekklesia—are not immune from ecclesiastical abuse. And if our English “church” had never surfaced, our people would have devised another foreign icon to use as their sacred cow.

When we adopt any label or title that separates us from our fellow Christians, as we have done with “church,” we become a divisive religious league—a party, sect. I like the way The Living Bible tenders Galatians 5:20. It identifies the party spirit as “the feeling that everyone else is wrong except those in your own little group.” I’m inclined to believe this strikes at the very core of our divisive predicament. The New English Bible renders “party intrigues,” and The Christian Bible describes the party spirit as “dissensions, sects.”

So we need to inquire: Have we adopted the “church” epithet to separate ourselves from other believers and to identify ourselves as a particular breed of Christians? To clarify, are we Baptist Christians, Methodist Christians, Church of Christ Christians, Lutheran Christians, Presbyterian Christians, Assembly of God Christians, or Church of God Christians?

If “yes” to any of the above, the Spirit justly charges us with possessing the party spirit (Gal. 5:20). No tossing of the coin will alleviate that fact. And if we are guilty of creating and/or promoting religious parties, how can we then claim that Jesus authored our churches? He founded the “one body” of believers, not our multicolored schisms (Eph. 4:4). His children are scattered among most sects—for wherever He has a child, we have a brother or a sister. But He is not the framer of our denominations, just as He was not the framer of the sects of his day.

There are, of course, other earmarks of a sect or religious party besides its name, label, or title. When a group of professed believers sets up a doctrinal platform, whether based on truth or fallacy, and rejects other believers who cannot accept it, that group becomes a religious party or sect. The “Christ party” at Corinth was as wrong as the “Paul party,” the “Apollos party,” and the “Cephas party” (I Cor. 1:12-13). It was wrong because it rejected other believers.
​

May your Thanksgiving be a great one​

In Christianity there are core beliefs that if you deviate from you misrepresent who Jesus is. When the delta become large enough that the Jesus you believe in is no longer the Jesus of the bible and salvation does not exist in that Jesus.

Often this divide is so great that those who put their trust in this false christ are often identified as cults. As an example Mormons, JW's and Oneness come to mind.

 

[Josheb]

In Christianity there are core beliefs that if you deviate from you misrepresent who Jesus is. When the delta become large enough that the Jesus you believe in is no longer the Jesus of the bible and salvation does not exist in that Jesus.

Often this divide is so great that those who put their trust in this false christ are often identified as cults. As an example Mormons, JW's and Oneness come to mind.

@Buff Scott Jr. is of the opinion that no such diversity should exist in the Church and its existence is evidence Christ was abandoned long ago. Peruse his other ops. @Buff Scott Jr., please feel free to correct me and clarify it if I've misrepresented your position.

 

[Arial]

@Buff Scott Jr. is of the opinion that no such diversity should exist in the Church and its existence is evidence Christ was abandoned long ago. Peruse his other ops. @Buff Scott Jr., please feel free to correct me and clarify it if I've misrepresented your position.

He would do well to watch a video I poste in the video section. The OP is titled "Voddie's Last Sermon".

 

[Buff Scott Jr.]

Do you think criticizing Christianity is sometimes abusive?

Josheb, note my spelling in the caption - it is "Churchianity," not Christianity.

 

[Buff Scott Jr.]

@Buff Scott Jr. is of the opinion that no such diversity should exist in the Church and its existence is evidence Christ was abandoned long ago. Peruse his other ops. @Buff Scott Jr., please feel free to correct me and clarify it if I've misrepresented your position.

My post is self-explanatory.

 

[Josheb]

Josheb, note my spelling in the caption - it is "Churchianity," not Christianity.

I saw it. A rose by any other name is still a rose. I have long urged many to be careful of criticizing the body of Christ (which is the correct definition of the ecclesia, those called out of the world into God's service through His resurrected) and discerning when they read/hear others teach criticism. I have also often asked you, personally, about this practice in your ops and done so in many diverse ways. Most of them go unanswered despite the report the posts are appreciated. Chief among the many problems with the "churchianity" and the home-church-only, adhere-to-Campbell approaches to Church ragging (I understand you may not see it as "Church ragging"), are the failures to acknowledge the diversity of God's creation by God's design and intent, and the prospect some changes are acceptable within the pale of orthodoxy and inevitable change.

Oops! Gotta go. b back

 

[Buff Scott Jr.]

I saw it. A rose by any other name is still a rose. I have long urged many to be careful of criticizing the body of Christ (which is the correct definition of the ecclesia, those called out of the world into God's service through His resurrected) and discerning when they read/hear others teach criticism. I have also often asked you, personally, about this practice in your ops and done so in many diverse ways. Most of them go unanswered despite the report the posts are appreciated. Chief among the many problems with the "churchianity" and the home-church-only, adhere-to-Campbell approaches to Church ragging (I understand you may not see it as "Church ragging"), are the failures to acknowledge the diversity of God's creation by God's design and intent, and the prospect some changes are acceptable within the pale of orthodoxy and inevitable change.

Oops! Gotta go. b back

Josheb, every concern and question you have relative to my writings, my posts, and my responses are explicitly spelled out in my posts and in my responses. I have little interest in repeating my positions over and over, especially since all of them are about as clear as the air we inhale. So let me say clearly: Modern-day Christianity is simply a counterfeit copy of the original model. Thus, I designate it today as "Churchianity."

So long for now.​

 

[Arial]

@Buff Scott Jr.
See "Vodie's Last Sermon" in Youtube/videos---- "Be Careful What You Say About the Church".

 

[Josheb]

Josheb, every concern and question you have relative to my writings, my posts, and my responses are explicitly spelled out in my posts and in my responses.​

I disagree, but that's not germane right now.

I have little interest in repeating my positions over and over,​

That's a cop out and a red herring. No one is asking you to repeat your positions over and over. What you're asked to do is discuss your positions for multiple reasons (clarification, making the details known to others where the positions may be unfamiliar, correcting minor or major mistakes in either position of method, etc.). There are many reasons for engaging your own ops with others. Hiding behind "little interest" is lame. This is a discussion board and it's being treated like a billboard.

especially since all of them are about as clear as the air we inhale.​

Except they are not clear.

For example, why do you think denominations inherently bad when most of Christianity (not just churchianity) manages well with the diversity. The denominations have more in common than in difference and it can easily be inferred God accepts (if not causes) denominationalism. Even if modern denominationalism (and denominationalism began 500 years ago; it's not a strictly "modern" phenomena) is comparable to something like 1 Samuel 8 (where Israel wanted a king against God's will) that does not mean God is no longer instrumental.

You are not as clear as the air we breathe and the premise you are is part of the problem to be solved. Sto being lazy and discuss your won ops!

So let me say clearly: Modern-day Christianity is simply a counterfeit copy of the original model. Thus, I designate it today as "Churchianity."

So long for now.​

And I and other disagree. I would be happy to discuss this accusation with you to help you realize how you are violating the very scripture you seek to uphold. I'd be happy to help you understand how diversity is Godly, at least some of it is by God's design, and how your sources for that position (like Campbel) were mistaken and you've bought into some bad teaching. I would be happy to walk with you thorugh the scripture to show how and where the early Church had diversity. You and I have already broached the matter of the Corinthians following different teachers and how you think that was a temporary condition that never led to denominationalism. I've already broached with you how non-denominational efforts invariably re-create the very problem they seek to extinguish (thereby indicating something is wrong with their methodology, if not also with the alternative beliefs and practices).

You touched on it. You did not discuss it. I've seen your ops in other forums (others' discussion boards that are also misused as billboards) where many disagree and the only ones who agree are those, oddly enough, with their own non-denominational sectarianism.

The fact is these ops are more divisive than anything found in the Reformation and that is as clear as the air to anyone willing to see it. There are very real, legitimate, valid reasons why these op aren't uniformly accepted and churchianity is not the reason. We're not the enemy. Carve out some modicum of time to discuss this and then show up for the discussion. I think you'll not only learn something new and enjoy the conversation. I promise to be gentle and not so adamant .