House/Organic Church

CorkB

I know that the whole idea of Organic or house church has taken off somewhat in America and has also appeared in England as well as other places, though it is not dominant or even prevalent. I'm wondering about it on these shores. Does anybody know of such a group in Ireland? If so, where? Anybody part of one? What's it like?

Seaneh

I knew of a church in Galway lead by a young couple from Belfast that met in a few houses and once a month would meet in a pub (seriously). during the pub meeting they would have a more open discussion format and would get a fair amount of random agnostic/atheists who'd come along for a chat, was a great idea really. The leaders had to move back north for a few reasons and it went with them, but it's definitely doable.

I'd be more inclined to go to the type of church I go to now, a young church with a lot of people my age which focuses on making Christianity relevant, of which there are a good number around the country.

If you'd like me to list a few I'd be glad to.

Fanny Cradock

I wouldn't be surprised if we were to see an increase in such formats over the coming years. In my experience, most Evangelical/ Pentecostal churches will encourage a home group (or a pub group of one type or another). If I'm understanding your post correctly, I guess the main difference would be that these home groups are in some way still part of the parent church, whereas what you describe appears to be autonomous in nature.

CorkB

Seaneh, that home/pub group sounds great. It would be exactly the kind of thing I would have in mind. It is unfortunate that it is not still going on. I'm not sure how much the other churches you were talking about would be like that, and I know that I'm nowhere near Galway, so the churches you go to may be of no use to me, but maybe to others reading the thread.

Franny, to respond to you, you are right in saying what I was describing was autonomous, not as common as the ones you mentioned.

Fanny Cradock

I you do find anything it would be great if you gave us a heads up.

Seaneh

CorkB wrote: »

t I'm nowhere near Galway, so the churches you go to may be of no use to me, but maybe to others reading the thread.

I know of a few churches in Cork actually.

Cork Community Church and Grace Christian Fellowship in Cork would have a veer young congregation and would have a lot of small groups which would be organised by members that have very little input from the church leadership.

Cork Community church is at 53 McCurtain Street, Cork City and meet every sudnay at 10.30am and Grace Fellowship meet Deerpark CBS, Turners Cross, Cork at 10am and Midday on Sundays and 7pm on Tuesdays .

Go to a service or go to their websites for more info.

http://www.graceireland.com/
http://www.agicork.com/

CorkB

Thanks Seaneh for the church information. I know them both. They are different from the groups I was talking about when I started this thread. As I mentioned, I was wondering about autonomous groups. The churches you mentioned, along with many others I've come across, have small group meetings that are just part of the bigger entity. I started this thread to find out about groups where they are in themselves the entity, rather than a segment of it. I hope this clarifies things.


While I am from Cork, my work has taken me to Dublin, so my interest is primarily in both those cities, though no doubt there will be others elsewhere in the country.

Fanny Cradock

Perhaps some of the larger congregations might be aware of any house churches in their area. Maybe fire off an email or two.

CorkB

Can do Franny, but with many churches having their own groups, they're not autonomous. Still, they may know of some that are. Overall, it seems, the idea hasn't gathered as much momentum here as it has elsewhere.

Fanny Cradock

CorkB wrote: »

Still, they may know of some that are.

Yeah, that s what I was getting at.

One obvious drawback to such a church would be their lack of tradition. This, of course, isn't a bad thing in and of itself (it might actually be a good thing if it means the church is more Christ focused) but it might be difficult to find out where they are coming from.

CorkB

The lack of tradition may not necessarily be a drawback. Groups can have the right (Christ) focus without having to have the usual routine to go with it.

Your point is just as valid though, and one I think myself. Outside of the traditional, things can range from the beautiful to the blasphemous, the loving families and the nut jobs. Then again, all churches, regardless of how they function, have a variety anyway. It goes with being human. Whether it's with a church or in the home, each group should be looked at individually.

Fanny Cradock

CorkB wrote: »

The lack of tradition may not necessarily be a drawback. Groups can have the right (Christ) focus without having to have the usual routine to go with it.

Your point is just as valid though, and one I think myself. Outside of the traditional, things can range from the beautiful to the blasphemous, the loving families and the nut jobs. Then again, all churches, regardless of how they function, have a variety anyway. It goes with being human. Whether it's with a church or in the home, each group should be looked at individually.

Very true! All the best with your search

santing

Are these house churches linked with the Emerging Church Movement in the States?

Fanny Cradock

santing wrote: »

Are these house churches linked with the Emerging Church Movement in the States?

Most probably. If people are interested in learning a little more about the Emerging Movement (which seems to be primarily a US phenomena) they might want to check out Scott McKnight, Shane Claiborne and iMonk.I must admit that I find it difficult to define exactly who is under the emergent umbrella. Perhaps this is because it's a new movement and defining the borders always takes time.

santing

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Most probably. ... I must admit that I find it difficult to define exactly who is under the emergent umbrella. Perhaps this is because it's a new movement and defining the borders always takes time.

That's what I was afraid of... People should check out http://www.thebereancall.org/topic/emergingchurch first...

Fanny Cradock

I didn't get to read any of the articles in your link but I don't see that house churches (or the wider emergent movement) is inherently bad. Indeed, if iMonk can be considered to be part of that movement then I can hear a lot of very positive, Christ centred noises being made.

Slav

santing wrote: »

Are these house churches linked with the Emerging Church Movement in the States?

As far as I understand Emerging Church Movement and Organic Church Movement are not the same thing though Emerging churches often (but not exclusively) exist in form of a house/simple/organic church. The emphasis in House/Organic Church is made on independence and small congregation; as far as their beliefs and practices are concerned they vary a lot though they are predominantly on the Evangelical side of the spectrum.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I didn't get to read any of the articles in your link but I don't see that house churches (or the wider emergent movement) is inherently bad.

I briefly scanned few articles and as far as I can see the objections boil down to the following:

• Emerging church movement researches the beliefs and practices of the post-apostolic Early Church therefore heading towards Catholicism,
• Early Church beliefs and practices are not the same as the ones of some Evangelicals today therefore bad,
• ECF are not apostles therefore their writings are bad and dangerous,
• Catholicism is inherently bad.

Maybe I picked up not the best articles or was not very careful reading them, perhaps santing can clarify.

Fanny Cradock

Slav wrote: »

as far as their beliefs and practices are concerned they vary a lot though they are predominantly on the Evangelical side of the spectrum.

I would even go as far as to say that some can be described as a co called "post-evangelicals". This means that people have decided to leave their Evangelical roots for one reason or another (maybe they see the Evangelical movement being to friendly with politics or they have some social or moral objections) but remain believers in Jesus. Anne Rice, of Interview With A Vampire fame, recently wrote:

For those who care, and I understand if you don’t: Today I quit being a Christian. I’m out. I remain committed to Christ as always but not to being “Christian” or to being part of Christianity. It’s simply impossible for me to “belong” to this quarrelsome, hostile, disputatious, and deservedly infamous group. For ten years, I’ve tried. I’ve failed. I’m an outsider. My conscience will allow nothing else.

Form the iMonk lik I posted a while back, I'm currently reading Mere Churchianity by Michael Spenser. I hope to get a better idea of what he meant by "Jesus shaped spirituality".

Slav

Yes, I remember you posted iMonk link some time ago. Mere Churchianity is on my list for this year. How good do you find it so far?

santing

There are many things in the House Church / Organic Church / Emerging Church movement that I can recognise. I am (lay) pastor of a small Church, we are independent, informal, and I definitely would say that I do not recognise myself (anymore) in the term evangelical.
But what I read about the emerging Church seems to indicate that "doctrine" isn't the strongest point.

To Slav's summary - I think you might have oversimplified it. I think the website warns that the emerging Churches are happily leaving "othodoxy" behind.

Slav

santing wrote: »

I definitely would say that I do not recognise myself (anymore) in the term evangelical.

Could you expand on why the term does not fit anymore?

To Slav's summary - I think you might have oversimplified it. I think the website warns that the emerging Churches are happily leaving "othodoxy" behind.

Quite likely I have oversimplified it. There are many articles linked there and as I said I might have picked not the best ones or did not understand them. Would you mind summarising what makes them conclude that Emerging Church Movement is leaving orthodoxy behind and what exactly is left behind?

santing

Slav wrote: »

Quite likely I have oversimplified it. There are many articles linked there and as I said I might have picked not the best ones or did not understand them. Would you mind summarising what makes them conclude that Emerging Church Movement is leaving orthodoxy behind and what exactly is left behind?

It is difficult to pinpoint the ECM, as effectively no-one will stand up and say "this we believe", and if they make statements on their beliefs, it is more on their values and practices. But I have gathered a few statements:

Brian McLaren:
The church latched on to that old doctrine of original sin like a dog to a stick, and before you knew it, the whole gospel got twisted around it. Instead of being God’s big message of saving love for the whole world, the gospel became a little bit of secret information on how to solve the pesky legal problem of original sin.
About McLaren (http://www.christianpost.com/article/20110127/brian-mclaren-christians-in-denial-over-evolution-of-faith/)
Though McLaren was recognized as one of Time magazine's "25 Most Influential Evangelicals" in 2005, many conservative evangelicals are happy to distance themselves from him, calling him "unbiblical" for rejecting the Bible's narrative of Eden, the fall, condemnation, salvation, and heaven or hell/damnation.
Steve Chalke rejects the essential gospel belief that Christ paid the full penalty for the sins of mankind necessary to satisfy divine justice. Incredibly, he condemns that doctrine as a form of “cosmic child abuse” and a “twisted version of events morally dubious and a huge barrier to faith.”
From "Emergent Manifesto of Hope," Tony Jones and Doug Pagitt, ed., Emersion, 2007, p.45.:
"I am a Christian today because of a Hindu meditation master. She taught me some things that Christians had not. She taught me to meditate, to sit in silence and openness in the presence of God.... I believe that all people are children of God."
Rob Bell, in his book, Velvet Elvis:
“Let’s make a group decision to drop once and for all the Bible as owner’s manual metaphor. It’s terrible, it really is, we have to embrace the Bible as the wild, uncensored passionate account it is of experiencing the living God.”
Marcus Borg
“I let go of the notion that the Bible is a divine product. I learned that it is a human cultural product, the product of two ancient communities, biblical Israel and early Christianity. As such, it contained their understandings and affirmations, not statements coming directly or somewhat directly from God....I realized that whatever ‘divine revelation’ and the ‘inspiration of the Bible’ meant (if they meant anything), they did not mean that the Bible was a divine product with divine authority.”
From Calgary Herald:
"There are certain commonalities among Emergence Christians; . . . they share a sense of the communal. They are deeply trinitarian in a way that western Christianity has not been for 1,000 years. They're definitely concerned about the standing doctrine of atonement. Their eschatology is entirely different from Protestantism. Their sense of social justice is entirely different from the standing Protestant or Roman Catholic point of view.
"So there are already defining places where you can say this is where Emergence Christianity differs from Protestantism, Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy. And they share these sensibilities, but the way they occupy those sensibilities is different among themselves in very definite ways."
http://www.calgaryherald.com/life/Great+Emergence+changing+Christianity/3822828/story.html#ixzz1DP3BLGuy

Slav wrote: »

Could you expand on why the term (Evangelical) does not fit anymore?

Thanks for that question, combined with the quotes above I realise that in the Evangelical movement in Ireland (e.g. EAI - Evangelical Alliance Ireland) I recognise a lot of the things that are attributed to the emerging church movement and the "purpose full ministries." An example I could name is the embracing and praise from the EAI for the Partnership Bill last year - and although this Bill may have a place in today's Ireland, it is - in effect - legalising sin. Another example would be that EAI choose to adopt a statement of faith that was watered down so much that "evangelical" catholics could (and have) joined as well.

Slav

santing wrote: »

It is difficult to pinpoint the ECM, as effectively no-one will stand up and say "this we believe", and if they make statements on their beliefs, it is more on their values and practices. But I have gathered a few statements:

Thank you for the quotes. To be honest I'm still struggling to understand what is considered to be unorthodox in ECM. If you don't mind could you guide me through the quotes and explain each?

Brian McLaren:
The church latched on to that old doctrine of original sin like a dog to a stick, and before you knew it, the whole gospel got twisted around it. Instead of being God’s big message of saving love for the whole world, the gospel became a little bit of secret information on how to solve the pesky legal problem of original sin.

As far as I can see he rejects to see of the original sin from a legal perspective. What exactly makes it heterodox in your opinion?

Though McLaren was recognized as one of Time magazine's "25 Most Influential Evangelicals" in 2005, many conservative evangelicals are happy to distance themselves from him, calling him "unbiblical" for rejecting the Bible's narrative of Eden, the fall, condemnation, salvation, and heaven or hell/damnation.

I doubt McLaren rejects Eden, the fall, condemnation, salvation, heaven and hell unless he cuts off a good bit from the Bible. I guess he rejects a certain interpretation of those things. Is it enough to suspect him in heterodoxy?

Steve Chalke rejects the essential gospel belief that Christ paid the full penalty for the sins of mankind necessary to satisfy divine justice. Incredibly, he condemns that doctrine as a form of "cosmic child abuse" and a "twisted version of events morally dubious and a huge barrier to faith."

He rejects a specific view on atonement, namely penal substitution, which as we know is not the only one in Christianity. Does it make him heterodox?

From "Emergent Manifesto of Hope," Tony Jones and Doug Pagitt, ed., Emersion, 2007, p.45.:
"I am a Christian today because of a Hindu meditation master. She taught me some things that Christians had not. She taught me to meditate, to sit in silence and openness in the presence of God.... I believe that all people are children of God."

It's hard to judge it without context. Which bit you found alarming: the practice itself or the origin of it, i.e. if the practice of meditation in silence came from a Christian would it still be seen as a bad thing?

Rob Bell, in his book, Velvet Elvis:
"Let’s make a group decision to drop once and for all the Bible as owner’s manual metaphor. It’s terrible, it really is, we have to embrace the Bible as the wild, uncensored passionate account it is of experiencing the living God.”

What's wrong with it in your opinion?

Marcus Borg
"I let go of the notion that the Bible is a divine product. I learned that it is a human cultural product, the product of two ancient communities, biblical Israel and early Christianity. As such, it contained their understandings and affirmations, not statements coming directly or somewhat directly from God....I realized that whatever 'divine revelation' and the 'inspiration of the Bible' meant (if they meant anything), they did not mean that the Bible was a divine product with divine authority."

Dr. Borg is a very educated Bible scholar, I don't think the above quote comprehends his historical-metaphorical approach to Bible study. He does believe the Bible to be the Word of God after all. Does it still outcast him from orthodoxy?

BTW, is he an ECM activist? I thought he's Episcopalian and is not directly involved in ECM?

From Calgary Herald:
"There are certain commonalities among Emergence Christians; . . . they share a sense of the communal. They are deeply trinitarian in a way that western Christianity has not been for 1,000 years. They're definitely concerned about the standing doctrine of atonement. Their eschatology is entirely different from Protestantism. Their sense of social justice is entirely different from the standing Protestant or Roman Catholic point of view.
"So there are already defining places where you can say this is where Emergence Christianity differs from Protestantism, Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy. And they share these sensibilities, but the way they occupy those sensibilities is different among themselves in very definite ways."

So as far as I understand holding a different view on atonement, different eschatology and social justice views is considered unorthodox?

Thanks for that question, combined with the quotes above I realise that in the Evangelical movement in Ireland (e.g. EAI - Evangelical Alliance Ireland) I recognise a lot of the things that are attributed to the emerging church movement and the "purpose full ministries." An example I could name is the embracing and praise from the EAI for the Partnership Bill last year - and although this Bill may have a place in today's Ireland, it is - in effect - legalising sin. Another example would be that EAI choose to adopt a statement of faith that was watered down so much that "evangelical" catholics could (and have) joined as well.

OK, it's not because you and your congregation evolved into something different but because the movement evolved to that extent that you don't see yourself in the mainstream of modern Evangelicalism, right?

santing

Slav wrote: »

Thank you for the quotes. To be honest I'm still struggling to understand what is considered to be unorthodox in ECM. If you don't mind could you guide me through the quotes and explain each?

If we take the Nicene Creed as a yardstick for orthodoxy, most of these statements are indeed not unorthodox - I was too quick with my label! (I still consider them bad though!)

Slav wrote: »

As far as I can see he rejects to see of the original sin from a legal perspective. What exactly makes it heterodox in your opinion?
I doubt McLaren rejects Eden, the fall, condemnation, salvation, heaven and hell unless he cuts off a good bit from the Bible. I guess he rejects a certain interpretation of those things. Is it enough to suspect him in heterodoxy?
He rejects a specific view on atonement, namely penal substitution, which as we know is not the only one in Christianity. Does it make him heterodox?

I get the impression that McLaren is the "baddy" and that even most ECM's find him going to far ... but since it is a movement with no membership anything goes ... Yes, he seems to reject a lot of Christian truths, he would be easiest to brand heterodox.

Slav wrote: »

It's hard to judge it without context. Which bit you found alarming: the practice itself or the origin of it, i.e. if the practice of meditation in silence came from a Christian would it still be seen as a bad thing?

Well, each of them I guess. But in the context that his Hindu teacher is considered "a child of God" and in the context meaning "saved."

Slav wrote: »

What's wrong with it in your opinion?

The Bible is no longer seen as an authoritive book, but as a nice stroy book, a romantic story about God interacting with man ... in my opinion the same we can look at stories about St. Patrick or Zeus...

Slav wrote: »

Dr. Borg is a very educated Bible scholar, I don't think the above quote comprehends his historical-metaphorical approach to Bible study. He does believe the Bible to be the Word of God after all. Does it still outcast him from orthodoxy?

No, believe in the authority of the Bible doesn't seem to be part of the Yardstick .... I would consider him however, to be outside the Christian camp.

Slav wrote: »

BTW, is he an ECM activist? I thought he's Episcopalian and is not directly involved in ECM?

That's a good question. He is used by and seems to like the movement...

Slav wrote: »

So as far as I understand holding a different view on atonement, different eschatology and social justice views is considered unorthodox?

Again, probably not in the strict defintion of orthodoxy. But also look at the word "sensibilities" - they don't have doctrines, they have discssuion points or "sensibilities". If you don't have doctrine, you are authomatically not ortho-dox.

Slav wrote: »

OK, it's not because you and your congregation evolved into something different but because the movement evolved to that extent that you don't see yourself in the mainstream of modern Evangelicalism, right?

That's right. As far as I can see, we stayed , but evangelicalism in Ireland moved on.

Fanny Cradock

I happen to have The Secret Message of Jesus sitting on a shelf somewhere. I've avoided it because of the title always seems to be suggestive of some sort of Gnosticism. If I ever do get around to reading it I'll post my thoughts.

PDN

santing wrote: »

It is difficult to pinpoint the ECM, as effectively no-one will stand up and say "this we believe",

Of course they don't, because the emergent church is more about a style and an approach then about holding a particular dogmatic belief. You can be an emergent Baptist and believe in Calvinism, or an emergent Methodist who believes in Arminianism.

Steve Chalke rejects the essential gospel belief that Christ paid the full penalty for the sins of mankind necessary to satisfy divine justice. Incredibly, he condemns that doctrine as a form of “cosmic child abuse” and a “twisted version of events morally dubious and a huge barrier to faith.”

What Steve Chalke rejected was the theory of penal substitution. This is only one of the various theories of the atonement. While I personally believe in penal substitution, it is not essential to being a Christian.

Rob Bell, in his book, Velvet Elvis:
"Let’s make a group decision to drop once and for all the Bible as owner’s manual metaphor. It’s terrible, it really is, we have to embrace the Bible as the wild, uncensored passionate account it is of experiencing the living God.”

That sounds perfectly reasonable to me (and I am a committed believer in the inerrancy of Scripture). The Bible is not an owner's manual. It is a record of a love story relationship between God and His Covenant people.

Thanks for that question, combined with the quotes above I realise that in the Evangelical movement in Ireland (e.g. EAI - Evangelical Alliance Ireland) I recognise a lot of the things that are attributed to the emerging church movement and the "purpose full ministries." An example I could name is the embracing and praise from the EAI for the Partnership Bill last year - and although this Bill may have a place in today's Ireland, it is - in effect - legalising sin.

The alternative to 'legalising sin' is to advocate a legal system where everything you consider to be sinful is outlawed. That would make us no different from the Taliban.

For example, I think it is sinful to worship idols, but I am not enough of a bigot to make it illegal for Hindus to pray to idols.

santing

PDN wrote: »

The alternative to 'legalising sin' is to advocate a legal system where everything you consider to be sinful is outlawed. That would make us no different from the Taliban.

For example, I think it is sinful to worship idols, but I am not enough of a bigot to make it illegal for Hindus to pray to idols.

That's why we have a separation between Church and State. It is the Christians role to be an ambassador of an Heavenly Kingdom, and as such pointing out what is sin, and how to be right with God. The emphasis of the ECM seems to be on doing what is right, and forgetting how to make people right with God.

Seaneh

santing wrote: »

That's why we have a separation between Church and State. It is the Christians role to be an ambassador of an Heavenly Kingdom, and as such pointing out what is sin, and how to be right with God. The emphasis of the ECM seems to be on doing what is right, and forgetting how to make people right with God.

I think the emphasis of the ECM is the basic idea that you don't have to be perfect to begin a relationship with God.

They don't say "if you do this, you can't be a Christian" or "if you do that, you can't come to this church". They say, no matter where you are, what you are doing, how far from God and and the teachings of Christ you are, come, get to know God, and learn for yourself why those things are wrong and from that you will no longer wish to do those things, to be that way, to be that person, and not because someone in a church told you it's a sin or it's an abomination or it's against God's will, but because you haver a relationship with God, and you want to please him and experience that relationship fully and to do that you realise you have to give up the things which drive a wedge between you and him...

I see no problem with that at all.


If Christ were alive today he wouldn't be going around talking to people who were already Christians and making demands of them.

He'd be going to sinners. Drug addicts, alcoholics, sex addicts, homosexuals, transgendered people and so on, and sharing his love with them and showing them that there is another way, and from experiencing that love, they would be changed.

He wouldn't be condemning and telling them "Stop that, or you can't know me".

We don't have to be perfect to come to Christ, but after we come to him, we will want to be perfect, like him.

Fanny Cradock

Slav wrote: »

Yes, I remember you posted iMonk link some time ago. Mere Churchianity is on my list for this year. How good do you find it so far?

Only about 50 pages into it so it is too early to say. If you have a listen to some of his podcasts (at 15 minutes each they are perfectly timed reflections) you will probably get an idea of where he is coming from.

PDN

santing wrote: »

That's why we have a separation between Church and State. It is the Christians role to be an ambassador of an Heavenly Kingdom, and as such pointing out what is sin, and how to be right with God. The emphasis of the ECM seems to be on doing what is right, and forgetting how to make people right with God.

Actually I was referring to EAI, not the ECM. I can't think of anyone in the leadership of EAI who could ever be classed as emergent.

santing

Seaneh wrote: »

I see no problem with that at all.


If Christ were alive today he wouldn't be going around talking to people who were already Christians and making demands of them.

He'd be going to sinners. Drug addicts, alcoholics, sex addicts, homosexuals, transgendered people and so on, and sharing his love with them and showing them that there is another way, and from experiencing that love, they would be changed.

He wouldn't be condemning and telling them "Stop that, or you can't know me".

We don't have to be perfect to come to Christ, but after we come to him, we will want to be perfect, like him.

But what about: Jesus straightened up and asked her, "Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?" No one, sir, she said. "Then neither do I condemn you," Jesus declared. "Go now and leave your life of sin." John 8:10,11

Fanny Cradock

You should probably read the footnote of that section of John.

santing

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

You should probably read the footnote of that section of John.

I know the footnote and I reject the idea that John 8 is not part of Sacred Scripture.
Leaving the portion out doesn't even make sense - it leaves a literal gap between chapter 7 and 8!

SonOfAdam

Seaneh wrote:

I think the emphasis of the ECM is the basic idea that you don't have to be perfect to begin a relationship with God.

We have a saying in church - You can come before you believe and belong before you behave - As we can only come to Jesus as we are I have no difficulty with that - it does make for interesting times when longtime believers are confronted with the behaviour of some who are a little newer to things. But we're all on the same journey of faith - some are just a little further along the road than others.

santing

SonOfAdam wrote: »

We have a saying in church - You can come before you believe and belong before you behave - As we can only come to Jesus as we are I have no difficulty with that - it does make for interesting times when longtime believers are confronted with the behaviour of some who are a little newer to things.

I completely agree with this strategy. We should put no stumbling blocks barriers in front of those who are interested or even just curious about what the Christian Faith and Life is about. But we must also be very careful! All to often, people settle for just "belonging" and "belonging" to a (good) fellowship/Church doesn't make you a Christian! Being a Christian has a definitive startpoint, called new birth, conversion and many other things. This is however not a progress but a moment in time. As a Church we must make sure that people who are not Christians (yet) do not get too comfortable in our Church! They are after all still enemies of God in need of reconciliation.

You must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler. With such a man do not even eat. What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? God will judge those outside. "Expel the wicked man from among you."
1Cor 5:9-13

SonOfAdam wrote: »

But we're all on the same journey of faith - some are just a little further along the road than others.

There is the danger. The journey has a definitive starting point - and I unless I started the journey through conversion, I am not on it! We should not be responisble for people missing the boat because we want be so nice and have them sitting comfortably on our pews.

CorkB

It's not about belonging to one fellowship or another, but about belonging to Christ.

Though not everybody may agree with these, while people are naming books and authors, I'll chip in with "Houses that change the World" by Wolfgang Simson and "Pagan Christianity?" by Frank Viola. John Eldredge isn't bad either.

twinQuins

Seaneh wrote: »

He'd be going to sinners. Drug addicts, alcoholics, sex addicts, homosexuals, transgendered people and so on

Why is it that when Christians bang on about how we're all sinners and blah blah blah they always lump homosexuals, trans people, etc. in with the likes of murderers and thieves?

Why not lump yourself in with them? Do you honestly believe a homosexual is the same as a drug addict? Really?
You talk a lot about attracting people to your religion but when your morality is as screwed up as that are you really surprised when people take issue?

Fanny Cradock

I don't suppose there is a question in that? Or a comment on home churches?

Anyway, that leads me nicely into a programme that C4 are showing at 7:30 tonight entitled Father Gregory Comes out.

As for lumping ourselves amongst sinners, that is pretty much the position of Christianity. Though, of course, there are plenty of examples of people who have forgotten this.

Still, dare I suggest that in chastising Christians you have incorrectly assumed that we are all of the same mind.

Seaneh

Qu♊n♊ne wrote: »

Why is it that when Christians bang on about how we're all sinners and blah blah blah they always lump homosexuals, trans people, etc. in with the likes of murderers and thieves?

Why not lump yourself in with them? Do you honestly believe a homosexual is the same as a drug addict? Really?
You talk a lot about attracting people to your religion but when your morality is as screwed up as that are you really surprised when people take issue?

I do lump myself in with drug addicts, murderers, adulterers and theives and all the rest. I am a sinner just like them, worse in a lot of ways in that I know the truth, I have a relationship with God and I still sin, they at least have the excuse of not having to live by Christian standards as they aren't Christians.

I wasn't comparing homosexuals or transgendered people to sex addicts, alcoholics or drug addicts, I was picking groups of people who tend to be looked down on and condemned by a lot of right wing "christians".
People who if they went to most churches around the world that claimed to be Christian and it was known what their lives were like, they'd be shunned or looked down upon or lectured to, and that's not how it should be.


The fact that you got so offended says a lot more to me about the chip on your shoulder than it does about my original post!

Fanny Cradock

Seaneh wrote: »

I do lump myself in with drug addicts, murderers, adulterers and theives and all the rest. I am a sinner just like them, worse in a lot of ways in that I know the truth, I have a relationship with God and I still sin, they at least have the excuse of not having to live by Christian standards as they aren't Christians.

I wasn't comparing homosexuals or transgendered people to sex addicts, alcoholics or drug addicts, I was picking groups of people who tend to be looked down on and condemned by a lot of right wing "christians".
People who if they went to most churches around the world that claimed to be Christian and it was known what their lives were like, they'd be shunned or looked down upon or lectured to, and that's not how it should be.

Well said