prisonchaplain

When can government order churches to stop, legally? What constitutes an emergency? As this pandemic rages, and seems to have become too political, I've had my cynical moments. Church-goers vote the wrong way, so governors and mayors keep the liquor flowing but shut us down! Sadly, I should have had more answers than many. I'm a chaplain. I've lived/breathed RFRA (Religious Freedom Restoration Act) for well over 20 years now. Governments may restrict religious liberties when there is a compelling government interest--such as public safety--such as COVID-19. Indeed, most churches, including my own, have complied. What irks are the inconsistencies. Restrictions must not single out religion. I found the linked article extremely insightful. I am @prisonchaplain and I endorse this message. https://www.christianpost.com/voices/why-are-so-many-states-violating-religious-liberty.html

@mordorbund We love Malachi because it offers the strongest passage about tithing. Joel is a close second in Pentecostal circles because of the promise that in the last days God would pour out His Spirit and there would be prophesy and other spiritual gifts. If there is an Old Testament passage about worship bands we could get the non-denominational mega-churches on board.

For the record, this has nothing to do with the current debate about opening vs. closing in relation to COVID-19, right?

There are usually fewer issues during that time frame.

Your post is more true than I want to admit, though how much so would vary greatly. Some of the restorationist sects--the Church of Christ in particular--openly say they focus on the New Testament. Also, a few mega-church pastors, Andy Stanley in particular, have all but abandoned the Old Testament, believing it contains too much that is difficult for Christians to explain to a hostile culture (God's command to wipe out whole societies including babies, for example). Then there is the well-intentioned claim of some groups to be "a New Testament church" or individually, "I'm a New Testament Christian." Though I react against all this, calling myself a Bible Christian, still, when given the choice, I took two years of Koine Greek rather than a year of that and a year of Hebrew. Still...I defend the Old Testament the way I defend the discipline of History--we need it to have perspective. It's like a rearview mirror. If we want to understand where we are and where we are going we need to know where we've been. So, unqualified though he be, I've set up an appointment between @Vort and Bro. Andy Stanley, for this Saturday at 4:00 a.m, via Zoom. I'll be on me knees praying for you both to have a productive time of it.

@Just_A_Guy, I'm not Baptist, but I keep thinking of a phrase they use: Jesus is my Savior AND Lord. So, when they/we are not trying to convert LDS, there is a clear understanding that Jesus saves me from my sins (and hell), but in so doing I submit to Him. He is my Lord and King. He gets to tell me what to do now. So, when I am repenting for conversion I am admitting that I have done wrong before God and asking that He forgive me and cleanse me and liberate me from those sins and consequences, so that I may live a life of obedience to Him. We are often told that to repent is to 'turn away' from our sin. The old-time preachers would never have called someone who 'asked Jesus into his heart' a convert unless repenting was part of it. I understanding that the front row at Methodist revivals (1800s) was called the mourners bench. It was common to hear crying--travailing before God, only then to be followed with the joyous release that comes as one feels the weight of sin against God being lifted. Of course, even as a Christian I must repent of sins. To repeatedly resist the Holy Spirit's conviction could lead me to the unpardonable sin--blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. The LDS idea that Evangelicals do not repent during conversion, or afterwards, comes largely from our side failing to communicate. We want to distinguish conversion from good works so we fail to explain repentance to you. We want to seem empathetic and non-judging to modern culture, so we too often neglect mentioning repentance (this is flat-out heresy, btw). Thanks for letting me clarify.

I suppose this could be an Old Testament reality. Those baptized were already converted, but could undergo multiple 'baptisms' in a lifetime, to repent of particular sins. So, I'm not really addressing the is-baptism-required-for-salvation debate, but rather just saying that for the OT Jews conversion sort of came at birth. Baptisms were almost akin to what we Evangelicals sometimes call recommitting our lives to Christ (I was saved, but lost my way, and am now back on track).

Part of this, of course, is that the Old Testament is written about/by/for a converted community of faith. Also, while it may be that a few Christian sects actually do not believe repentance is a part of conversion, the reason this heresy seems more prominent is that Evangelicals try to convert LDS from 'works salvation,' and so emphasize grace and salvation and de-emphasize redemption and progressive sanctification (growing in holiness). Further, due to pressure from the culture, I suspect that too many Christian individuals (and some churches) actually do believe repentance is negative and archaic. So, no argument... perhaps some minor quibbling about degree.

I believe that Old Testament baptisms--and even that of John the Baptist--were a means of believers repenting of sins, not as a rite of conversion. So, if there was any kind of proxy baptism, it would have had a different meaning. My understanding is that if a scribe were making a copy of a passage of scripture and made a mistake the page would be destroyed and he would have to undergo a type of baptism before returning to the scribe work.

I told my 17-year old, who was quoting an Edgar Allen Poe poem, that if she wanted to memorize Bible passages like that King James is the easiest. She looked surprised and asked me why. It's the rhythm and cadence. It's not my studying Bible, but there is nothing like the King James for memorizing and quoting. The other reality is that the KJV rates at about an 11th grade reading level. NIV is 7th, as are most news magazines. So, it's more than we are used to, but not out of reach.

Gospel Principles or standard works? The answer I am hearing is YES...but in reverse order. Great answer. Obvious...but true. And, yes, for too many Christians of all stripes, there has not been even one reading through the 66 books of the Old and New Testaments. Sadly, some of our compromised mega-pastors are actively advising against much of the Bible as unnecessary. :::sigh::: Keep them ignorant, keep them controlled. I especially like the added counsel to use Gospel Principles, but with actually references to all scriptures listed. Who does that? Very few...but yeah, everyone should. I recall reading a study book from a religion I do not agree with. They made a statement I thought wrong, and in parenthesis it had six biblical references. Most would look at that and be amazed and overwhelmed. They must be right with all that scripture backing them. Alas, I actually read the first two references and realized they had nothing to do with the point made. It's almost as if they simply used a concordance to see if any of the words in their points were also in the Bible, and the listed each verse that contained one of the words. BOTTOM LINE: Want to avoid being a heretic within? Read your faith's scriptures...daily passages and yearly books. Excellent stuff. I believe our elders called this type of thing a spiritual discipline.

One of the greatest unsung heroes, and defenders of biblical sexuality, is Dr. Warren Throckmorton. He is professor of Psychology at Grove City College, in, yep, Grove City, PA. Approximately 20 years ago a group of Christian men came to him. They said they had same-sex attraction, but as Christians believed that it would be a sin to fulfill those attractions. They asked that he meet with them weekly for therapy and Bible study. He agreed. Eventually he developed Sexual Identity Therapy (helping religiously-motivated, same sex-attracted men maintain celibacy). After a few years he submitted SIT (with another Christian psychologist) to the APA. Despite much political push-back, APA approved the therapy. My rough recollection of Dr. Glasgow's (head of the APA committee that examined the work) summary comment: As surprising as it is to some of us, for a number of people who they worship is more important than who they sleep with. Here's the SIT: https://sitframework.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/sexualidentitytherapyframeworkfinal.pdf Dr. Throckmorton's quiet love is far superior to those who claim a form of godliness, but yell at church leadership, "Love is love!" I beg to differ. Love is not selfish. I will not feed my flesh by causing another to stumble.

I almost indicated that this would be a side question. However, let me frame it so it is not: If I were a member, worried that I was weak in my doctrinal understanding, what would you recommend I read/study to raise up to a modestly solid level? Gospel Principles?

It was only a very few years ago that the term "Anti" would be used here with some frequency. I read a fair amount of that material growing up. We worried about 'false teaching' and the groups that espoused them. Today I seldom see that term used. I'm sure there are still a few groups doing such work. However, the greater concern in traditional Christianity is something I call "the compromised church." It's those congregations, pastors, and members who embrace the culture and declare anything other than love "non-essentials." Perhaps our greatest enemies have always been those within.

Now, if you would disclose that you work for Face Book, Google, or some other hugely influential media platform, and that you were authorizing the end of fact-checker censorship, then we could end this topic and all go home happy. Alas . . .

This topic can be sensitive, and I was tempted to place in the Christian beliefs forum. However, my sense is that the spiritual struggle that politics sometimes generates affects us all. Here's the story--made vague on purpose. A man seminary-educated (Protestant graduate theology school) in the 1970s becomes ordained in his mainline denomination and pastors a single church for nearly 30 years. As he sees his denomination embrace gay marriage, ordain practicing homosexuals, and now fully embrace transgenderism, he comes to the soul-wrenching decision to leave his denomination--including guiding his church out. He was able to join another denomination, under the same larger umbrella, and today says his former denomination cannot be merely labed liberal--it has become radical, in his view. I read his article and, taken at face value, I agree. In the 1990s, when I was at my much-more-Bible-based denominational seminary I remember classmates saying with a bit of bravado that they were thankful that we would never affirm anti-biblical sexuality. Today we remain nowhere near violating those standards. However, there are some frightfully strong rumblings among our youngest clergy. A few pastors have left us, because they do want to embrace today's cultural norms. In the greater Evangelical world there are several thinkers suggesting a huge divide is coming over support/opposition to POTUS. Apparently many younger believers find it hypocritical and even evil that their elders would turn a blind eye to the shortcomings in order to gain temporary protection and support. "Do we trust God or Caesar?" they ask. If the church is led by prophets, and those prophets remain true, then a few may leave the church, whether to the left or the right. If boundary-protectors force the church to the right, outside of God's directing, then a good number will leave for the left. Those who do so will be younger. On the other hand, if the cultural-accommodaters get ahead of God's directions, many elders may leave in dismay. After some initial growth by excited young people, such a movement would go the way of many in-tune denominations--gradual implosion. I'm an outsider. However, if my counsel is worth anything, I'd urge members to pray for their leaders--especially those they believe to be anointed by God to be prophets. In the mean time, I am praying for my leaders to keep our denomination faithful to God and his Word.

I thought I was--for more than 30 years I've understood that Community Chapel (Burien, WA) became state property due to back property taxes. However, I cannot verify this. The church property was sold to the state for $16 million and did become the law enforcement training center. However, there is no mention in this article of property taxes. My 20-minute internet research seems to suggest that churches are always exempt. So...color me confused, now. Here's the story, for those interested in the sad tale of a non-denominational church that went really bad, and then imploded: https://archive.seattletimes.com/archive/?date=19961228&slug=2367015

I was doing the typical conservative-libertarian thing, and basing the "moderate" label on my own understanding. 😁

CNN used to be moderate. They learned from FOX and MSNBC that there’s no $ in the middle. Reuter’s and The Hill ... and maybe WSJ are moderate. Print is cheaper, so semi-objectivity is possible.

Conservatives do not believe that liberal bias is an intentional, secret meeting, conspiracy type thing. Rather, in universities liberals gravitate to media, and most of the slant is via story/topic selection, not editorializing. Further, there is the problem of self-fulfilling prophesy. The media personality sees what s/he expects to see. Some call this confirmation bias. My hope, in pointing bias out, is to urge a return to intentionally objective reporting. We can do better than FOX and CNN. They will always exist, but intelligent explorers, who really want both sides, or even an objective deep dive, are finding fewer and fewer trustworthy sources. Bias does matter, because it's moved from the news media to the universities. In some fields even moderates will not make grad school. They certainly won't find faculty to sponsor them. Indeed, too many of today's students openly oppose the First Amendment. No...this is a fight worth having. If I lose, at least I can tell my grandkids I tried.

Both sides are factually right. I'd humbly suggest that one side's complaint is far more legitimate than the other. One side perceives bias based upon who/what the owners are, while the other side flat-out demonstrates the bias.

Then let my 18+ self be the problem. We're all monotheists here. Why allow fact checkers to approach that threshold? You might trust fact checkers more than the typical online patron, but you should not get to assess me anymore than FB or Google or US.gov should. I suspect that there is a good measure of humor in your post. Then again, I trust you more than 'them.'

We discussed the reliability of fact checkers in a different string. Consensus seems to be that they are quite good...even mostly accurate. However, in mulling this over, that's not good enough. Why? Fact-checkers allow powerful media platforms to slant what they provide and then outsource blame when bias is exposed. See: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2020/05/12/facebooks_evidence-free_false_rating_143182.html The problems are: 1. Fact checkers simply make judgments and report their findings. 2. Sometimes they are biased, and those who use them seldom allow any recourse. 3. Entities like Facebook and Google are so prolific that even if their fact-checkers are 95% accurate, rogue evaluators can shut down voices without cause. The solution is to return to the free marketplace of ideas. Fire the fact checkers and let users decide for themselves what they will and will not believe. That might sound dangerous, but hey, I'm not 6. I don't need big corporate brother telling me what's true and false anymore than I need government doing so.

True confession...back in the day when chat rooms were a thing I decided to venture into a political one. I believe my moniker was prisonrev that day. I entered, spent 20 minutes having 3-4 chatters berate Christianity, Christians, clergy, and, of course Republicans. I never typed a word. After 20-minutes a moderator said they had tolerated me for long enough and I was exited. I'm pretty sure this was well before 11/9/16, but apparently preparations were already underway.

Exactly. You might enjoy a return.