What to make of the liberal churches?

MMasztal · #1 (**permalink**) 02-26-2008, 11:34 AM

Denominations like the Methodists, Episcopalalians, etc., have essentially tossed the Gospel and some of the emergent churches outright denying Christ's work on the cross, nevermind lesser offenses agsainst orthodoxy.

How would one classify them? Apostate, heretics, under satan's dominion?

Daniel Ritchie · #2 (**permalink**) 02-26-2008, 11:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MMasztal

Denominations like the Methodists, Episcopalalians, etc., have essentially tossed the Gospel and some of the emergent churches outright denying Christ's work on the cross, nevermind lesser offenses agsainst orthodoxy.

How would one classify them? Apostate, heretics, under satan's dominion?

Difficult to say. If they have officially enshrined apostate doctrine into their constitutions, then I would say that they are apostate synagogues of Satan. However, if they merely tolerate heretics, then I would say that they are apostatizing churches rather than officially apostate.

DMcFadden · #3 (**permalink**) 02-26-2008, 01:32 PM

IMHO, you must differentiate the denominations from a loose movement like "emergent" chuches. Each independent congregation among the "emergents" would need to be judged on its own merits as to the categories you suggest. Belonging to a denomination that gives lip service to orthodoxy is a little more difficult to label as apostate.

In my experience, practically every mainline denomination has its share of orthodox and heterodox congregations and pastors. One might ask why a person would remain in such a nuthouse. However, having only recently come out of one of the "seven sisters of the mainline" myself, I appreciate the logic of those who remain in hopes of reforming the larger body. In the case of my former denomination, 80% of the pastors were quite orthodox (based on a social science graduate project I conducted in the 90s) and the denomination has NOT taken any heretical stands (just wussie ones). However, the hierarchy allowed a group of 35 (mostly micro) congregations out of 5,800 churches (at that time) to be the tail that wagged the dog.

Since most of the mainlines have LOTS of orthodox congregations, I would hesitate to label the whole thing apostate, particularly when the denomination does not actually take officially heretical stands. However, inasmuch as some of them may actually embrace unbiblical views (e.g., the official UCC stand on gay marriage), they are certainly guilty of some of the terms you suggest.

Daniel, most of the US denominations are "on record" as affirming orthodoxy. However, their hierarchies are quite liberal and tolerate a good deal of heresy in the midst. In a few cases, they actually put it in writing (e.g., the UCC on gay marriage). In most instances, it has more to do with their latitudinarian interpretations of Christian doctrine (e.g., affirm the "resurrection" officially as Christian doctrine, but disbelieve it and even deny it in practice). It would be interesting to see how the Episcopalians justify their selection of a gay man as bishop. Could it be that their official beliefs are more conservative than their accepted practice?

SueS · #4 (**permalink**) 02-26-2008, 01:42 PM

You're quite right about a denomination having both orthodox and heterodox congregations. However, a serious problem exists when a portion of each congregation's tithes and offerings go to support the "head office" of the denomination as a whole and the orthodox congregations end up financially supporting positions with which they disagree.

DMcFadden · #5 (**permalink**) 02-26-2008, 02:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SueS

You're quite right about a denomination having both orthodox and heterodox congregations. However, a serious problem exists when a portion of each congregation's tithes and offerings go to support the "head office" of the denomination as a whole and the orthodox congregations end up financially supporting positions with which they disagree.

Absolutely! That is why my judicatory finally withdrew from our national body. For some time, many of our congregations around the country specified their contribugtions to the national body so that they might bypass the Office of the General Secretary entirely. Incidentally, that practice is resulting in serious shortfalls for the denominational overhead costs. They are now contemplating selling their headquarters to the various mission program boards (national, international, and pension) as a way of generating additional cash to endow the operations the churches are unwilling/unable to support any longer.

Pilgrim · #6 (**permalink**) 02-26-2008, 02:54 PM

WCF Ch. 25

Quote:

4. This catholic church hath been sometimes more, sometimes less visible. And particular churches, which are members thereof, are more or less pure, according as the doctrine of the gospel is taught and embraced, ordinances administered, and public worship performed more or less purely in them.

5. The purest churches under heaven are subject both to mixture and error; and some have so degenerated, as to become no churches of Christ, but synagogues of Satan. Nevertheless, there shall be always a church on earth, to worship God according to his will.

Pilgrim · #7 (**permalink**) 02-26-2008, 02:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DMcFadden

Quote:

Originally Posted by SueS

You're quite right about a denomination having both orthodox and heterodox congregations. However, a serious problem exists when a portion of each congregation's tithes and offerings go to support the "head office" of the denomination as a whole and the orthodox congregations end up financially supporting positions with which they disagree.

Absolutely! That is why my judicatory finally withdrew from our national body. For some time, many of our congregations around the country specified their contribugtions to the national body so that they might bypass the Office of the General Secretary entirely. Incidentally, that practice is resulting in serious shortfalls for the denominational overhead costs. They are now contemplating selling their headquarters to the various mission program boards (national, international, and pension) as a way of generating additional cash to endow the operations the churches are unwilling/unable to support any longer.

Out of curiosity, what is the judicatory that you have referenced several times? It is something akin to an association?

Presbyterian Deacon · #8 (**permalink**) 02-26-2008, 08:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MMasztal

Denominations like the Methodists, Episcopalalians, etc., have essentially tossed the Gospel and some of the emergent churches outright denying Christ's work on the cross, nevermind lesser offenses agsainst orthodoxy.

How would one classify them? Apostate, heretics, under satan's dominion?

D. ALL OF THE ABOVE

Dr Mike Kear · #9 (**permalink**) 02-26-2008, 08:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MMasztal

Denominations like the Methodists, Episcopalalians, etc., have essentially tossed the Gospel and some of the emergent churches outright denying Christ's work on the cross, nevermind lesser offenses agsainst orthodoxy.

How would one classify them? Apostate, heretics, under satan's dominion?

I work part time in the building maintenance department at a large United Methodist Church. The associate pastor has a statue of Astarte (Diana of the Ephesians) sitting on the book shelf in her office. I've seriously been thinking of taking my digital camera and snapping a picture of the hideous thing just so no one would think I was making it up.

Presbyterian Deacon · #10 (**permalink**) 02-26-2008, 08:49 PM

Quote:

United Methodist Church...associate pastor...statue of Astarte (Diana of the Ephesians) sitting on the book shelf in her office.

Well, that answers the question. Definitely

Quote:

Apostate, heretics, under satan's dominion

ServantofGod · #11 (**permalink**) 02-26-2008, 08:54 PM

I know of an Episcopalian Church where they do not open the Scriptures because "we will not be reading from the bigotrous words written by the Church Fathers for the Church Mothers had no say in it."

On their bulletin: "All you need is love- The Gospel According to the Beatles"

DMcFadden · #12 (**permalink**) 02-26-2008, 10:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pilgrim

Out of curiosity, what is the judicatory that you have referenced several times? It is something akin to an association?

Quote:

A middle judicatory is an administrative structure or organization found in religious denominations between the local congregation and the widest or highest national or international level. The term is meant to be neutral with regard to polity, though it derives from Presbyterianism where the local, regional and national bodies are themselves respectively higher courts.

Depending on the polity, the middle judicatory can have decisive authority over a local church, can offer standing for clergy members but little or no control over congregations, can offer counsel and services but no authority, or can serve as an informal vehicle for fellowship and communication.

The term is used with particular popularity in the "seven sisters" of the mainline denominations.

I was part of the American Baptist Churches of the USA. My "judicatory" was the American Baptist Churches of the Pacific Southwest, a collection of 270 congregations ranging from 30 members to 7,000 members each. We called a plebesite of our churches with delegates from each congregation (based on a formula for size, etc.) a couple of years ago to vote 84% to leave the ABC for reasons of biblical authority.

Pilgrim · #13 (**permalink**) 02-26-2008, 10:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DMcFadden

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pilgrim

Out of curiosity, what is the judicatory that you have referenced several times? It is something akin to an association?

Quote:

A middle judicatory is an administrative structure or organization found in religious denominations between the local congregation and the widest or highest national or international level. The term is meant to be neutral with regard to polity, though it derives from Presbyterianism where the local, regional and national bodies are themselves respectively higher courts.

Depending on the polity, the middle judicatory can have decisive authority over a local church, can offer standing for clergy members but little or no control over congregations, can offer counsel and services but no authority, or can serve as an informal vehicle for fellowship and communication.

The term is used with particular popularity in the "seven sisters" of the mainline denominations.

I was part of the American Baptist Churches of the USA. My "judicatory" was the American Baptist Churches of the Pacific Southwest, a collection of 270 congregations ranging from 30 members to 7,000 members each. We called a plebesite of our churches with delegates from each congregation (based on a formula for size, etc.) a couple of years ago to vote 84% to leave the ABC for reasons of biblical authority.

That's a lot of churches! Have most of the churches opted for independency or have some affiliated with some other federation or association?

DMcFadden · #14 (**permalink**) 02-27-2008, 12:01 AM

The bulk of us in Southern California and Arizona stayed united under a new name. Some of the American Baptists on a baptist message board have been whining about the loss of resources to the central office. However, some of the most liberal baptists just cannot understand why those of us on the right objected to homosexual marriage and homosexual ordination.

Chris, the degree of disgust and dissatisfaction with the lack of theological boundaries is one of the prompts that got be looking seriously at a more confessional approach to the faith. Already a soteriological Calvinist, I wanted to explore the ecclesiastical side as well.

Contra_Mundum · #15 (**permalink**) 02-27-2008, 12:12 AM

I wonder what my grampa did? Long time ABC minister, been retired for a while now.

cih1355 · #16 (**permalink**) 02-27-2008, 12:33 AM

Do liberal churches believe that the Bible is just a man-made book filled with fairy tales?

DMcFadden · #17 (**permalink**) 02-27-2008, 12:50 AM

It depends. On the far left, they see the Bible as an impediment to religion because of its sexism, homophobia, and racism. Among the more reasonable lefties, they would say that the Bible is a very human book, full of both good and bad. Insofar as it records people striving to find God in their own historical particularity, it can be of some value. However, we must be careful not to view it uncritically, since it certainly partakes of the errors of its time. Among those who are a bit more "conservative," they would see the Bible as my CRC seminary prof did: it is a divine revelation full of human errors and mistakes which bear witness to its divine-human origin.

But, again, in a mainline denomination with all of that nonsense, you still have lots of conservative pastors/churches that hold to the inerrancy of the Bible, substitutionary atonement, etc. My former denomination even had its share of dispensationalists. In the ABC, probably 80% of the 5,800 congregations are conservative to moderately conservative.

Grymir · #18 (**permalink**) 02-27-2008, 01:15 AM

Like a moth to a flame, this thread beckons!

I have to start by saying that yes, I don't judge a local church by what the national people are saying and doing. My first Church was a Disciples of Christ church

!! But although arminian, they were a Gospel preaching, God centered hymn singing, Bible teaching church (Uh, I taught one of the adult classes, and the pastor encouraged me to follow the Bible as it taught and to teach what it said, Calvinism and All). Even my present church is a PCUSA, and infested with the liberal/barfthian plague, but my local church is conservative.

But I call the national people ungodly unregenerated people. I've asked the reform group's why we can't just throw the bums out, because those who want to ordain women or gays don't know their bible from time magazine. And are not duly ordained or called by God. The reform dude spent the next 20 minutes explaining how ordaining women didn't violate the Bible. (yea, he didn't know what the Word Of God said either, idiot!)

Apostate, heretics, under satan's dominion? ALL OF THE ABOVE!! And they are leading the flock of God astray!

Jer 23:1,2 "Woe be unto the pastors that destroy and scatter the sheep of my pasture! saith the Lord. Therefore thus saith the Lord God of Israel against the pastors that feed my people; Ye have scattered my flock, and driven them away, and have not visited them: behold, I will visit upon you the evil of your doings, saith the Lord"

Hosea 4:6 "My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge, Because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me: Seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children"

Liberals and Barthians need to be thrown out of the church!!! Immediately!!

Conan style church disipline - "Crush the liberals, see them driven before you, and hear the lamentations of the barthians"!!

Presbyterian Deacon · #19 (**permalink**) 02-27-2008, 04:31 PM

Grymir--
Don't mince words. How do you really feel?

yeutter · #20 (**permalink**) 02-27-2008, 05:38 PM

If the liberal then we should not view their sacraments as valid. If they are apostate should we view their sacraments as valid?

Grymir · #21 (**permalink**) 02-27-2008, 09:09 PM

I have a hard enough time viewing my church's grape juice as a valid sacrament! I asked point blank "are you not causing us to sin by using grape juice and not wine like the Bible say to", and didn't get a satisfactory answer. Mostly vague beat around the bush answers.

Sorry if I was to vague in my answer, Presbyterian Deacon. I used to be one, so that's how I knows all about them and what they think. God gave me a nice new heart and a love for the things of God. Not to mention salvation in the name of Jesus!! Next time I will be clearer about the unregenerate.

Presbyterian Deacon · #22 (**permalink**) 02-28-2008, 02:55 PM

Quote:

Grymir--
Don't mince words. How do you really feel?