Posted on 11/24/2005 7:22:28 AM PST by Zack Nguyen
Elaine Pagels, the famous historian of early Christianity, once told a revealing story about the social world behind the scenes of high-powered biblical scholarship. As a young up-and-coming professor at the annual meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature, she was invited to a closed-door, after-hours smoker.
The men there (Pagels was the only woman) were all prominent Bible scholars. Many of them didn't even believe in God, and those who still called themselves Christian were anything but orthodox. The liquor flowed freely, and as these men got in their cups, they began to sing old gospel songs. To her astonishment, they knew all the tunes and words by heart. Then it dawned on her—these atheist and liberal Bible scholars must have grown up in evangelical churches.
Had Pagels herself grown up in evangelicalism she might not have been so surprised. Evangelicals have long known that it is easy for individuals and institutions—especially professors and universities—to slide down the slippery slope from orthodoxy to infidelity. Once down the slope, there's usually no climbing back up. It's a one-way street from evangelicalism to liberalism, a street that many individuals and colleges, and all the mainline Protestant denominations, have gone down.
(Excerpt) Read more at christianitytoday.com ...
Really? Can you tell me where He said that?
"More recently, she has suggested that the four canonical gospels are unreliable, so you need to go out and buy the Gnostic and heretical Gospel of Thomas to find out what really happened."
A good intentioned friend gave me her "Beyond Belief: the Secret Gospel of Thomas". I did read it, with jaw dropped. I honestly hadn't realized the depths of heresy to which mainline Protestantism's "theology" had descended until I read the work of this thoroughly evil and yet lionized woman.
For what it's worth, this article contain over 4,100 words...yet the name of Jesus is mentioned only 5 times.
But I don't want to argue if you don't interpret these this way, and I'm sorry for misstating Eph. 4:13 as a direct comment from Jesus.
That is a wild story. If that young seiminarian was serious, I truly feel for the congregation that his denomination inflicted him upon.
The NT church was a very simple and yet profound institution. The Greek term for church (ekklesia) was a common word which merely meant a gathering of people-- a secular word that was also applied, for example, to the city crowds at Derbe or Lystra.
The apostles and those they taught would be very suprised to hear us apply the word "church" to buildings or grand corporate institutions. The early believers were baptised by emersion (Gr. "baptiso", which the KJ translators were afraid to translate literally and so created the transliterated word "baptism") for the remission of their sins (Acts 2:38, Acts 8, Acts 10, Rom 6, etc.). The disciples met locally as they were commanded on 1st day of the week to keep the Lord's Supper; all were servants of each other; a cappella ("manner of the church") singing from the heart was the only music (noteworthy since many were former pagans who were used to instruments in worship); each congragetion was autonomous and shepherded by a plurality of elders (the terms "bishop", "shepherd", and "elder" are used interchangeably in the NT) who served only their own, local congregation.
Over the succeeding centuries, however, an institution which eventually became known as the Catholic church left that simple scriptural pattern. It adopted the hierarchy of the centralized Roman government in increasing measure. First, the large city churches began to exert their influence over the rural congregations. The elders of the city churches began to rule more than "the flock that is among you" as the apostles taught. Soon, certain elders were elevated in each local church and the title "bisphop" was used to distinguish them from the other elders. These "bishops" then vied for preeminence, as people will do, until one supreme bishop was designated at Rome. (It's significant that neither the apostles nor the so-called early Church Fathers had any concept of a "pope"). This manmade instiuttion added the concepts of a "clergy" separate from the "laity", sprinkling baptism about 600 AD (and sprinkling infants later), instrumental music about 800 AD, full blown liturgies and creeds, the doctrine of salvation through works (and money), etc. To attept to justify all of this doctrine scripturally, the pope and his clergy mischaracterized (a) a verse in which Christ told Peter the church would be built on the bedrock of Christ's divinity, and (b) a verse where Paul referred to "traditions". The clergy began to expound upon ever after on these "traditions" (sans the miracles that Christ and His apostles used to confirm the Source of their teaching).
Luther and Calvin, and other former Catholic priests, were brave men who had seen enough of this apostacy. Their idea was to "reform" the Catholic church. Thus the Reformation was born, in which many protesting groups (Protestants) unfortunately kept many of the Catholic inventions, from clergy vs. laity to instrumental worship to creeds and infant sprinkling to secular schools, centralized government and councils.
But the Catholic church didn't need to be "reformed"; the New Testament church need to be restored. There is divine wisdom in the simple biblical pattern which relies on Christ and his apostles for its sole doctrine, where the congregations are autonomous and cannot be influenced by corruption from controlling councils and leaders.(Compare, the Episcopalian church, the Presbytarian church, etc.)
There are groups of Believers devoted to Christ and His simple, Bible-based pattern today. For anyone who sends me an email requesting it, I'll try to point one out in your area.
Yes she is. Old heresies keep rearing their ugly heads.
We Christians need to remember that these heresies have been popular in times past and in each instance the Church
both Orthodox and Catholic answered and refuted these heresies.
mikeus_maximus wrote: "The NT church was a very simple and yet profound institution."
I agree. However, it's easy to see how church organizations evolved from this simple start. Even in the NT, they assigned different tasks to the members. Not everyone could be a missionary for example.
I don't believe it is inherently evil to have church buildings or pastors. As long as the members follow the Bible and stay focused on Christ, I don't see the harm. The membership, of course, must remain constantly vigilant against heresy.
Can a true believer love God and still attend a formal church service? Of course! Is it OK to meet with other Christians outside of a denomination? Of course. Both, in my opinion, are perfectly acceptable as long as they are not compromising the true faith. Elders and teachers and even music leaders are not unscriptual. I believe I'm biblically correct here.
Thank you, Zack, for remember me and for pinging this article to me. It is an interesting read.
I trust you and yours will have a blessed, happy Thanksgiving.
As for my "witness" in the Episcopal Church, that was some time ago. I left that apostate body in 1987 and have been worshipping and serving in an Anglican church ever since. Meanwhile, the Episcopalians (you did spell it correctly)sink deeper and deeper into apostasy and heresy. Bishop Vicky Gene Robinson is but the latest incarnation.
Diane Knippers, mentioned in the article, passed away last year. She was a tireless worker and fervent believer in Jesus Christ. May she rest in peace.
I notice that this article did not mention renewal groups in The Episcopal Church. My experience with them was that they were heavily influenced by the liberal agenda and certainly were not attempting to "renew" faith and belief and adherence to the traditional Anglican beliefs, practices and understanding of Holy Scripture. Much of their appeal was to the emotional, touch-feely practices. Their agenda was to change the mindset of adherents to a much more liberal bent. Obviously, it worked.
I read with interest the remark by Kevin Jones, the lib who attended, incognito, the Confessing the Faith conference. Jones remarked that he was worried about the strength and dedication of "Confessing" movement and especially their "ingenuity and persistence".
I had a similar but completely opposite experience when I attended an ultra liberal movement meeting in Pittsburgh. I too attended incognito. The group was called COCU, e.g., Consultation on Church Uniting. This was an amalgamation of nine protestant churches that was trying to get these nine church bodies to merge into one mega church. Members included the Episcopal, Methodist, Presbyterian, AME, AME Zion and CME churchs (black churches), the Metropolitan Community Church and the Disciples of Christ and the Church of Christ.
During a mid-morning coffee break, I asked one of the delegates at the coffee table, "how many people are represented by these nine churches?". She represented one of the more liberal churches and her response was to me was, "Twenty three or twenty four million members, can you imagine the political power we will have"?
As I sat in this meeting for the next two days, it was extremely difficult to keep my thoughts and feelings to myself. I listened as delegate after delegate opined about the need to change denominational beliefs, practices and confessions in order to meld them into one that all of the nine bodies could accept. I almost had a stroke when I heard the discussions about the Nicene and Apostles' Creeds.
To go back to Kevin Jones' remark, my experience was the opposite of his. As I watched the liberal groups gain control of the levers of power in the Episcopal Church, it was not difficult to see the writing on the wall. So called church traditionalists and theological conservatives at the same time were reticent to speak their minds and to actually engage in battles to stop these heretical notions. I could see the evil genius behind the liberal groups' efforts. They did have the courage of their convictions wrong though they were and are. In successive General Conventions of the church, legislation was passed that changed what the Episcopal Church believed. Doctrines were watered down or outright changed. Jesus Christ was reduced to a culturally conditioned prophet who may have died for our sins and who spiritually resurrected (not bodily). The Ten Commandments became a multiple choice test and the church married the zeitgeist (spirit of the age).
Meanwhile, the Episcopal Church was losing members by the hundreds of thousands. Ditto for the Methodist and Presbyterian bodies. At one point, the Methodists were losing 54,000 members each week. The Episcopal Church declined from 3.2 million baptized members to barely over a million (1965-1987). Now they claim higher numbers but like many things in the church, there is a lot of fudging.
Yes, the Episcopal Church has been turned around but not into something I would want to believe in.
The group was called COCU, e.g., Consultation on Church Uniting. This was an amalgamation of nine protestant churches that was trying to get these nine church bodies to merge into one mega church.
Considering that these people wanted to bring about unity through compromise of essential principles, frankly the idea horrifies me. Sounds almost like a "one-world religion" based on mutual abandonment of principles until all religions are meaningless.
So called church traditionalists and theological conservatives at the same time were reticent to speak their minds and to actually engage in battles to stop these heretical notions. I could see the evil genius behind the liberal groups' efforts. They did have the courage of their convictions...
Yes, I have noticed that liberals very often do have the courage of their convictions, whereas conservative Christians shift uncomfortably and mumble about not wanting to "cause contention within the Body." I have had some experience with this in a Southern Baptist church that insisted on embracing a liberal denominational body. Some of the Bible-believing Christians were paralyzed with indecision, completely unable to state a position and take a side.
This may sound harsh, but I think that Bible-believers who choose not to take a side in a clear fight between right and wrong are almost as responsible for losing a denomination as the liberals are for taking it. I must wonder if this is due to a feminization or weakness in evangelicalism that teaches somehow that Christians ought never to disagree.
God bless you and yours.
It's a basic difference in respect for God's word and His divine authority. "I think" or "I don't believe it's inherently evil" is the wrong standard... and puts someone else in His place of authority.
Ephesians 4:11-12 plus look at the Pastoral Epistles
mikeus_maximus wrote: "When did God ever allow people to 'evolve' His will?"
He didn't. As for the phrase, "I think," I think it would be obvious. Since I'm a human and not God, the words I post are my own thoughts, not His. Even if my words and thoughts are based on the Bible or inspired by the Holy Spirit, it's still correct to say, "I think" or "I believe," since I'm the one who is thinking them.
As for human organizations, I don't see where they are unbiblical. Based on my readings, I think (there it is again) they are not only allowed but encouraged! Scripture is good enough justification for me:
ACT 14:23 Paul and Barnabas appointed elders for them in each church and,
with prayer and fasting, committed them to the Lord, in whom they had put
their trust.
15:2 This brought Paul and Barnabas into sharp dispute and debate with
them. So Paul and Barnabas were appointed, along with some other believers,
to go up to Jerusalem to see the apostles and elders about this question.
22 Then the apostles and elders, with the whole church, decided to choose
some of their own men and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. They chose Judas (called Barsabbas) and Silas, two men who were leaders among the brothers.
23 With them they sent the following letter: The apostles and elders, your
brothers, To the Gentile believers in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia: Greetings.
16:4 As they traveled from town to town, they delivered the decisions
reached by the apostles and elders in Jerusalem for the people to obey.
20:17 From Miletus, Paul sent to Ephesus for the elders of the church.
1TI 4:14 Do not neglect your gift, which was given you through a prophetic
message when the body of elders laid their hands on you.
5:17 The elders who direct the affairs of the church well are worthy of
double honor, especially those whose work is preaching and teaching.
18 For the Scripture says, "Do not muzzle the ox while it is treading out
the grain," and "The worker deserves his wages."
19 Do not entertain an accusation against an elder unless it is brought by
two or three witnesses.
TIT 1:5 The reason I left you in Crete was that you might straighten out
what was left unfinished and appoint elders in every town, as I directed
you.
6 An elder must be blameless, the husband of but one wife, a man whose
children believe and are not open to the charge of being wild and
disobedient.
7 Since an overseer is entrusted with God's work, he must be blameless--
not overbearing, not quick-tempered, not given to drunkenness, not violent,
not pursuing dishonest gain.
8 Rather he must be hospitable, one who loves what is good, who is self-
controlled, upright, holy and disciplined.
9 He must hold firmly to the trustworthy message as it has been taught, so
that he can encourage others by sound doctrine and refute those who oppose
it.
JAM 5:14 Is any one of you sick? He should call the elders of the church
to pray over him and anoint him with oil in the name of the Lord.
1PE 5:1 To the elders among you, I appeal as a fellow elder, a witness of
Christ's sufferings and one who also will share in the glory to be
revealed:
2 Be shepherds of God's flock that is under your care, serving as
overseers--not because you must, but because you are willing, as God wants
you to be; not greedy for money, but eager to serve;
3 not lording it over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the
flock.
4 And when the Chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the crown of glory
that will never fade away.
5 Young men, in the same way be submissive to those who are older. All of
you, clothe yourselves with humility toward one another, because, "God
opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble."
You can avoid church services, but, if you are a Christian, membership in the universal church is automatic, and you cannot avoid it. God, not men, adds "those who are being saved" (Acts 2) to His church, which isn't a bricks-and-mortar institution under human control.
If the leaders where you attempted to worship are not teaching from the Word, find a fellowship of Christians who do. We are out there. Paul told the Hebrews not to give up meeting together. We need the power and encouragement that comes from like-minded believers.
"Jesus said He would only return when we came into a "unity of the faith," ...
Really? Can you tell me where He said that?"
I believe Jesus' point in Ephesians 4 was a discussion "12to prepare God's people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up 13until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ."
That's the first I've heard about returning then.
DustyMoment wrote: "Rather than deal with the corruption of God's word by these men, we choose to talk to Him directly and follow in His path as best we can."
I'm truly sorry you encountered such terrible men. I think Satan loves to pervert the church organizations from the inside--what better way to destroy than from within! That's why it's so important to pick elders and other church leaders so carefully. You know, many denominations today are preaching outright heresy at the highest levels, while their members are trying to stay true to God.
I encourage you to keep trying to find other like believers. They are out there, and I assure you it is very uplifting to be around other true Christians. Am I saying it's impossible to be a good Christian without joining a church? No! I know of Christians like yourself who don't like the formal, dry, nearly dead mainstream churches. But that doesn't mean you can't have Bible studies or other informal meetings with believers.
Sauron
Give this man a television station!
Sauron
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.