Replies

I'm sorry to hear of your past sufferings at the hands of ungodly men working as wolves among the sheep to rob Jesus of His inheritance in the saints; nothing I have written should be construed as supportive of such. I can understand about the use of empty ritual to the exclusion of relationship with Jesus Christ. But I would add this: "empty ritual" could be ritual in ANY form; from "high church" to street preaching, including the forms that are being used in this "Momentum" congregation. So, since the form isn't what we are supposed to be testing, but the spirit behind it, we ought not fall into the trap of judging a particular form -- whether liturgy, modern music, comedic skits, or whatever -- as "empty ritual" based only upon its outward appearence.

Unfortunately, there's a WHOLE lot of condemnation being lavished upon the ritual forms being employed at that church, accusing them of being empty, or worse, simply because of their outward appearance. To that I strenuously object.

Hopefully you won't be as argumentative and sarcastic as you have been judging from all your lengthly posts, to me and others on this forum.

My arguments, and their length, and even the sarcasm, arise from the fact that people are accusing somebody -- probably a brother in Christ -- of sin, when he isn't demonstrably guilty of any. They've taken issue with his use of skits and comedy bits in church, because that offends their flesh, and they've ranted and railed against the man over it. But, since when is it scriptural to accuse one among the brethren -- or even an unbeliever for that matter -- of sin JUST because he does something that offends our flesh? Besides, are we not more mature in Christ than that?

Still, If some want to go down that road, I can employ sarcasm to great spiritual gain, for does not the cross, itself, offend our flesh? After all, what could be more offensive that someone subjecting his own innocent son to such a horrific and bloody death? Yet, this is our God we're talking about, here! If some would castigate this pastor for his choice of communicative methods, perhaps they ought also rant and rail against God for chosing the method of the cross to communicate His love toward us? Perhaps The Almighty Creator ought to have chosen a less offensive method; one we'd like more. If words can be found to criticize a man -- again, likely a brother in Christ -- for using comedic sketches and contemporary music to communicate the love of God in a church service, surely some verbiage can be dredged up with which to condemn God's choice to to use the tortuous stigma of a criminal's cross to effect our salvation.

I engage this stinging sarcasm -- desparaging the view, mind you, not the ones who espouse it -- because it drives my point to the very hilt: castigating methods as sinful that are not inherently sinful, is, at the very least, scrupturally unsupported, and is, in some cases, wholly infernal.

No believer in his or her right mind can condone what God condemns. I have found the Way, the Truth and the Life. I am a Believer. You don't have to sell to me or bully me into believing exactly as you do.

True, but believers, most all in their right minds, frequently condemn what God condones, because we are yet imperfect in our flesh, and prone to such errors. Still, we must resist doing that, and my exhortations to cut it out are not properly construed as "bullying", although they may be somewhat accurately classifiable as "selling', to the extent I'm trying to get people to buy into the idea of extending the same grace they've received in Christ Jesus instead of making those errors.