Posted on 08/06/2003 7:08:03 AM PDT by Miss Marple
With apologies for posting a vanity, but I wanted to put this theory up for serious discussion.
The gay movement in churches does, indeed force people out (along with other divisive liberal issues). I myself have left my life-long church, the Methodists, because of several doctrinal and political disagreements.
I have noticed that the gays are not lobbying in the Southern Baptists, nor in the Church of Christ, nor in the Assemblies of God. Now, one would on its surface think that it is because those churches are less susceptible to the message of "inclusiveness." That may be true, but there is another underlying reason as well, I think.
The mainline Protestant denominations, as well as the Roman Catholics, own a great deal of real estate and have fairly large bank accounts. The real estate (in Manhattan and Boston and other large cities across this nation) is owned by the denomination, not the individual congregation, and is worth hundreds of millions of dollars. An entire Episcopal congregation who wishes to split from the church and go independent must LEAVE the building, abandoning it to the gay-friendly people. This holds true for the Methodists as well, and I believe for the rest of the mainline denominations and the Roman Catholics.
On the other hand, most Southern Baptist congregations own their property individually. They can withdraw without losing the building, nor would they lose control of their bank accounts.
It seems to me that this is a concerted effort to not only shape public opinion but, more importantly, to control real estate and money. Money is used to sway political beliefs, push certain social issues, and shape public discourse.
If I wanted to control a lot of real estate and church bank accounts, so that the money could go to causes I believed in but were not supported by most of the congregants, I would choose to infiltrate the church with people whose presence would FORCE OUT those who have less radical views, and I would also be forcing them to leave the very expensive real estate, bank accounts, and endowments behind. I could then funnel money to groups like anti-war organizations without any objection.
It seems to me that there is a plan afoot to rob people who have donated their time and treasure (in some families' cases, for generations) to a congregation and church building, and secure the land and money for their own purposes.
In other words, this is about money as much as sex. Otherwise, why wouldn't these people simply start their OWN churches? I have not forgotten how once before we were distracted from the real evil by a story about sex.
They don't want to start their own churches, because they want the land, the buildings, and the money. I think this needs to be looked at with more attention to the financial side.
I also would like to point out that manay mainline churches also control large universities, and this also supports my theory that the issue is financial and political control, not simply sex.
Let us not forget that Satan comes as a thief in the night.
You're telling me what you WANT to believe and randomly applying the GReek to suit your view. USUALLY is not equal to ALWAYS and the one verse you quoted to me makes NO mention of money.
Here's your Hebrew verse:
Hebrews 13:5 states this:
[5] Let your conversation be without covetousness; and be content with such things as ye have: for he hath said, I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee.
Covetness just means to want something that doesn't belong to you. A POOR person can also COVET as well as a person of means wanting more. Worse yet it is referring to CONVERSATION.
1Tim.6:10, the verse that is closer to your concern:
[10] For the LOVE OF MONEY is the root of all evil: which while SOME coveted after, they have ERRED FROM THE FAITH, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.
Reading 1 Timothy states that the LOVE of MONEY (NOT LOVE of God) which SOME coveted after has caused them error in their faith and lead to sorrow.
SOME is not equal to ALL.
Job and Abraham are two of the WEALTHIEST men in the Bible and yet they remained true to GOD above and NOT distracted by their wealth.
Money in and of itself is NOT evil. It is HOW you use the wealth - serve God or serve yourself. To teach otherwise in NOT Biblically correct. In the Bible ABraham and Job were tow of the wealthiest men in the Bible with God's blessing.
You: "Then how did Paul claim authority over the various churches he wrote to...not the least of which was the Corinthian church?"
Me: Did you notice you have PAUL as the head of the Church and NOT Christ? THAT is what I was questioning. Paul claimed NO authority over ANY church. He guided them but certainly did NOT head these churches.
You: "Paul specificly says Christ is the head of the Church. Nevertheless, Paul's claim to authority is not restricted to any particular congregation, or do you dispute that? I gave the verse 1 Corinthians 5:3-5 to back it up. "
Me:Finally you supply a verse!!!
1 Corth. 5:3-5
[3] For I verily, as absent in body, but present in spirit, have judged already, as though I were present, concerning him that hath so done this deed,
[4] In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ,
[5] To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.
Me:Indeed Jesus Christ is the HEAD OF THE CHURCH not Paul. Paul was a sort of authority figure but by NO means headed ANY church. The Corthinans though especially troubled him.
You: If you want to be a heretic, that's your business, but asking for an answer that was already given is just childish.
Me: It's you who have been so childish and a tad confused. You never gave 1 COrth. 5:3-5 as a verse either. That is a lie. Name calling - a "heretic" is also childish as well as unChristian. Yeah, I'm real impressed with you ... .
See post 207.
Paul claimed NO authority over ANY church.
See post 207.
It's you who have been so childish and a tad confused. You never gave 1 COrth. 5:3-5 as a verse either. That is a lie. Name calling - a "heretic" is also childish as well as unChristian. Yeah, I'm real impressed with you ... .
"I know you are, but what am I" is the last gasp of a refuted sophist.
Furthermore, impressing you is not real high on my priority list. How convenient to retreat to the charge of name-calling when someone yells "stop thief."
Not once did I claim Paul was the head of the Church, yet you insist on imputing that to me. I'm pointing out the Church was intended to be a hierarchical structure with greater and lesser authorities not restricted to a local congregation. The examples in Scripture are myriad. That you refuse to acknowlege this fact is testimony to your a la carte approach to Biblical authority.
You can't do anything about what their fathers and grandfathers were like. You can do something about what "young women" think by strenuously opposing the "heads I win, tails you lose" character of feminine discourse.
It goes back generations when men don't take the headship of the home seriously.
How does one prove this assertion? If it were wrong, what evidence would you accept as conclusive?
I know that not all families are like that but many, many are, where the woman is more or less made to take the responsibility of leading the family, in church matters or other ways.
When was the last time you heard of a man being criticized as a control freak? In general, most men prefer much more autonomy than most women. Insisting women exercise that autonomy when she doesn't want to is not a failure of leadership; it's a exercise of prerogative.
I know that not all families are like that but many, many are, where the woman is more or less made to take the responsibility of leading the family, in church matters or other ways.
Thank you for the kind reply, but I think we are much farther than you think. I've read Proverbs 31 many times, and I've yet to see anything about the husband's leadership having anything to do with the wife's character. My personal observation is women "take responsibility" because they don't approve of the organizational structure men prefer. The "if you don't like the way I do it, you do it" mentality is closer to reality than any claim men are abdicating their role as head of the household.
We're not so far apart on this, my FRiend.
Thanks again.
Do you have any doubt this characteristic is restricted to women only guilty of adultery?
I couldn't agree more. It doesn't look that way because it isn't that way. Many will submit in concept, but rebel in practice...and quite frankly, men don't usually possess the verbal skills to contend with their wives in a debate. If she won't submit, she'll get her way...to her own detriment.
That always has been God's way though. If you rebel, you're on your own, and you will have perfectly reasonable excuses for rebelling.
Good Post from GWB; a little "fast and dirty" as a summation but accurate in great part. I'd mention, in addition to Pastoral pensions, the matter of Church Titles -- not merely the extraneous billions of dollars in "real estate holdings", in which Presbyterians are not generally as wealthy as Episcopalians anyway, but rather the actual Worship Sanctuaries (the "church building") of the Congregation itself. In the Mainline Presbyterian Church, these Titles are owned by the Denomination. Leave the Denomination, and not only does the Parson lose his Pension -- but the entire Church is quite literally "out on the street"!
Take the Rivermont Presbyterian Church, the largest Church in Lynchburg VA aside from Jerry Falwell's 22,000-member Thomas Road Baptist mega-church -- incidentally, both of which I attended very-irregularly during my "wandering years" (I was not a covenanted Presbyterian at the time) prior to joining the OPC. I think Rivermont's covenanted Membership runs about 4,000 (or more) -- far and away the largest Presbyterian Congregation in their Mainline Presby USA regional presbytery. The Congregation had discussed seceding from the Mainline Presby USA denomination for years, but always they faced an unpleasant choice -- leave the Denomination, and the Denomination keeps the church building: Suddenly they're begging the local High School to rent out their basketball gym and a few thousand folding chairs every Sunday Morning, and hoping the ACLU doesn't bust them for using "State Property". At initial glance, this reticence may seem "materialistic", but there's another way to look at it: how'd you like to be the Elder who has to tell a Presbyterian Widow that the $100,000 endowment her husband left to the Church for the expansion of the Church Library's section on Biblical Creationism, has just become the sole possession of the National Denomination's "Committee for the Invention and Advancement of Imaginative New Heresies"?? Not very palatable.
Eventually, in 2001, Rivermont decided to secede from the Mainline Presby USA denomination anyway, consequences be damned... I believe the final straw was the 213th General Assembly's vote in favor of recommending that the Presbyteries eliminate the "fidelity and chastity" provision from the constitutions of the Presbyterian Church. Will wonders never cease, I was amazed shortly thereafter when it was reported that the Denomination would allow the Rivermont Congregation to KEEP their $5 million+ Worship Sanctuary. Had the National Denomination (in the face of a virtually Unanimous secession vote on the part of Rivermont) deigned to show them Christian Mercy, and let them keep the "house" which they had built upon the Rock??
Well, apparently not so charitable as all that. I later came to understand that the "inside story" was that Rivermont was made to pay $1.5 Million in "ecclesial arrears" -- or some such horse-puckey -- as the price of secession (pure Blackmail; Rivermont was not "in arrears", they were the financial sugar-daddy of the entire Regional Presbytery). Basically (from what I understand), Rivermont ended up having to go into a Legal "mexican standoff" against the National Denomination, and the Denomination backed down and decided to "settle out-of-court" for 30 cents on the dollar.
A steep price for Rivermont to pay for an Investment which the Congregation, not the Denomination, had already paid off 100%; but that's the price of bucking the Liberals. You know, those nice Christian Socialists who "don't care about filthy lucre", and all.
Gary North's excellent book, referenced by GWB, is available online for free, here:
Purely as a matter of Baptist-Presbyterian academic interest, I note in passing that the Orthodox Presbyterian Church has incorporated two substantive changes which differentiate us from 19th Century American Presbyterianism.
Both changes are (arguably) Baptistic in character.
So we OPC-ers must acknowledge our debt to the Baptists (or, together with Baptists, acknowledge our mutual debt to the Bible) in overcoming these Old Presbyterian deficiencies. Does this mean that the Baptists have all the right answers?
Well, I dunno about all that. I think that the diligent Baptist will find that many of the better Baptist Scholars endorse the Presbyterian theory of "multiple-elder" governance for the Local Churches, and not the "single-pastoral" model which is all-too-prevalent in many Baptist churches -- sheesh, even Jesus Christ had His under-shepherds. And I further suspect that, given the ongoing (and successful) Reconquista of the Southern Baptist Confession by the orthodox-calvinist "Founders' Movement", traditionalist Baptists like GWB may soon have reason to envy the OPC's Canon Law authority to define communion:
I suspect that Baptists and Presbyterians still have much to learn from eachother (Indeed, as I admit, the OPC has adopted a small amount of "baptistic" thinking already). Maybe we have to -- John Calvin himself married a Baptist; and while, after 500 years, we still have our disagreements, it is in no way a vainglorious exaggeration to say that Presbyterian Calvinists and Reformed Baptists remain the only two Confessions to consistently uphold the essentials of the Reformed Faith.
Ever the Odd Couple; ever the Reformed. (grin)
best, OP
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.