[OBW]

I am not sure how to read the posting by aron of these diatribes from this external party. I note that there are careful definitions provided that, if accepted as correct, could lead somewhere in the vicinity of where the source intends to go with them.

(I'm looking mostly at #16)

But, for example, noting that "ekklesia" infers some kind of "body politic" and therefore makes "church" a bad thing is really a kind of equivocation. We start by establishing that the use of "ekklesia" was not simply of a word with a singular meaning. It may be that its most common use was of a group that came together within a region, city (whatever) to negotiate/legislate/rule. But that was not the meaning that was intended when Jesus spoke of building his "ekklesia." So to force that back into the discussion is a little disingenuous (being generous).

Now in this particular post, the guy has a laundry list of times/issues where the leadership of the more global organization of churches have taken rather ignoble stances, and where people, being the fallen things that we are, have used misapplication of religious texts to justify heinous things. The thing is that in almost all of these cases, the real issue is that there were those who wanted to do those heinous things, or be the absolute leaders, and searched for ways to wrestle the religious texts into conformity with their desires.

In other words, they had a goal and went seeking for a way to force the documents that outwardly guided their morality to conform to the morality that they wanted rather than letting the morality of their religious texts guide them. I doubt that any of the things or politics or war pointed to were started because good religious people were reading their bibles (or whatevers) and found that they should go out and destroy everyone not in agreement with them. (Well, there may be some religions that actually have those commands, but not Judaism or Christianity.)

War is war. The comments about WWI and WWII were ridiculous. Finding that there are Christians on both sides is not news. They were not fighting each other for religious reasons. Both sides may have prayed for their own victory and/or safety. And both may have considered God to be on their side. But the cause and driving forces were not religious. Even most wars that put on religious faces are really wars of greed, pride, revolt, etc. The religion is mostly just part of the cultural differences that keep them from finding peaceful solutions. But the solutions are political, not religious.

The Bible was mostly silent on the issue of slavery. But its emphasis would eventually lead to the end of the institution. But in no way did it suggest the armed overthrow of one in favor of the other.

And neither does the church. Except to the extent that it is populated by fallible people with fallible thoughts and goals.

The problem is not the church. It is not simply church leadership. It is not denominations nor the RCC (and/or the EOC). That the Greek and Roman popes would excommunicate each other is evidence of the stupidity of man. It is not evidence of the failure of the church. Neither had authority to condemn the other to hell in the first place.

The church is not a "body politic" in the negative sense that the writer claimed. Man may create aspects of politics within it, but that is not the church.

Separate the wheat from the chaff. To a great degree, this kind of separation is happening all around. Not uniformly nor in all places or all aspects. But those who would direct you to the next version of the "this is it" church want you to distrust all others. The next LRC is just a dung heap of rhetoric away. Throwing the very term "church" under the bus is sounding like the next Witness Lee, or Troy Brooks, or even (dare I say) cult leader of much more dangerous designs. They are boldly declaring that red is grey and yellow white. And they don't want you to even think about whether you have your own opinion on the subject.