[Cal]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

You are addressing the point of "no organization" which is not my point at all.
It means no human organization, it is led by the Spirit. The organization is according to the Spirit and the Word. Just like the Spirit chose Paul and the elders for each church. It means God's way or the highway.

Here's what LCMers do. They put together a conference and claim it was done totally organically in the Spirit. Then they see some non-LCM group put together a conference and they say it's just "human organization."

You can't get much more self-serving than that.

Do you think you know what is "human organization" and what isn't for everyone else? Just take care of yourself, Evangelical. Stop presuming to be the Organization Nazi for everyone else. Like I said, you're not smart enough to pull that one off, even if you were taking NZT.

What is this "real work" you speak of? Marrying gays? Blessing animals? Intra-church prayer? Yes with muslims and buddhists too in many cases. "multi-faith services". Give me a break. It seems you are oblivious to the world situation.

You know what I meant. I'm talking about leading people to Christ and shepherding them in the truth. You seem oblivious to the thousands of community churches that obey the Bible and don't do the bad things you pointed out. Just because you can find some bad examples doesn't mean everyone does it. You are painting with too broad a brush.

Besides, you are equivocating. Are we talking about churches being invalid because they are not city churches, or because they are degraded? Which is it? When we point out the LCM's degraded history of abuse and shenanigans you appeal to their "proper stance." When we point out that churches don't have to be city churches you appeal to the degradation of some. You are playing both sides of the fence. Back and forth. It's not a good argument.

Even Lee pointed out that though the Corinthian church was degraded it was still a church. The churches in Pergamos and Thyatira were degraded (some in Thyatira even held to "the deep things of Satan," yikes!). But they were still churches. Why were they still churches? Because they were on "the ground?" So are you arguing that you can be degraded, but as long as you are on the ground you are still a church? Are you arguing that if you are not on the ground then you must have a much higher standard to be a church than one that is on the ground, that being on the ground gives you the right to be more degraded?

I'm not saying I like the moral situation with all churches. I'm saying I don't have the wisdom or insight to decide if any practical church is viewed by God as not a church. Now when I watch videos of the LGBT churches online and hear their dead, new-agey, mixed-up sermons I can begin to think, well, maybe that's not a church. But by and large the problems you are citing are not problems with most mainstream churches. Most churches, especially evangelical community churches, are pure in regard to these things. I visit churches in my area regularly and if one of them married gays I would stop going.

So I think you need to stop being so general with your accusations. Be specific about which churches you are accusing. Stop painting with such a broad brush. It's not fair, it's reckless and it just muddles the discussion. Be specific.

You are all over the place in this argument. If we are talking about the local ground being a determiner of what is a church let's do it. If we are talking about purity being a determiner let's do that. And if you are going to talk about degradation then you need to address the degradation in the LCM. But you are going back and forth and not making a very good case either way.

If homeless people can live in a park, then you can have church in a park, why not?

Because it's not going to happen, not without a lot of organization anyway. We have what we call Church Under the Bridge in Austin. It's a Sunday meeting for homeless people under an overpass in downtown Austin. I've attended. Once you get used to the smells and strange characters you can deal with it. But it takes a lot of organization to pull off. But it's a good work. God is there. Given your penchant for judgmentalism you'd probably find something wrong with it, though. Probably that it has too much organization.

You say it is like an idealogical pipe dream. So then much of the Bible is an idealogical pipe dream. Walked on water yet? moved a mountain yet? Raised a dead chicken yet? Jesus said "ye shall" do that, have you?

I have faith that God can do anything. But your holding out for your ideal is not an act of faith, it's just a device by which you condemn everyone else and reserve valid status for you and yours. If you really had faith you'd be doing positive works to make it happen, instead of condemning everyone else because it hasn't happened.

And raising dead chickens? Is that like blessing animals?