Tulip Girl left this quote on the last Muffin thread in response to someone else’s question and several of us thought it deserved its own thread for discussion.
“One of the things the the Lord did in my life during our time in Ukraine was help point out in my own heart and life how many of my OWN ideas were not from the Bible, as I thought they were–but were instead reflections of the Generic North American Protestant (GNAP) subculture. GNAP is something Hubby has written about a lot in the past, and yet it took being submerged in another culture for me to see how much I mixed Biblical truths with subculture ideals.”
What are some of the “subculture ideals” that Christians in the U.S. tend to confuse with Biblical truth? How do we recognize these as they are so ingrained in us as Americans? How do we address those cultural differences as Christians?
Please post your thoughts, questions, testimonies, experiences here.
April 8, 2008 at 10:20 am
Tulip Girl,
Thank you for your comment. I think GNAP sounds interesting and would like to read some of your husband’s writings on this topic. Could you please provide a link?
April 8, 2008 at 10:57 am
From Tulip Girl’s blog, brief reference to GNAP:
http://www.tulipgirl.com/mt/archives/000628.html#comments
April 8, 2008 at 12:17 pm
I think Independence is one of the biggest ones – the “pull yourself up by your own bootstraps” American mentality that is veiled as “Christian” with phrases like “God is enough” and “God helps those who help themselves”.
‘Going it on our own’ is far from a Christian ideal- we’re created for community, and created to need others, and share our gifts and resources. There’s nothing ‘Christian’ about doing everything yourself, needing help from no person.
April 8, 2008 at 1:04 pm
I also think the matter of dress/modesty is a very culturally related thought. Modesty means a different type of clothing in different cultures.
Music is another area that seems to get quite a bit of attention in some conservative circles. Basically in some teachings, only European classical style or the older hymns are appropriate for worship. Drums are not allowed in church. I find no Biblical basis for this and personally enjoy music from around the world.
April 8, 2008 at 2:52 pm
Going along with music, in my church (Orthodoxy as a whole, not the church I attend) we do not have instruments. The music is totally a capella. And if you go to a Greek or Antiochian church, your music will sound very middle-eastern and strange to our western ears.
There are a number of other things that I can think of, but I have to run to church!
April 8, 2008 at 2:53 pm
Church, man, my brain is going. Class, class. *rolls eyes at self*
April 8, 2008 at 3:10 pm
I really like this question. It made me really think!
The one thing I can think of right now, and it isn’t so much a GNAP thing, but something that our church’s marriage and family ministry does.
My husband and I are trained “marriage mentors” through a program that teaches egalitarian relationships in our church, and we were discussing how this might translate to Egyptians, if we were to take some of the teachings there.
The Egyptian culture is patriarchal in nature, not due to Biblical, but Koranic principles. But it’s a very culturally ingrained thing as well. We would have to seriously modify some of the “practices” that our church HERE teaches in order for them to work for Egyptians. I can’t think of a specific example, but Americans do have a different way of looking at marriage than Egyptians–divorce is rarely EVER an option among Egyptian Christians, so the way we would work on a marriage would change, even if the marriage was “on the rocks.” The couple would just “live with it” rather than divorce.
I’ll have to ask my husband what he thinks about the question when he gets home. I bet he could come up with quite a few things, having been in churches there and here.
I also think that from one area of the country to another–within the same denomination–there are vast cultural differences that play a part in our beliefs. (Think Southern California vs. Mississippi)
It’s so hard to be a “global” Christian when your viewpoint is very culturally influenced!
April 8, 2008 at 3:37 pm
From the P.O.V of an outsider looking in (and I don’t want to offend anyone here)perhaps one of the biggest issues with what I see when I look at some Christian circles, and one of the biggest issues where culturally the GNAP mindset crosses the bible is the prevalent last-century-patriarchal-pseudo-agrarian visionary dream world that is presented as the only biblical way to live, as if God wants all true Christians to live on isolated farms in the country, keep to their own type and race of people, home school, home church, and wait for the Rapture or whatever.
This is a direct throwback, as I see it, to the reclusive mindset of the Pilgrim Fathers who took their ideas and families away from the sinfulness of England to live God’s word in a rural paradise, occasionally converting a few ‘heathen’ on the way, or often more conveniently forgetting that they too were God’s chosen people, treating them as worthless, and using quasi-Biblical assumptions about who the chosen people were to rob them of land health and livelihood. (Don’t worry, the English were guilty too! We did it all over the world.)
It is as if by recreating this agrarian lifestyle from a culturally desirable past, and making it appear one that is biblically mandated, modern Christians can partake of an almost pre-lapsarian purity, when in fact there is nothing sacred about any lifestyle, and this lifestyle in itself cannot justify or sanctify.
In reality, an agrarian lifestyle was back-breakingly hard; the life expectancy in rural communities was low, especially for women in childbirth, and with high rates of crippling accidents in young men and rheumatoid and arthritic problems once men hit 40. There was no real intrinsic virtue in that lifestyle – yes it was close to nature, but so is the tick that carries Lyme disease and the malaria-carrying mosquito. Modesty was more often a function of covering up against the weather, sex was taken as a matter of fact, and far from this first kiss business, among true rural communities it was often considered a good thing for the bride to be pregnant on marriage as it proved her fertility. Frugality and thrift, far from being a biblically mandated standard with which to beat neighbours over the head, were a simple matter of trying to ensure that you didn’t starve when the harvest failed. You procreated prolifically because you had no choice, because you needed labour for the land, and because the only insurance against a poverty stricken old age was having a few children left remaining after Death the Leveller had had his choice of your babes. Literacy was minimal, although there were usually some literate people in every community, and often many farmers and rural people memorised astonishingly long passages of Holy Scripture, and were truly devout and Christ-loving people.
This was no pre-lapsarian idyll at all; there was just as much backbiting, sin, and abuse as there is now, as humans haven’t changed that much, and we are still able to lead good lives only insofar as we are in grace. Ignorance, fear of the other, and prejudice were rife in rural cultures, and led to horrific events such as the witch trials in Salem. (They led to them in England too – you don’t have a monopoly – just to reassure that I’m being even handed.)
(It’s also interesting that one of the first thing ‘less developed cultures’ seem to do when they hit Westernisation, is to suffer an irreviersible drift – well, more flood, really, away from that supposedly idyllic agrarian lifestyle. This is becasue it’s harder work to work your **** off hoeing a field (My grandmother was a farmer’s wife, and I remember seeing her at 70 spudding up thistle roots in a field, wielding a slasher with the sweat dripping off her, and her chest wheezing – yes, I did help of course – and that was no plate of roses I can assure you. It was back and heart-breaking). Given the choice people choose an easier, less damaging lifestyle, that won’t leave you crippled, infested with parasites and blind from onchochariasis at 50. Playing at an agrarian lifestyle is a luxury for upper middle class Christians with good financial back-up, plenty of insurance and a health service. The tragedy is that they sell it as the only biblically mandated way of living to gullible, innocent people without that back up who will be broken and down and out in a generation.
In a way, your Christian patriarchs who hold up this culturally respectable lifestyle as close to God’s plan for man remind me of the French aristocrats who played at being sylvan shepherds and shepherdesses, silk and satin dressed, and spouting sentimental poetry, while all around them the starving mob cried for bread and festered in dirt and ignorance and poverty. The French aristocrats looked back fondly to an innocent Arcadian past to shield themselves from the disaster of their society; Vision Forum type Christians justify their isolationism and exclusionism by maintaining that the lifestyle they lead, which is based on the myth of an idyllic agrarian past where each man was an island – is biblically mandated as the only pure way to live; and one of the ways they do this by selectively choosing scriptures to support their cause. They conveniently forget that the bible uses agrarian analogies because biblical Israel was an agrarian community. And like the French aristocrats, they frequently deride the sinfulness of the ‘masses’ and their irredeemable status (I was horrified by the comments about those poor people fleeing hurricane Katrina and what they were or weren’t wearing) as an excuse both to isolate themselves from contagion, and to avoid acknowledging any of their, and our collective responsibility for all the needy both in mind, body and spirit. And their mandate is culturally, not biblically directed
One thing they also seem to forget is that a major spread of Christianity was in the noisiest, least agrarian, smelliest, most unsavoury city in the world, a city where many people lived in insulae, blocks of flats with no plumbing or cooking facilities, and where those people who embraced Christianity and Jesus’ message of hope, faith and love were socially the lowest of the low. They were not the landowners, the ruling classes, the rich Duggars who made money from trading in real estate or finance. They were the dispossessed: the urban poor, the racially different, and the broken. I’d like to see what outreach to these people happens today – it’s biblically mandated, but doesn’t fit the cultural sub-set of agrarian self-sufficiency Pilgrim Father beliefs and ideals.
Unfortunately, the GNAP and Vision Forum (and I know these are not coterminous) mindset bears little resemblance to Christ’s and more to the Pilgrim Fathers’ –
and while the Pilgrim Father were doubtless devout, god-fearing and well meaning, they had fallen prey to that excusivity and fear of the other which is the price you pay for focusing too closely on your own personal salvation balance sheet, constantly totting up your assets and liabilites – Asset 1 – I bake my own bread: Liability 1 – I wore trousers on Tuesday – and not closely enough on what Christ told us to do and be. Yes, we believe and are justified by faith, but it doesn’t make us in any way superior to those who are not. Only Christ is above us all.
And to return to the GNAP mindset, (which could be increasingly also GBP (Generic British Protestantism) one of its main issues is a presumption that by existing it is automatically axiomatically culturally superior – normative if you like – and other cultures haven’t quite got it – a modern version of the Pilgrim Fathers’ religious superiority. It is always instructive to consider the ways in which other cultures consider us inferior – Roma gypsies in England consider the Gorgio filthy, because they will wash clothes and themselves in the same receptacle; (ever washed out socks, or a pair of child’s knockers in a sink – I mean basin?) an almost Levitical sense of scrupulous cleanliness, and far nearer to Levitical mandates of cleanliness that anything we subscribe to today. So culture crossing or conflicting with biblical mandates cuts both ways – we tend to pick and choose what suits us culturally and justify it by associating it with the bible. Where it doesn’t suit us culturally, we ignore it. (I don’t see Doug Phillips with a long beard, and that’s definitely a clear contravention of biblical mandate!)
Sorry about long post – hope I haven’t bored you to death.
April 8, 2008 at 3:40 pm
bother – knickers, I meant knickers, or briefs, or underpants or what ever you call them
(blushes, feeling stupid)
April 8, 2008 at 4:53 pm
Joanna,
I thought your comments were really interesting – all of them.
‘those people who embraced Christianity and Jesus’ message of hope, faith and love were socially the lowest of the low. They were not the landowners, the ruling classes, the rich Duggars who made money from trading in real estate or finance. They were the dispossessed: the urban poor, the racially different, and the broken. I’d like to see what outreach to these people happens today – it’s biblically mandated, but doesn’t fit the cultural sub-set of agrarian self-sufficiency Pilgrim Father beliefs and ideals.’
This reminded me of what the Bible says regarding how it is often the rich who oppress us and how not to be guilty of prejudice on financial grounds. And, of course, as you say, many of the disciples and early Christian converts were social outcasts and could never be described as rich men or women (fishermen, lepers etc.).
I’m definitely not advocting a viewpoint that says that it’s inherently noble or Christian to be poor, but I definitely cannot see any Biblical evidence for suggesting that the poor and ‘different’ should be made even more vulnerable, for example, by taking away their right to vote.
There are some, in Christian (patriachal?) circles that claim that, while voting should be restricted to landowners, the Church church should still be responsible for helping those that are disabled, the widows, abandoned wives etc.
But what could be more patronising than ‘helping’ people while simultaneously taking away their right to make decision about their own lives?
I doubt that any person challenged by a disability etc. would thank his ‘benefactors’ for treating him like a child.
April 8, 2008 at 4:56 pm
I remember hearing my church in England owned the pub next door. (I’ve never been able to find concrete evidence that this was true. It may have been a church member.)Everyone went there after church for a pint and some good (usually theological) discussion. I had moved past my hyper-conservative upbringing which said alcohol was evil, but it was still something lesser, and you had to be very careful not to offend by drinking it around Christians who thought it was unbiblical. Liturgical worship and living abroad has helped me see “the fruit of the vine” as one of God’s good created things. And fortunately, just like a multitude of other good things, some pervert and misuse and cause confusion about its goodness.
April 8, 2008 at 5:55 pm
A great book to read about this concept… which is not just rooted in our US culture but much of what we do in Church is borrowed from culture not scripture…
Pagan Christianity by George Barna and Frank Viola.
Examples:
-Where in NT scripture do we see a special ‘church building’?
-Where in scripture do we see ONE pastor speaking for 30 minutes?
-Where do we see the attendees as ’spectators’ to others ‘performing worship’?
-Where does the pulpit come from?
-Where does a cracker and juice come from?
-Where is meeting on Sunday?
-Where did Sunday School come from?
April 8, 2008 at 7:03 pm
Fascinating discussion everybody.
They usually all are, but this one has a different flavor and is a bit more pleasant…
April 9, 2008 at 2:21 pm
Good comment, TulipGirl.
My father retired from his pastorate here in the U.S. when he was 50 and he and my mother went to South Africa as missionaries, where they planted two churches over the next 20 years in Durban and Richards Bay.
When they left the US, they were strongly opposed to contemporary music (even at home), promoting only the use of European Baroque through Impressionistic era music and hymns from the approved hymnal. They would not allow the use of guitars (even acoustic), drums, or electric keyboards in the church.
After spending 20 years in South Africa, they returned to the States with a very different attitude about this. Their tastes had not changed, but they now understand that their tastes are not mandated by scripture. They told me that they realized pretty quickly that they were forcing a uniquely Western musical view on people who were not particularly Western in their culture. And my parents have benefitted greatly by having their tastes opened to new cultural styles of music.
April 12, 2008 at 9:49 pm
-Where does a cracker and juice come from?
-Where is meeting on Sunday?
-Where did Sunday School come from?
Well, I can’t speak for all of these, but Sunday worship is found in the Bible and has been in practice (though not exclusively) since the time of the apostles.
From Wikipedia:
“The short document known as the Didache,”…. (refers to the sacrifice of the Eucharits being held on the Lord’s day)…”: “On the Lord’s Day come together, break bread and hold Eucharist, after confessing your transgressions that your offering may be pure; but let none who has a quarrel with his fellow join in your meeting until they be reconciled, that your sacrifice be not defiled.”
A form of “Sunday School” also was prevalent in Biblical times, since in Judaism “church” was divided between the worship service, and the teaching service; it is thought that the first Christians followed this same model.
and we can thank folks like Carrie Nation for that one. As far back as the first century, the Communion was considered a sacrament where bread and honest to goodness alcoholic wine were mystically transformed into the Body and blood of Christ:
As for crackers and juice, well, that’s pure GNAP, done up Southern style,
From Wikipedia:
A letter by Saint Ignatius of Antioch of about the same date as the Didache is an example of a Church authority (a bishop) defending[19] belief in the Eucharist as the same body and blood in which Christ died and was raised again. Ignatius’s teaching was directed against the Gnostics, who denied the reality of Christ’s body and blood and of his death, since they considered he was an immaterial spiritual being. Writing to the Christians of Smyrna, in about 106, he warned them to “stand aloof from such heretics”, because, among other reasons, “they abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again.”[20]
In about 150, Justin Martyr wrote of the Eucharist: “Not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.”[21]
April 13, 2008 at 7:24 am
[...] reading my mind’s response, only with much more insight and a FAR greater level of depth, Joanna from England writes [emphasis mine] a stunning observation below. From the P.O.V of an outsider looking in (and I [...]
April 13, 2008 at 7:40 am
What an EXCELLENT comment from Joanna in England. WOW. I stole it and turned it into a blog post…hoping you don’t mind… That comment should be shouted from the roof tops. GOOD STUFF. Took my breath away.
April 13, 2008 at 2:55 pm
Cynthia,
The point is, where in the NC are we told to meet on Sunday? Is it a tradition or command?
Sunday school, as we know it today, was developed in England during the early industrial revolution to educate children who worked during the week and could not attend school. The churches sponsored it to teach children to read and write. the research on this cannot find where the early church had any such custom.
As NT scripture shows us, quite a bit of time was spent trying to eradicate the traditions and teachings of the Judaizers in the early church.
The point I was making is that we need to understand what is tradition verses commanded in the NC.
It is shocking to read that even our tradition of one man delivering a ’sermon’ comes from the tradition of Greek orators.
April 13, 2008 at 4:05 pm
Meeting on Sunday was not commanded, but it started as soon as the church did. My church meets Saturday night and Sunday, and we have no problem with either, because it’s NOT a command, but a long-standing tradition. The reason the church meets on Sunday is obvious, Christ rose from the dead on the first day of the week. In no other Jewish sect did their “Messiah” ever do this, and no other Jewish sect ever would have THOUGHT to change the day of worship to any other day but Sabbath/Saturday, but because of what Jesus did, this is why we meet on Sunday, rather than Saturday or any other day of the week. But you’re right that it’s not a specifically commanded thing, just commonly mentioned as the normal day of worship for Christians.
April 13, 2008 at 9:27 pm
“What are some of the “subculture ideals” that Christians in the U.S. tend to confuse with Biblical truth? How do we recognize these as they are so ingrained in us as Americans? How do we address those cultural differences as Christians?”
These are good questions. A few off-the-cuff thoughts:
- The American church has breathed in the spirit of democracy and thought it was the Holy Spirit. Though Calvinist and Reformed thought formed the core of Evangelical teaching at our nation’s founding, it quickly gave way to Arminian beliefs. In a nation founded on One Man-One Vote, the notion of God’s sovereignty in salvation just seems so. . . undemocratic. Which is one reason radical Free Will doctrines have thrived here.
- This democratic spirit also causes us to over-immanetize God. Democracy cannot abide hierarchies or “betters.” The God of the Bible (and Reformation Christianity) is both initimately immanent AND terribly transcendant. The God of GNAP, particularly in the last 20 years, has become an amiable sort of uncle. In the words of the T-Shirt they sell at my Christian bookstore, Jesus is My Homeboy.
- America has always been obsessed with novelty. We were birthed in the Enlightenment, and the new, the shiny and the improved move us to a degree not seen in other cultures. John Ruskin said he could never sleep a single night in America because it had no castles. Americans have little of that reverence for tradition. GNAP relentlessly seeks the “next move of God.” Its taste is for new experiences, new theologies and new methodologies. The historic legacy of Christianity is of little interest or value to GNAP.
Okay, I said all of this in very strong, sweeping terms. I wanted to make the point with bold outlines. Thankfully, there are a million exceptions to all of the points I just made. . . And praise God for that.
April 13, 2008 at 10:17 pm
GNAP relentlessly seeks the “next move of God.” Its taste is for new experiences, new theologies and new methodologies.
Mr. Tulipgirl (lol, I couldn’t resist), thanks for your comments. This brought to mind the introduction to Rick Warren’s Purpose Driven Church, in which he compared the local church to a surfer and the Holy Spirit to a wave. He said that Saddleback Community Church does not create the wave, they just wait and watch for it and then jump on it as soon as it comes along. This struck me as way to close to “tossed about by every wind of doctrine.”
April 13, 2008 at 11:39 pm
It is Occrams razor we walk. We also do not want to return to a compulsory state church and its magistrates of 1551 Geneva where it was thought that only a few were taught by the Holy Spirit.
April 13, 2008 at 11:41 pm
Boy, here’s a GREAT example of GNAP:
John MacArthur in a sermon:
Flying home from Charlotte, North Carolina the other night, the stewardess comes down the aisle and they’re serving, I don’t know, champagne breakfast, or whatever, and she said, “Would you like some champagne with your breakfast?” And I like orange juice, personally, and I’ve never had champagne anyway, so but, you know, just, you just kind of thought kind of enters your mind, “Wonder what that stuff tastes like?” But, of course, I said, “No, I don’t want any champagne.” And so the thing went down the aisle and it was a simple little thing.
And I stood up a little while later, just to kind of stretch and I was standing in the aisle and a guy about two seats back walks up and says, “I know you, you’re John MacArthur.” I said, “Right.” He said, “Oh, it’s so wonderful to meet you.” He said, “I’m studying for the ministry and I get the tapes,” and he went on and on with this wonderful testimony. He’s from Samoa, he came to the United States and he’s going to take all of our tapes to Samoa. And, you know, here was this thing and I just…you know. It just reminded me of how you may know when you’re being watched and you may not know when you’re being watched. And the pattern of your life is setting an example. And it’s so wonderful to be able to limit your liberty and know that it will strengthen someone else. In fact, he commented that he had been watching me through the whole flight and hoping for an opportunity to speak to me. So, that was a wonderful, wonderful reminder for me of the fact that people are always watching. And my visibility is certainly more severe than yours.
Full sermon here:
http://www.biblebb.com/files/MAC/80-24.HTM
NOW…WHAT THE HECK DOES having a small glass of alchohol have to do with being a Christian? Isn’t our Messiah that Guy who turned a bunch of big water urns into wine at the tail-end of a big wine-soaked party????? But in America, being a Christian (in the Baptist/fundie/charis/pentacostal circles) means you don’t drink alchohol.
April 14, 2008 at 12:11 am
“But in America, being a Christian (in the Baptist/fundie/charis/pentacostal circles) means you don’t drink alchohol.”
Or dance, or have long hair (if you’re a man.)
Funny thing — Samson and David couldn’t be members in good standing in churches like that. Heaven knows what they would think of John the Baptist and Jesus.
April 14, 2008 at 12:51 am
I love the whole “no-piercings” thing, too. Does ANYONE notice that one of the rings Isaac’s servant gave to Rebekkah (as a bridal gift) was a NOSE RING?
Oh, yeah, you gotta love that! We know at least one of the great Hebrew matriarchs had a pierced nose!
April 14, 2008 at 12:57 am
“Oh, yeah, you gotta love that! We know at least one of the great Hebrew matriarchs had a pierced nose!”
There was actually a period in 19th century America when some churches barred men from communion if they had BEARDS. . . Obviously though, this type of legalism isn’t parochial to GNAP. Think of the myriad rules the Catholics and Orthodox have placed upon the consciences of their adherents. . .
April 14, 2008 at 1:00 am
Yes, your entire witness and testimony would be thrown out the window…all those years of serving in the trenches and preaching from the pulpit would go to smoke and smithereens with ONE small glass of champagne.
This is why I can never go back to the Baptist church.
The anti-alcohol logic is so silly and stupid, really.
April 14, 2008 at 1:14 am
Heaven knows what they would think of John the Baptist
Okay- that’s where I draw the line. Anyone who eats locusts is definitely not a Christian.
April 14, 2008 at 1:40 am
Think of the myriad rules the Catholics and Orthodox have placed upon the consciences of their adherents.
Actually I grew up Catholic, and except for the SSPX (that’s the schismatic, excommunicated Catholic version of the HyperPatriarchs, see this one , and this one, they don’t have silly rules like that. Catholics pretty much wear what they like within the bounds of common decency, alcohol in moderation is OK, dancing is OK, and girls are encouraged to go to college.
April 14, 2008 at 1:43 am
“Okay- that’s where I draw the line. Anyone who eats locusts is definitely not a Christian.”
How about chocolate covered ants,
?
(“nobody loves me, ever-body hates me, guess I’ll go eat worms..”
)
April 14, 2008 at 1:44 am
RichardD-
“This brought to mind the introduction to Rick Warren’s Purpose Driven Church, in which he compared the local church to a surfer and the Holy Spirit to a wave.”
Exactly! I grew up in probably the most quintessentially American religion (aside from Mormonism)– the Word of Faith movement. Any church which worships the almighty dollar rather than the Almighty God will never want for parishioners here in the U.S. (Although we have no monopoly on greed, of course. The WoF is growing like crazy in the 2/3rds world as well.)
Anyway, the WoFers were constantly talking about this wave or that wave of the Spirit. God seemed to be doing a “new thing” just about every week. . . It is the perfect religion for the YouTube generation, one requiring constant, fresh stimulus.
April 14, 2008 at 1:44 am
#20,
I find your thoughts interesting. Any comments on the black church in the US and civil religion?
April 14, 2008 at 2:01 am
Theresea -
“Any comments on the black church in the US and civil religion?”
Hi there. . . I’m really reluctant to comment too pointedly on African-American churches, because while I’ve had a lot of experience in racially-mixed churches, I’ve spent a limited amount of time in churches which were predominately black.
I can share a few impressions, though. My -very general- impression is that black Evangelicals share many of the same characteristics I outlined when speaking of white Evangelicals. They seem just as prone to “democratic” and novelty-seeking theology and practice as white Evangelicals.
It seems to me that the influence of the Social Gospel and Liberation Theology movements have made deeper inroads into African-American Evangelical churches than they have into white churches, where the Social Gospel and liberationism are mainly confined to the liberal mainline churches. . . These movements bring whole truckloads of cultural assumptions and prescriptions that have little to do with the Bible.
The most uniquely “American” element of black churches, I would think, would be sadly due to the pernicious legacy of slavery and racism. That would be the strong identification of the black community with the Egyptian-captivity era of Israel. I don’t know that that’s an entirely bad thing, but it certainly is culturally American.
What are your thoughts on the topic?
Nice ‘meeting’ you, btw. . .
April 14, 2008 at 2:03 am
comment with a bunch of links stuck in moderation…
April 14, 2008 at 2:08 am
Theresea -
I did blog a few of my thoughts on the black church awhile back, during the Rev. Wright situation. They don’t speak directly to the GNAP topic, but do address the role of the black church in American society.
http://conservativeintelligencer.com/the-black-value-system-babies-and-bathwater/46/
April 14, 2008 at 3:41 am
[...] Discerning Biblical Truth from Generic North American Protestantism (GNAP) Rome blogging from Cranky Professor. Scientists [...]
April 14, 2008 at 8:01 am
Concerning comment 20,
I thought the point that was being made in the sermon, was NOT that drinking alcohol is sinful, but that if ‘your brother’ considers that drinking alcohol is sinful, it is wrong of you to make him stumble by exercising your liberty in front of him.
Consider the 16th line of the second paragraph of your quote:
‘ And it’s so wonderful to be able to limit your liberty and know that it will strengthen someone else.’
Limiting your liberty out of love in order to strengthen your brother or sister is a BIBLICAL IDEA – not a GNAP idea.
The kingdom of heaven is about more than food or drink, it is about sacrificing your own preferences/comfort/convenience for the sake of others.
Consider also that he alludes to the special responsibility (not to make others stumble) of those who are in public teaching/preaching positions:
The last line of your quote:
‘And my visibility is certainly more severe than yours.’
And I stood up a little while later, just to kind of stretch and I was standing in the aisle and a guy about two seats back walks up and says, “I know you, you’re John MacArthur.” I said, “Right.” He said, “Oh, it’s so wonderful to meet you.” He said, “I’m studying for the ministry and I get the tapes,” and he went on and on with this wonderful testimony. He’s from Samoa, he came to the United States and he’s going to take all of our tapes to Samoa. And, you know, here was this thing and I just…you know. It just reminded me of how you may know when you’re being watched and you may not know when you’re being watched. And the pattern of your life is setting an example. And it’s so wonderful to be able to limit your liberty and know that it will strengthen someone else. In fact, he commented that he had been watching me through the whole flight and hoping for an opportunity to speak to me. So, that was a wonderful, wonderful reminder for me of the fact that people are always watching. And my visibility is certainly more severe than yours.
Full sermon here:
http://www.biblebb.com/files/MAC/80-24.HTM
April 14, 2008 at 8:04 am
Sorry about the long post – I didn’t realise that I hadn’t deleted the quote that I had copied from Molleth’s post.
April 14, 2008 at 8:09 am
My apologies yet again (I’m sleep deprived as we’re moving):
The original quote was in comment 23, not 20.
April 14, 2008 at 8:15 am
It might be intersting to consider the CONTEXT of the quote in comment 23.
Following the link that was provided, I found that the paragraph preceding the one that was just quoted states:
‘In Romans chapter 14, where we have been, from verse 13 on that’s the whole thing. Don’t put a stumbling block or occasion to fall in your brother’s way. If your brothers grieve with your food, change your food. That’s what it says. Follow after the things, verse 19, that make for peace and build each other up and don’t destroy the work of God in his life because of your food. Don’t eat meat or drink wine or do anything that makes your brother stumble, be offended or made weak.’
And THEN he goes on to say: ‘ Flying home from Charlotte, North Carolina ….’
April 14, 2008 at 8:25 am
Interstingly enough, the context of the entire sermon is on how to make decisions on the gray areas in the Bible – those that are not sin issues.
Full sermon here:
http://www.biblebb.com/files/MAC/80-24.HTM
One of the principles that are given is that we should refrain from doing certain things in certain contexts – even if those ‘things’ are not sin – if to do these things would offend one of our weaker brothers. This idea is taught clealy in the Bible and Paul himself was an example of such behaviour.
My concern is that when someone’s words are quoted outside of their defining context, it is possible to misrepresent what they are saying.
April 14, 2008 at 9:33 am
Irene,
I really appreciate your comments. I had to pause when I first read them because I have heard MacArthur speak on this subject before and knew that his personal reasoning was because he didn’t want his own liberty to become a stumbling block to others.
There are many of us who have chosen personal abstinence in the use of alcohol for the same Biblical reasons.
Years ago, my husband and I made this decision for the two of us. My husband grew up in an alcoholic home and he witnessed first hand terrible abuses because of the way alcohol was viewed and used. It caused him to really desire to never be a stumbling block to anyone who might struggle in this area. Since he was in sales at the time, he got to know hundreds of people in social situations and he saw huge numbers of people who saw alcohol only as a vehicle for getting drunk. In the sub-culture where he hoped to minister, he chose to be abstinent.
I spent 10 years counseling at a crisis pregnancy center and can honestly say that over 90% of the women and girls who came in with a crisis pregnancy told me that their misuse of alcohol contributed to their choice to have sex outside of marriage. Many of them admitted to me that they had drinking problems, some of them severe. In the subculture I was ministering in, abstinence was a wise choice for me.
I agree with MacArthur, people are always watching you if they know you are a Christian. And there are circumstances and subcultures where using alcohol becomes a misuse of your liberty. You just need to be sensitive to the leading of the Holy Spirit and to those the Lord has given to you to serve. Love and grace and mercy and how they are expressed always trumps liberty.
April 14, 2008 at 9:59 am
That mom,
I appreciated your comments too.
I think you expressed exactly what I was trying to say, only with more wisdom and grace. Thank you!
April 14, 2008 at 10:59 am
Hubby of Tulip Girl,
Welcome to True Womanhood and thanks for all the good thoughts already. I am looking forward to your thoughts.
I am glad that mentioned the role of the church within the black community. This has been one things that has really bothered me about all the “normative’ talk regarding girls and women. The influence of women within the black church has been and continues to be profound.
A couple years ago there was an article in our local newspaper about what was called the “Motherboard” that functions in many black churches. This is a group of women who are aware of the needs within the congregation, devise plans for meeting those needs, and then they carry them out. Because they are the ones who are in touch, their opinion and word is sacrosanct. I can’t imagine what would happen if some of the patriocentrsts tried to superimpose their lifestyles and views within that environment, calling it “normative.”
Since I don’t live within that subculture in my rural town, I would really be interested in hearing from someone who does and I would like their take on these “normative” views.
April 14, 2008 at 12:39 pm
“There was actually a period in 19th century America when some churches barred men from communion if they had BEARDS. . .”
I guess my dad would never get to take communion, then. He’s had a beard since he was 19 years old!
This whole conversation is very interesting to me. I think what strikes me the most about our churches is that even though we do talk about missions and focus on them somewhat, we understand very little about what goes on in the mission field–unless we go ourselves. I remember a professor in college talking about his years in Zimbabwe, and how so many of the men there had been “Americanized” in the way they dress. They wore their only suit and tie to church because previous missionaries had taught them that this was the “acceptable” thing to do. Where do we get that? I think cultural norms of dress are one of the biggest things that we try to force on mission churches, and I think it really needs to stop, because it can do more harm than good, really.
A word of caution, though, for anyone sharing. I realize that most commenters here come from a pretty similar fundamental background, and I know that dialog with other Christians means that we have different views sometimes. I come from a church that practices social justice and believes in practicing ALL the spiritual gifts. We are not one-sided, though. Our primary focus is the gospel and reaching the lost, but we do that in many ways. I don’t think anyone here has intentionally said anything negative about those things in particular, but it has come dangerously close in a few comments.
I’ve personally gone through somewhat of a revelation period recently, and realized that I need to follow the WHOLE New Testament (not that I didn’t know this before, I just didn’t KNOW it), particularly walking as Jesus walked. Jesus did social justice, he healed the sick, AND he preached the gospel–often in the same context. I have been re-reading the gospels because while I think that what Paul wrote is important, HE was just expanding on how to live as Christians, with Jesus as his example. My pastor did a great sermon this weekend talking about Matthew 25, and how the things mentioned in there are the “fruit” of people changed by Christ. I had never really considered it, but it really struck me how important it is to continue to ask God to transform us.
April 14, 2008 at 12:44 pm
” Many of them admitted to me that they had drinking problems, some of them severe. In the subculture I was ministering in, abstinence was a wise choice for me.”
It probably was a wise choice, given the situation.
Of course, if it weren’t for the way alcohol is viewed in the GNAP subculture — that alcohol is something sinful to be indulged in by sinful people, and that ANY alcohol use, however small or large, is excess — most of the culture of alcohol ABUSE would not exist today.
In Europe (excluding the British Isles), alcoholism exists (just as does gluttony, greed, etc), but the Carrie Nation mindset never took hold there, and most people know how to use alcohol correctly.
April 14, 2008 at 1:34 pm
Cynthia Gee-
“Actually I grew up Catholic, and . . .they don’t have silly rules like that.”
I agree that Catholics tend not to have silly rules about alcohol or dancing. It was one of the things that so scandalized Nativists when the Irish arrived.
When I mentioned “the myriad rules” the Catholics and Orthodox have placed on their people’s consciences, I was speaking to a much broader set of principles.
In my view, the alcohol and dancing rules made by Fundamentalists are a complete violation of their own Sola Scriptura beliefs. A Protestant believes that the Bible alone can bind our consciences, because it is the only authority for faith and practice.
Catholics and Orthodox have no doctrine of Sola Scriptura, and so the hierarchy is “authorized” to make fasts, abstinences, penances and a host of extra-biblical things binding law in the lives of believers. (Though clearly they’ve relaxed it a good bit since Vatican II.)
Does that make sense?
Abby-
Our missions work was with the PCA, and I came away really impressed by their approach. We spent almost four years overseas with the PCA, and went to a regional conference that included missionaries from Africa and the Middle East. Most of the missionaries I knew took contextualization very seriously, even when we didn’t practice it perfectly…
I think missions have changed a great deal in recent years outside of the PCA as well. There’s a LOT of discussion in missions literature about cultural sensitivity.
Not all missionaries have gotten the memo, of course. And many people back home still expect you to bring their vision of Christianity abroad. Hence the (non-PCA) man who wanted assurances from me that we would be teaching the King James Bible to Ukrainians. . . LOL.
“I come from a church that practices social justice. . .I don’t think anyone here has intentionally said anything negative about those things in particular, but it has come dangerously close in a few comments.”
If this is in relation to my Social Gospel comment, there’s a HUGE difference in my mind between the Social Gospel and simply working for social betterment in society. A healthy church has both piety AND social involvement. . .
And John Calvin would totally back me up on that, if only we could get him a DSL line. . .
thatmom-
“A couple years ago there was an article in our local newspaper about what was called the “Motherboard” that functions in many black churches.”
That sounds like a lot of southern white churches, actually. The old joke down south was that the church was run by one man and about five women. . .
“I can’t imagine what would happen if some of the patriocentrsts tried to superimpose their lifestyles and views within that environment, calling it ‘normative.’”
Since women make up 60%+ of most churches in the U.S., I can’t imagine them imposing it in too many places, period.
I’m a little out of my depth on the patriocentricity thing, though. From what I know of it, it’s out there on a fringe I tend to avoid entirely. Is it becoming a large movement?
All-
Thanks for letting me visit the Girl Nation for a day or two. I promise not to overstay my visa. Mind if I stick around another day?
April 14, 2008 at 2:13 pm
I don’t get the whole “normative” thing. Sounds like a made-up word to me, and it’s definitely NOT biblical. The church is full of diversity, and it troubles me when people expect all Christians to fit into some kind of mold. I think about the people Jesus called to himself. Illiterate fishermen, scandal-ridden tax collectors, demon possessed prostitutes, single mothers (widows), children, elderly, divorcees, etc–even the dead he called to himself–on more than one occasion! And he himself remained a single man. That doesn’t seem very ‘normative’ to me. Seems a little radical. How truly AWESOME is our savior.
April 14, 2008 at 2:15 pm
“Catholics and Orthodox have no doctrine of Sola Scriptura, and so the hierarchy is “authorized” to make fasts, abstinences, penances and a host of extra-biblical things binding law in the lives of believers. (Though clearly they’ve relaxed it a good bit since Vatican II.)”
They’ve relaxed things quite a lot since then, lol… But you are right about the extra-biblical things being binding law in the lives of Catholic believers. This is (quite correctly, I believe) based on the belief that this authority was promised to Peter, the other Apostles, and the bishops who would succeed them, when Jesus said, “Mat 16:19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven” and was actually transmitted to them after His resurrection when He breathed on them and said,”Receive ye the Holy Ghost: Jhn 20:23 Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; [and] whose soever [sins] ye retain, they are retained.”
Of course, people being human and fallible, abuses inevitably occurred, and this is the main if not the only reason that I am an Anglican today, rather than a Roman Catholic. Our bishops tend to hold the reins rather loosely (when they remember to hold them at all), thus we have a good deal more freedom of conscience in the Anglican Communion…. and a good deal more ultra-liberal craziness going on right now as well.
But, we aren’t forced to be subject to every Christian or cultural fad that comes down the pike — we are free to stick to the Bible, and snap our fingers at both the HyperPatriarchs and the gay-marriage-and anything-goes crowd, and still remain church members in good standing.
April 14, 2008 at 2:18 pm
“All-
Thanks for letting me visit the Girl Nation for a day or two. I promise not to overstay my visa. Mind if I stick around another day?”
Ladies… I think we should grant Tulip Girl’s Hubby permanent resident alien status.
April 14, 2008 at 2:19 pm
“I don’t get the whole “normative” thing. Sounds like a made-up word to me, and it’s definitely NOT biblical. ”
Abby, you will have to be sure to listen to the series of podcasts with Cindy Kunsman that will be airing beginning this Friday. She explains some of the word techniques that are used to manipulate people, words like “normative.” It is fascinating stuff and helped me a great deal in sorting through the briars found along the patriocentric path.
April 14, 2008 at 2:26 pm
Hubby of TG,
Girl Nation? Hhhhmmmm….
You are welcome any time and for as long as you wish.
“A healthy church has both piety AND social involvement. . .”
Could we explore that some more? I couldn’t agree more. This is one of my greatest concerns, probably the greatest, regarding the NCFIC movement, which appears to be growing in number of churches and membership. Take a look at Doug Phillips’ latest vision for the next 200 years. There is no mention whatsoever of world missions or evangelism or social justice, or ministry to the poor or any other sort of social outreach. These groups call it “evangelism” when they recruit others into their aberrant religious groups.
It just seems to me that there are extremes….either you are only interested inpromoting Habitat for Humanity type programs or you are cloistered away. Where are there groups who are modeling the correct approach to REAL ministry within the subcultures of America today? Desire Street Ministries? They are one I know of. What else? A few years ago I did a workshop at a PCA Mercy Ministries conference and was really blessed by the people I heard and met there. But I came home to local PCA people who were only interested in how many Federal Vision angels could sit on the head of a pin! Any thoughts?
April 14, 2008 at 2:28 pm
“I’m a little out of my depth on the patriocentricity thing, though. From what I know of it, it’s out there on a fringe I tend to avoid entirely. Is it becoming a large movement?”
My prediction…growing,growing, gone.
April 14, 2008 at 3:23 pm
Re: #52
Karen, this is something a secular humanist friend of mine often brought up in discussions. She believes in giving to charity, helping the poor, etc., but also believes that “man” is basically good. She thinks that, from her perspective, the church is doing none of these things, and this is why she rejects Christianity. Nothing I said changed her mind, and I gave her ample evidence to the contrary. She had seen the Vision Forum types (not them specifically) growing up, and realized that what they were doing was lacking.
Sadly, and though it may be a little over-publicized, I think movie stars like Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie are doing MORE social justice and humanitarian work than most Christians overall. Why do I say sadly? Because it reflects poorly on those of us whose call it is to do these things. They do them because they see a need, Christians ignore that need.
I think of the Good Samaritan. He wasn’t following the Jewish law in the way that the Pharisees prescribed, yet HE is the only one who cared about his “neighbor.”
There is a ministry in Columbus that is called “Project Compassion” and its sole goal is to partner in friendship with dying AIDS patients. The patients may or may not be Christians, and often they convert–the majority are gay men, also. These men and women are a lot like the lepers in Jesus’ day, most “pious” people won’t touch them or even reach out to them, yet there is one Christian ministry in the city that is doing just that. It speaks volumes to me that there are people who would spend their time with a dying person who *often* got the disease because of their own sinful choices.
My church also has a thriving pro-life ministry that not only tries to prevent abortions but gives moms everything from diapers to rent money to help them keep their babies. I’m a little proud to say that my own mom heads up that ministry! Last year, over 200 babies were saved in the city just through our church’s ministry–not counting the several other churches and parachurch ministries that do the same.
I’m bragging on my church a little, because it is doing a lot of the social justice AND spiritual growth stuff. When I went through small group leadership training (Bible study groups), it was emphasized that we try not to just have a Bible study a few times a month, but also do some sort of outreach as a group. The church has so many ministries that are always needing volunteers, and most of the time, small groups fill those needs from week to week as needed. It’s kind of neat how a group of people can come together and get their own spiritual needs met, and turn around the next week and fill the spiritual and physical needs of others–and I think that doing service often fulfills our spiritual needs just as much as it does those who we are helping out. We grow by serving.
As for Vision Forum and the 200 year vision, I think it is very strange that a group that thrives on the idea of Theonomy would ignore large chunks of the Scripture that prescribe help to the poor, widows, orphans and sick. It’s not a biblical vision if it ignores the least and the lost.
Someone mentioned the word of faith movement earlier. This is something that has really permeated almost every corner of the church, and I think it’s something that is really hard to get past. It’s almost intrinsic to the human soul to think that there’s a formula, and the WoF formula seems even more appealing to me than the Patriarchy formula. The idea that we can manipulate God, once you think about it, is rather frightening, but it is appealing to a lot of people. There is one particular church I know of that follows this formula, and every time I hear something about Health and Wealth from this pastor I get sick for the people who believe him. It does a number on your faith when someone tells you that you haven’t been healed because you don’t have enough faith, or you are not rich because you don’t have enough faith, etc. I can imagine that patriarchy does ruin a lot of people’s faith, but the WoF movement has probably done just as much, if not more harm, in some ways. It’s sad to me that Jesus taught against this attitude specifically, and yet there are still people who will believe it. It reminds me of Frank Perretti’s book “The Prophet” (I think that’s the one). Chilling.
April 14, 2008 at 3:26 pm
“My prediction…growing,growing, gone.”
From your lips to God’s ear…
April 14, 2008 at 3:32 pm
“I can imagine that patriarchy does ruin a lot of people’s faith, but the WoF movement has probably done just as much, if not more harm, in some ways.”
They ARE alike, in a way — in WoF, people try to manipulate God by their “faith”, and in patriarchy, women try to manipulate God and their husbands by being submissive. The idea is that if only a woman follows the recipe — submits perfectly and does everything else according to certain esrtablished “norms” , her spouse will turn into the perfect Biblical husband, and their children will grow up to be model citizens. It all depends on what the wife does — if she does all the right things, SHE can bring this about.
April 15, 2008 at 9:55 am
#35 Thanks.
I live and work in a large east coast city. The community is largely black and latino. The black community seems very matriarchal to me. I am a born again christian leaning towards reformed theology.I was always taught that Christ followers identity is first and foremost in Him not skin color,ethnicity or gender. I don’t see this identity in the ‘black church.’ Matter of fact most of my co-worker/friends that are black and attend a ‘black church’ don’t use the term born-again. Does Al Sharpton?
I’m not trying to cause a problem but it is a genuine question. I think I see the answer and it’s not good.
April 15, 2008 at 10:41 am
A healthy church has both piety AND social involvement
We are the church. I think we should individually be doing these things and not letting our right hand know what our left hand is doing, so to speak. When it comes to social work (feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, etc.), we should individually be looking for ways to do that. It won’t take much searching to find people in need.
The local organized church should encourage the individuals to pursue this course of action. But I think when organized social relief programs are instituted in the local church, the individual members begin to lose the motivation to do this on their own. It’s easy to give money to the church and let the church do it. And eventually, most people stop giving money to those efforts as well, because it has become so distant to them that they no longer are motivated to address the issue.
I’ve seen a similar pattern in Evangelical churches regarding missions and gospel outreach. Many churches talk about how much they want to reach the lost, but they never carry the gospel outside the doors of the church. They send some money to a mission agency or parachurch outreach group, but they don’t pursue personal evangelism. Some churches open up their building to MOPS (Mothers of Preschoolers) or to adoption support groups. Some churches invite ethnic groups from the community to use their facilities (say their basketball court or baseball or soccer field). And then these churches pat themselves on the back for fulfilling the Great Commission when they have done nothing at all to reach the lost for Christ.
We must do this as individuals and not allow the failed and wrongheaded local church programs to assuage our guilt at not following Christ in the areas of evangelism and social beneficence.
April 15, 2008 at 11:17 am
Hmm, that drinking wine/alcohol is a sin. I can’t remember which African nation that this is true of (I think Ehtiopia) but drinking coffee is considered VERY bad and so the Christians cannot drink it ….. and in Belgium drinking wine/beer/alcoholic beverages is a way of life (at least as described by my grandmother & father). You would sit down with a pint and discuss, over the course of several hours, your life, the world, etc. And they would’ve looked at you funny if you said their solitary pint was a sin …. (and if someone has already mentioned this I apologize-I didn’t read all the comments because I just discovered this blog and my mind is getting overloaded ..)
April 15, 2008 at 2:25 pm
Cynthia-
We’d obviously differ on the interpretation of Matthew 16:19. I don’t want to take the thread off on a side-journey, though, so I’ll just reiterate that I think Fundamentalist, Catholic and Anglica man-made rules run contrary to the liberty we have in Christ and agree to disagree.
“Ladies… I think we should grant Tulip Girl’s Hubby permanent resident alien status.”
Schweet.
thatmom-
“It just seems to me that there are extremes….either you are only interested inpromoting Habitat for Humanity type programs or you are cloistered away.”
First, we should establish that any ‘cloistering’ by Evangelicals and Fundies is relatively new. Look at the 19th century, for instance, and you’ll see Evangelicals were dominant in outreach to the poor, in prison reform, the reform of child work laws, etc. Unfortunately for beer-lovers like myself, they also led the Temperance movement which ended up ruining American beer forever. . . But that’s a minor issue.
Off the top of my head, four things have lessened the involvement of conservative Protestants in the culture:
1. The usurpation of the traditional and rightful role of the church in society by the government. For instance, the government is now the primary provider of “alms”(and does a horrible job of it.) Politics is seen as the vehicle by which to “fix” the problems of poverty, despite a century-long track record of failure.
2. Liberal Christianity shed its supernaturalism and embraced humanitarianism. Many perverted godly activism into the pursuit of a secular heaven on earth (immanentized the eschaton, as William F. Buckley would say.) I think conservative Protestants retreated from social activism and concern for the poor in reaction — associating it with a degenerate Christianity. And thus ceded an essential part of the faith to unhealthy churches.
3. The rise of Dispensationalism and pre-millenialism. If the Titanic is sinking, you don’t polish the brass. If the world is doomed to inevitable, near-term declension into Apocalypse, then there is little use in “fixing” this world.
4. On a related note, I think the rise of Arminianism has influenced things in a similar way. I remember a Winkey Pratney conference I went to as a kid. He gave an altar call at the beginning of the conference in case someone was hit by a bus before the end of it. Pratney really believed God would let one of His elect go to hell simply because Pratney had neglected an altar call. If you really believe that the eternal destinies of the people around you are completely contingent upon your personal evangelism (rather than seeing your evangelism as a PART of God’s larger plan), then all else pales in comparison to it. . . Including acts of mercy, social reform, etc.
This is running long. I’ll continue in a follow-up post.
April 15, 2008 at 2:57 pm
I’m coming back to this discussion late and don’t have time at the moment to look back through, so I’ve no idea where it’s taken everyone. (Computer troubles–I was off-line most of this past week.)
Anyway, I started thinking about what’s strange from my point of view (Orthodox) about Protestant culture. Note that I don’t think most of these are biblically mandated or something like that, but they are very different ways of approaching things:
~Sitting down in church. We stand up except for the sermon, which is 15-30 minutes long and based on an assigned Bible reading, not one the priest picks. This rule (sitting/standing) has a good bit of leaway in it for those who are sick, older, pregnant, young, or just tired. No one’s going to yell at you for sitting, but most people stand for almost all of the service.
~Listening to someone else expounding the Bible for the service. That is certainly a part of the Orthodox service, but it’s a small part. The focus is fully on the Eucharist, and the service is produced not simply by the priest but by the priest and the people together. You cannot have an Orthodox service without a congregation.
~Not having icons. I know this gets into theological territory and I don’t want to cause a big to-do, but it’s so true that when I see the inside of a Protestant church it looks so bare! We are used to having all of our senses actively engaged in the service.
Have to go to class now, I hope to stop in later.
April 15, 2008 at 3:04 pm
thatmom-
The good news is that even if they’ve retreated a bit, conservative Proddies are still really active in society. While Angelina may get the headlines, the heavy lifting on the humanitarian front is done by Christians. I spent some time this morning, but couldn’t find a poll I remembered from my pro-Life Rescue days. I do remember that the number of hours worked by pro-Lifers in virtually all aspects of humanitarian work — feeding the hungry, helping unwed mothers, teaching literacy — was off the charts compared to mainstream society.
This recent George F. Will column addresses the point as well:
http://www.startribune.com/opinion/commentary/17032146.html?page=2&c=y
“But I came home to local PCA people who were only interested in how many Federal Vision angels could sit on the head of a pin!”
Our first PCA church was like this — so caught up in the finer points of doctrine that they rarely looked outside their walls. But all of our later experiences have been good. Our current church coordinates with several local churches in outreach to the poorer parts of our city.
Our time in Ukraine was good in that regard as well — the PCA-planted denomination there runs a children’s hospital and each local church has a mercy ministry of some kind. . . The old-school model of Presby missions was to plant a church, a hospital and a school. I think that’s a good mindset.
Tim Keller is the best modern example of this mindset. He’s basically founded an entire presbytery in New York City, that hardest of mission fields.
Here’s an excerpt from his church’s vision paper:
“Churches must minister in both word
and deed. We’ve said elsewhere that the purpose of God’s redemption is to restore creation. God created both soul and body and the resurrection of Jesus shows that he is going to redeem both the spiritual and the material. Therefore God is not just concerned for the salvation of souls but also for the removal of poverty, hunger, and injustice.”
http://www.redeemer2.com/visioncampaign/papers/Vision_Paper_5-Ministry_Balance.pdf
RichardD-
“The local organized church should encourage the individuals to pursue this course of action. But I think when organized social relief programs are instituted in the local church, the individual members begin to lose the motivation to do this on their own.”
I can understand this concern. However, we have a different understanding of “the church.” This type of atomized understanding of the church, it seems to me, is very different than historic Christian teaching on the subject. While individuals should be doing plenty on their own, the church as a body needs to be coordinating and facilitating such work.
I can feed an individual, but consider the complexity of helping a camp of migrant workers, or working with at-risk youths, or setting up a literacy program for immigrants. This requires community action, and the church is a community of believers. The dispute about deacons in Acts, from what I remember, demonstrates that the early church coordinated its almsgiving as a body.
Does that make sense?
April 15, 2008 at 3:04 pm
So, Hubby of Tulip Girl, do you think that the modernists have influenced the church’s thinking in some way? I see a lot of secular humanism and modernism in what you’ve mentioned, specifically concerning the government’s role in welfare issues. This is something my secular humanist friend seems to be very interested in.
On your #3 above, my pastor mentioned this briefly in a recent sermon, and I found it rather interesting. I would really love some reading on the subject of dispensationalism and pre-mill. I never really understood that, even though most of my college profs taught with that belief.
RichardD, What you were saying about individuals getting out and doing something is really good. I think that the Church needs both, though. I think we need some organized ministries (like the deacons in Acts) and some self-involvement. I think that going to a large church can make people sit back and do nothing, they think they are justified through the church’s activity, even though they aren’t involved themselves. Those kind of people really need to go to a smaller church with fewer ministries and bigger needs so that they have to get up and do something in order to feel like they are doing something significant, rather than sitting in Sunday service basking in the glow of all the other people who are actually serving.
Sometimes I feel really guilty that I’m not “doing enough” especially in the context of Matthew 25, but often I think it’s a matter of where your heart is. We certainly don’t need college degrees to go out and serve the community, and I think sometimes we forget that Peter and John were fishermen, not highly educated theologians, yet they got it a lot better than we do most of the time.
April 15, 2008 at 3:15 pm
TulipGirl’s Hubby, as our permanent resident alien, I think you need a shorter moniker, LOL! We could do the Ellis Island thing, and chop off the last two-thirds of your name, but then you’d be just plain Tulip, and that’s a girl’s name…
….gonna have to think about that one,
Anyhow, you wrote,
“The usurpation of the traditional and rightful role of the church in society by the government. For instance, the government is now the primary provider of “alms”(and does a horrible job of it.) Politics is seen as the vehicle by which to “fix” the problems of poverty, despite a century-long track record of failure.”
I agree and disagree with that. I agree that the government does a lousy job sometimes of providing alms, and has “century-long track record of failure” (closer to 70 years, actually, since the start of the New Deal, before which most “alms” were church distributed); however, the government got into the alms business because the churches had a 1900 year record of doing an ABYSSMAL job of helping the poor, and because people in this country were starving. Before that we have the Potato famine in Ireland, where the church of England stood by and did nothing; church run workhouses and orphanages, which were rife with all sorts of horrors, churches which played denominational politics with with their “charities” — I could go on and on.
There is a biblical precedent for govenment run alms programs, in Joseph and how he averted famine in Egypt; and frankly, I’d rather have ONE entity, the government, responsible for helping the poor until Christ’s Bride gets Her act together.
Christ’s Bride is fragmented and divided –even her well-meaning leaders can’t agree with one another, and She is also riddled with out-and-out false shepherds like Gary North and his fellow dominionists, frauds like Jim Bakker, and whackos like Rev. Jeffs.
As long as the church is in its current schitzophrenic condition, I’d rather the poor were in the bumbling but somewhat more sane hands of the State.
April 15, 2008 at 4:08 pm
Maureen-
“Anyway, I started thinking about what’s strange from my point of view (Orthodox) about Protestant culture.”
American Orthodoxy is to mainstream Orthodoxy what Richard Gere is to mainstream Buddhism.
In countries where Orthodoxy has more than a token presence, the cultures it has produced are most conspicuous for their autocracy, penury, corruption, and social dysfunction. In recent centuries, Orthodoxy has done little to spread the Gospel while Catholics and Protestants have brought the church to all corners of the globe. Their cultures have such a massively high abortion rate and so few births, that they are literally headed for extinction.
While I agree that Orthodox churches in the U.S. are often lively communities of faith, there is little of that in the mainstream Orthodoxy I have observed. After several years in an overwhelmingly Orthodox country, my experience is that their churches are largely a preserve of the elderly and attended primarily on holidays. Corruption, public drunkenness and Biblical illiteracy are rampant among priests and monks. They are little respected by much of the public for these reasons.
In Ukraine, the primary social involvement of the Orthodox Church seems to be in backing Putin-supported would-be dictators like Yanukovych. They even arrange processions of those lovely icons in support of him. In Russia, Patriarch Alexey II was an agent of the murderous KGB (contra Wikipedia, he was indeed an agent, as the Mitrokhin archives have revealed.) He has been a resolute supporter of the dictatorial Putin, and recently expressed hope that Putin’s hand-picked successor, Medvedev, would “continue the course carried out by Vladimir Putin”.
What I most often see of Orthodox Americans is that they juxtapose a perfect –theoretical- Orthodoxy against the imperfect reality of Protestantism. American Orthodoxy has benefited greatly from interaction with Protestantism and a free society. But it is hardly representative of mainstream Orthodoxy.
April 15, 2008 at 4:30 pm
Cynthia-
How about we switch me over to J. Wesley, then?
“the government got into the alms business because the churches had a 1900 year record of doing an ABYSSMAL job of helping the poor, and because people in this country were starving.”
I have to disagree on the abysmal record. The churches did a ton of good work. The social dislocations of the time simply overwhelmed the network in place. You first had massive waves of immigration followed by a once-in-history Great Depression.
“As long as the church is in its current schitzophrenic condition, I’d rather the poor were in the bumbling but somewhat more sane hands of the State.”
I have to disagree again. We had poverty in this country before the government got into the welfare business. We did not have a permanent underclass. The poor we had were mainly recent immigrants, rural poor whose sitation was best ameliorated by relocating to urban, industrialized areas, and African-Americans who were kept in poverty by discrimination.
With the exception of African-Americans, who were kept down BY the government, all of these groups had good prospects for escaping poverty. Jewish immigrants, for example, arrived penniless and without any English. Their strong families and communities helped to catapult them out of poverty. Within a generation or two, Ivy League universities were quietly discriminating against them because there were so many solid Jewish applicants and it was considered unfashionable to have too many Jews in your school. . .
What we have now is a permanent, multi-generational underclass. The helping hand of government has institutionalized poverty as a way of life, rather than a temporary condition experienced by new immigrants.
Take the case of African-Americans. If an evil, racist genius designed a program to destroy the black community, he could do little better than the Great Society. In one swoop, the federal government bulldozed connected, historic communities and put up giant, unlivable human ant farms.
The pre-1996 welfare system was the most corrosive thing I can imagine. It rewarded mothers for remaining unwed while continuing to have children. The role of black men as fathers and providers was displaced by Uncle Sam. In 1968, about 20% of all black births were to unmarried mothers. It is now close to 70%, and in many communities reaches 80-90% (it is currently 21% for whites.)
When you consider the fact that single-parent families are 6X more likely to live in poverty, the implications are staggering. It gets worse when you factor in graduation rates, criminality, drug use and the rest for the children of single-parent homes.
You can’t have a healthy community without healthy families. Government “help” has been the primary cause in the death of the black family and in miring much of their community in a permanent underclass status.
I’m not arguing against having a social safety net. Ronald Reagan said it best, that government should only do for the people what they cannot do for themselves. But government aid needs to be small, targeted, and with a constant eye to the unintended consequences of its assistance. . .
April 15, 2008 at 4:35 pm
TulipHubby, I think that you will find similar problems with most of the major denominations of Christianity.
The trouble is, NONE of the denominations are the true, original Church — it has not existed in its intact form since it first began to schism, and because a body is menat to function as a whole organism, the parts, functioning alone, are bound to function imperfectly.
Of course, certain parts are closer to the original Whole than others (I’m thinking of the Eucharistic churches, in particular), just as a man with only a head and torso is closer to being a whole man that is a diembodied arm or a cluster of skin cells growing in a petrie dish, but even these close-to-the-original churches are bound to be lacking.
A disembodied organ may be kept alive artificially, and man with head and torso may live out a normal lifespan in a wheelchair, but neither is a whole man as God intended him to be, and cannot function as such.
April 15, 2008 at 4:40 pm
Theresea-
“I was always taught that Christ followers identity is first and foremost in Him not skin color,ethnicity or gender. I don’t see this identity in the ‘black church.’ Matter of fact most of my co-worker/friends that are black and attend a ‘black church’ don’t use the term born-again. Does Al Sharpton?”
It seems to me that a lot of the Afrocentric churches do go beyond simple ethnic solidarity into something that focuses more on race than Christ.
I’m not too hung up on the term “born-again.” While the term is in the Bible, there are plenty of other synonyms for being a believer which are just as good. My church generally talks about “being a believer,” or “saved” or “having faith in Christ,” but we mean the same thing as “born again.”
My general impression of black churches is that they are like white churches. Many have true faith in Christ and hold to the truths of the Bible. Others have abandoned the Gospel in favor of secular humanitarianism.
I don’t know Sharpton’s theology, but I’ve never seen him preach about Jesus, only about politics. My impression is that, much like Obama’s choice of Rev. Wright’s church, Sharpton sees religion as a vehicle to political influence in the black community.
April 15, 2008 at 4:42 pm
“With the exception of African-Americans, who were kept down BY the government, all of these groups had good prospects for escaping poverty.”
Not so.
Case in point, Appalachia, the rural south, the midwest, and even New England. You might escape poverty in some of these places, but if you were from “white trash” or were Black or Indian or part Indian, you could never really rise into the upper class. My ancestors have has been there, done that, got the denials for country club memberships, home loans, and jobs to prove it.
April 15, 2008 at 4:56 pm
Oops, sorry, I wrote the comment addressing you as TulipHubby before I saw your comment asking to be addressed as J. Wesley. Now whenever I talk to you, I’m going to be thinking odf a red and white Ford F150, because Wesley is my (late) truck’s name.
I had been looking for a good used pickup for under $1500 and praying about it, and getting laughted at, too — the fellows at work said that it was impossible to get a decent truck for that price.
Well, the week of Pentecost, (curiously, the Pentecost liturgical colors in my church are red and white), I found this red-and-white pickup for sale next to the parking lot of the Methodist church, priced at $1500.
But there was a problem — when I called the number on the handmade “for sale” sign, I couldn’t reach the owner — and as it turned out, neither could anyone else, because the 9’s in the phone number looked just like 1’s.
I had just about given up on reaching the seller, until one morning I was driving by to look at it again and there was the owner — he had just about given up on trying to sell it, since no one was calling!
We talked, I bought the truck, and it was great … talk about a match made in Heaven.
I think the original John Wesley was smiling.
April 15, 2008 at 4:57 pm
Cynthia-
You Said: “Case in point, Appalachia, the rural south, the midwest, and even New England”
My previous post mentioned: the “rural poor whose sitation was best ameliorated by relocating to urban, industrialized areas…”
The massive numbers of Okies who moved to California and the southern rural whites who moved to Michigan would dispute you on this. They migrated, found solid jobs, and moved into the working or middle classes. Their descendants have done quite well.
“you could never really rise into the upper class.”
You just changed the terms of the discussion. The topic was “almsgiving.” I am aware of no almsgiving which has the goal of moving people into the “upper class.” Nor am I aware of a government program with such an aim. Certainly no government program has accomplished this.
Anyway though, I’ve taken this discussion well away from GNAP, sorry about that. I’ll give you the last word and get back to that old time religion.
April 15, 2008 at 5:04 pm
In Russia, Patriarch Alexey II was an agent of the murderous KGB (contra Wikipedia, he was indeed an agent, as the Mitrokhin archives have revealed.)
A number of Orthodox in America are aware of this, which is part of the reason for the existence of the Russian Church Outside of Russia.
I think I may bow out of this discussion for the time being. I don’t feel that I can describe things accurately and I’m want to avoid hurt feelings on my part and others.
April 15, 2008 at 5:08 pm
Yeah, we are getting off track, aren’t we?
But I do think that part of escaping poverty is being able to become socially acceptable in your town and in your business neighborhood, and not be excluded because your family was poor a generation ago. Until that can happen, we will always have a multi-generational underclass, even though some of its members are no longer poor at all.
April 15, 2008 at 5:19 pm
The inevitable one more thing post:
I don’t want to give the impression that I’m running away from the discussion. It’s just that at the moment it’s upsetting me a bit more than it’s helping me so I’m going to bow out. It is a very interesting topic and one I think about a lot.
April 15, 2008 at 6:25 pm
Cynthia-
I can definitely understand that. Fortunately, I think such notions are seriously in decline. And in an America where people move every seven years or so, it’s increasingly rare that anyone even KNOWS your socio-economic background or cares if they do. Anyway, it really was nice meeting you. I’ve enjoyed this discussion tremendously.
God bless.
Maureen-
You don’t have to go — I am. This is precisely why I entered this thread with trepidation. Before she left the site, I watched the myriad mini-dramas my wife was involved in over the years at Gentle Christian Mothers. It seemed that no one could have a forthright discussion of ideas without someone either getting offended or leaving with their feelings hurt. I need to get back to homeschooling and my thesis anyway. All the best to you. . .
April 15, 2008 at 8:02 pm
On the topic of poverty and class, I think that Hurricane Katrina became an interesting social experiment in a way, because it showed that there are some people who are in poverty because of their situation, and there are some who are there because they choose not to better themselves. So often the church says it’s one way or the other, rather than the possibility that it could be both. There are people who GOT OUT of their impoverished situation and are doing much better financial, because they have an opportunity to do so now, while others continue to live in their poverty without really thinking about the opportunities that such a disaster afforded them. I’m not diminishing the tragedy of the hurricane, just saying that so many things can come out of it, whether for better or for worse.
April 16, 2008 at 12:54 pm
This all reminds me of the situation in the crisis pregnancy center where I used to volunteer.
I had been involved with the center since before it opened. In the beginning, there were no “beads and trinkets” for lack of a better phrase, to entice women into the center. They came in because they were actually in crisis situations. Several of my clients came to Christ and I was blessed to be with one of them through two deliveries and Clay and I spent hours mentoring both the young woman and her husband. It was often tedious because we were working with two people who claimed Christ but who had had no faithful teachings on which to build. We were starting from scratch and I am still not convinced that either of them truly were saved. But I do know that we were able to plant the seeds of the Gospel and I still have contact with the wife. It was one of the most rewarding aspects of that ministry, as was counseling young women who had had abortions and really needed someone to love them and comfort them as they sought repentance and forgiveness.
During the early years, we had supplies like diapers and clothing and formula in a storage room and didn’t hesitate to offer it when we knew there was a need.
But then several volunteers came into the center ministry and didn’t really understand the purpose or the focus of the ministry…,crisis pregnancy and post-abortion problems. They sought to turn the center into a give-away site for unwed moms. So they started a Bible study and to entice the girls, they offered free diapers for every completed chapter in a Bible study book. Before you knew it, these girls were coming in, putting their completed paperwork in an in-box, taking their diapers, and leaving. It was a nightmare.
Since there was no official board of directors and the center director was more interested in having large numbers of clients to report to contributors, thus more financial support, there was no hope to retain the vision of the center.
To make a long story short, a few years later I was asked by one of the pastors who was involved with the center to come to a meeting with a newly established board,which he chaired, to give a history of the center, and to present a plan to them for bringing the center back to where it had been previously. So I did.
I had read Marvin Olasky’s book called More Than Kindness and was (and am) convinced that his insights are absolutely crucial for
ministering in a crisis pregnancy center. I got a copy of the book for all the board members. After my presentation, they were excited. But they didn’t read the book and they soon realized that the supporters of the center felt good about dropping off diapers but few if any were thrilled about spending hours mentoring and getting the moms involved in their churches. In fact, one of the pastors actually told me that the people in his church wouldn’t want the girls to come in and no one wanted to get “that involved.” I had suggested that each supporting pastor and board member identify a key woman leader in his church and ask her to participate in a Bible study on Titus 2 mentoring, which I volunteered to teach. (There are some good resources for this available, one that have been proven effective.) There were no takers. Not a one. It is easier to give money and buy diapers.
Sadly, I think many CPC’s have now gone this route.
Have any of you seen the movie Juno, by the way? I cannot tell you how moved I was by the story (a true one) and the character Juno reminds me so much of the girls I met through the center. Girls like this need our love and affection and mentoring. They are the moms of the next generation and since so many of them have never had a real mom in their lives so they don’t know what they are supposed to do as moms.
April 16, 2008 at 4:02 pm
Re: Rebecca’s comment #59. The making a brother stumble thing is all relative to where you are and who you’re with, I believe anyway. For example, if I was dining with an alcoholic I wouldn’t serve wine, obviously that would be totally selfish. At our church where there are a number of people who are recovering alcoholics we may serve wine at communion, but if we have a party or get together we always serve grape juice and ban alcohol for their sake.
I didn’t know about the ‘alcohol is a sin’ argument until I started reading blogs. Being English it really surprised me, I cannot see Jesus turning water into wine if He wanted a blanket ban on Christians drinking alcohol either because of making a brother stumble reason or because it was a sin. I think what Paul meant was we are to weigh it up and use wisdom applicable to the situation in hand. But then this argument is moot if you happen to believe that the wine Jesus served at the wedding was grape juice and not really wine.
I am not ashamed of indulging in a glass of wine now and then with friends…unless I knew that I was causing them a problem.
April 17, 2008 at 7:29 am
Daisy wrote:
I think what Paul meant was we are to weigh it up and use wisdom applicable to the situation in hand.
Yes, but whose wisdom?
God’s wisdom?
Our own wisdom?
The leader of the church’s wisdom?
VF’s wisdom?
Michael Pearl’s wisdom?
LAF’s wisdom?
Trouble is, there are too many organisations selling their form of wisdom as the one-and-only-answer . . .
Do people really believe He turned water into grape juice? Surely the words are different in Greek – will go and find out!
April 17, 2008 at 8:25 am
Hi Joanna:
“Whose wisdom?”
Personally I’d pray for God’s wisdom in a situation and His compassion. But sometimes it’s just plain common sense…i.e. if you know someone is either offended or addicted to alcohol you don’t serve it. However, I guess other groups may follow their own set of specific rules.
“Do people really believe He turned water into grape juice? Surely the words are different in Greek…”
Yup. I have had very lengthy emails and blog comments off those who strongly believe that where wine is spoken of positively it is unfermented grape juice and where it is spoken of negatively it is fermented wine. They suggest that the same Greek word in the NT, which is (I think) oinos, is used for both wine and grape juice. I was told that they would refuse to even visit my church because we use wine at communion. Some believe that it is not just a bad idea to drink wine it is actually a terrible sin to drink any kind of alcohol.
Daisy
April 17, 2008 at 8:28 am
However, I must add that when I blogged about it on a blog I had about 2 years ago, many of those who do disagree with the use of alcohol were also very gracious in their disagreement.
I just wanted to add that for balance.
April 17, 2008 at 8:41 am
Joanna here’s a quote:
“What about when Jesus turned the water into wine at the marriage in Cana. If Jesus Christ turned water into fermented liquor, he directly disobeyed Habakkuk 2:15, “Woe unto him that giveth his neighbour drink, that puttest thy bottle to him, and makest him drunken also . . .” And, if Jesus disobeyed Habakkuk – HE WAS A SINNER! The Bible makes it very clear in 1 Peter 2:22, 2 Corinthians 5:21, and other verses – THAT JESUS CHRIST WAS WITHOUT SIN!”
From: http://www.biblebelievers.com/watkins_alcohol.html
Daisy
(I keep forgetting to use my new wordpress account – I’ve been checking out different blog hosts)
April 17, 2008 at 9:59 am
Hi There!
I’m a long-time lurker and a first time commenter. I’m quite interested in the temperance movement as it really took hold of my town during the Victorian times…and like Johanna and Daisy, I’m interested in social history.
In the UK at least the temperance movement came out of new “chapel” denominations. Particularly, Methodism, Baptism and the Society of Friends. I think the “chapel” denominations were responsible for a revival of morality in the Victorian era. It was the non-conformists who were the great social reformers, by and large. The temperance movement was initially a women’s movement; they were very concerned about the relationship between drunkenness, domestic violence and poverty and aimed to make the world a better place for working class women by getting their husband’s to “sign the pledge”. The temperance movement had close links to the early suffragette movement, and their main argument was that none of us can do God’s work whilst drunk!
It all seems rather simplistic, as many of us drink and few of us get drunk. However, the extent of alcoholism amongst working communities in the Victorian Britain was startling. In “Amos Barton” George Eliot states that the miners in the town earned far more than the curate, but they spent the majority of their pay down the pub. I have family stories which support this. (I’m from an ex-mining community).
Saying all this, I personally see no Biblical evidence that the occasional drink is sinful. In fact, seeing as I take communion and the hop it to the nearest pub every Sunday makes me a sinner in many people’s eyes! However, I *see* where they’re coming from socially and politically if not theologically.
This is a very interesting thread.
Peace to you all,
DD
April 17, 2008 at 1:33 pm
“They sought to turn the center into a give-away site for unwed moms. So they started a Bible study and to entice the girls, they offered free diapers for every completed chapter in a Bible study book. Before you knew it, these girls were coming in, putting their completed paperwork in an in-box, taking their diapers, and leaving. It was a nightmare.”
You just described the seeker method. It does not produce fruit. Just numbers to report.
Churches all over America are doing the same thing: Increasing numbers by dealing with felt needs or free stuff. The only difference is that these seeker churches want those who can tithe.
April 17, 2008 at 2:47 pm
I think what Paul meant was we are to weigh it up and use wisdom applicable to the situation in hand. But then this argument is moot if you happen to believe that the wine Jesus served at the wedding was grape juice and not really wine.
Daisy – I heard the “grape juice” argument growing up by some very self-righteous people. I thoroughly enjoyed explaining to them that grape juice is a relatively recent invention. Prior to the technology of pasteurization, if you crushed a grape, you ended up with wine – unless you drank it very quickly (in which case it was still wine, just not quite as fermented).
The it-was-grape-juice crowd gets glassy-eyed when they realize that Jesus actually performed three miracles at once–turning water to wine, removing the affects of the instantaneous fermentation that occurs when you mix oxygen from the air with the yeast in the skin of the grape and the sugar in the fruit of the grape, then performing a pastueurization process without the use of heat or oxygen free air-tight containers.
I’m amazed that the additional two miracles aren’t actually mentioned in the Bible since this was Jesus’ first miracle.
Oh, and the dude that complimented the man of the house on saving the best wine for after all the partiers were wasted apparently didn’t notice that grape juice tastes very different than the beverage that makes you so drunk that you don’t care about the quality of the later wine.
April 17, 2008 at 2:54 pm
Regarding Habakkuk 2:15: Woe unto him that giveth his neighbour drink, that puttest thy bottle to him, and makest him drunken also, that thou mayest look on their nakedness! Thou art filled with shame for glory: drink thou also, and let thy foreskin be uncovered: the cup of the LORD’S right hand shall be turned unto thee, and shameful spewing shall be on thy glory.
There’s obviously a little more going on here, if you look at the verse in its immediate context, than simply offering a glass of wine to a neighbor who walks by your front porch.
And if you expand the context to the entire book, you realize this isn’t even talking about individuals but rather entire nations. So this verse does not apply whatsoever to the topic of drinking wine in the home or socially.
April 17, 2008 at 3:02 pm
In my opinion, the whole drinking-as-a-professing-Christian thing is a very regional and cultural thing.
I live in the south, which is primarily the Bible Belt of the Southern Baptists area, so drinking any alcoholic anything is seen as a very big no-no. It is a hot topic to say the least. The minister at my last church would not marry you if you had any type of alcohol at your reception, no excuses, no questions asked. Period.
I grew up in a very good home with Christian parents who were teaching me about wine pairings at 18. It was just something we did. It was no different than enjoying a good steak. My parents were foodies and wine critics and they never shunned alcohol. If anything, they’d rather me try it at home than go off and do it at parties because it was forbidden and off limits. I remember having our pastor and his wife over and my parents showing them the latest bottle of wine we had and offering a taste. And they took it. (we never even batted an eye that this might be a big deal to some pastors)
I have quite a few Jewish relatives. They drink wine by the gallon, almost! At some Jewish holy days, it is REQUIRED of you to drink wine, or you are not celebrating correctly.
I have many Catholic friends, and they just laugh and smile to themselves when someone in our circle gets all bent out of shape about alcohol.
It really is about tradition, your culture, your region. There really are true Christians out there that because of these backgrounds, cannot fathom the big deal some of us have with alcohol.
I’m not saying either side is particularly right or wrong. But it is definately a “rib issue” and not a “spine issue” when it comes to salvation in my book.
Drunkenness is another thing altogether…not even addressing that.
April 17, 2008 at 3:12 pm
“Prior to the technology of pasteurization, if you crushed a grape, you ended up with wine – unless you drank it very quickly (in which case it was still wine, just not quite as fermented).”
Richard I agree. Although at the time I discussed this subject I was quoted various studies about how the ancients preserved fruit without it fermenting. Truly I ended up in one of those never ending circular arguments, so we all agreed to disagree – some being happier with this conclusion than others, I think some hoped that I would have a sudden Damascus road experience and change my wicked ways
“Regarding Habakkuk 2:15″
Yes it is rather taken out of context.
April 17, 2008 at 3:13 pm
DD–
I grew up Quaker (society of Friends). I am only saying this because I spent 25 years in the Quaker church and I’m always astounded by the misinformation out there regarding the denomination. You didn’t give any misinfo but I wanted to point this out:
The Quakers of YESTERYEAR would never have drunk alcohol, gambled, or even worn bright clothing. They were quite Amish and Anabaptist in practice THEN.
But the Quaker church of today is probably one of the most liberal churches in America, which is essentially why I walked away. Quakers today are nothing like the Quakers of yesteryear. Some meetings are even allowing ministers to marry gay couples and there has been quite a bit of split and fallout regarding how liberal the Quaker church will be. As with most things, there have become a liberal sect of Quakers and a seperate more orthodox branch.
99.9% of the Quakers I know (and there are tons of meetings in NC) do not shun drinking and that pastor I mentioned above who had wine at our house, was my Quaker minister.
It is an interesting denomination in the fact that over the past 200 years it has shifted from a very secluded and set apart lifestyle to one of the most liberal branches of Christianity out there.
April 17, 2008 at 3:13 pm
I guess you’ll realise ‘lazydaisydays’ is Me.
Daisy.
April 17, 2008 at 3:30 pm
Dulce, the 19thC was a period of great Christian moral worrying
Have you read The Moonstone by Wilkie Collins? One of the characters is so amusing, she feels it is her duty to point out the moral failings of everyone she meets. I giggled so much reading about the leaflet she posts through one of the main character’s door entitled ‘Ladies, A Word About Your Bonnet’. Lol. She was not a likeable character, Collins thus making a quiet comment about such attitudes.
The Normal Middle and Dulce, I know very little about the Society of Friends. I did find this from the British Quakers website:
“One testimony that Quakers have had to give careful thought to is our testimony on moderation. In the nineteenth century Quakers saw the bad effects that drink and drunkenness had in society. Along with other Non-conformist Christians they campaigned against alcohol. Many Quakers were active in the Temperance Movement – a movement of people who “took the pledge” (promising that they would never drink alcohol) as a witness against the evils it caused.”
Really interesting, I’d love to know more about that side of history.
The Normal Middle – I didn’t realise that the Quakers were now considered liberal.
TTFN.
Daisy
April 17, 2008 at 3:38 pm
Daisy, Look into sending your kid to a private ‘Friends’ school and you will see the liberalism. I was shocked, too.
April 17, 2008 at 3:42 pm
EXTREMELY liberal in some places. Many of them do not even believe that Jesus is son of God. Instead he’s an “example to live by” and other such nonsense.
it shocks me.
And it is my heritage!
April 17, 2008 at 4:10 pm
Hi Normal Middle
Re:”I grew up Quaker (society of Friends). I am only saying this because I spent 25 years in the Quaker church and I’m always astounded by the misinformation out there regarding the denomination.”
Yes, I was referring only to Quakers of old, not modern Quakers…I nearly joined the Quakers but had a panic and went straight back to my beloved liturgy and sacrament!lol! What I *do* like about modern Quakers is (and I can only refer to UK Quakers here as I know Friends differ from country to country)that they tend to be very tolerant of other Christian people’s views. All in all I found them to be a spiffy bunch!
Aren’t Methodists on the liberal side nowadays too…?
Peace
DD
April 17, 2008 at 5:09 pm
DD—you are right on! Quakers for many years have been champions of social justice and very big into social activism. Quakers were very big in the ending of slavery and also in women’s suffrage movement.
In being so socially conscious, I think that is how they’ve gone from being Amish-like to very liberal. They went a bit too far in some cases. The Quakers of yesteryear would never have been for gay marriage and other issues that the Quaker church today is really battling.
But yes, in the end, most Quakers are very spiffy people indeed. My parents are both still practicing Quakers and I love them. I must say that most of my faith-makeup is due to my Quaker history.
I found the Quakers too liberal…and jumped ship and went to the SBC with my husband. I find them way too conservative. hence my name, the normal middle
It is so funny when people hear I was raised Quaker they ask if we had electricity and rode in horse and buggies and I laugh—these were the Quakers of 100+ years ago. Every Quaker I know today has a couple of cars and is nothing like that.
April 17, 2008 at 9:07 pm
Daisy, I’ve read The Moonstone. That fussy lady drove me nuts too. Sadly, I’ve read literature like the stuff she passed out too. Christianity in the 1800’s most certainly had its nutty side.
Oh, and I just remembered this dreadful little story I read in a book of old Victorian moral stories (I don’t know WHY my mom got the thang from the book sale) about some children whose father drunk himself to death, and they were crying over and over again, “Papa was good, but whisky done it,” and the narrator was just sentimentally wallowing in that. Ugh.
April 17, 2008 at 9:12 pm
Well, while we’re at it, what was with that whole Victorian/Protestant prohibition ethos? Not only do we have no drinking, but we also have no cards and no dancing, and often no theater. I would really like to hear thoughts on this. It puzzles me quite a lot, as I’ve read a lot of Victorian literature and neo-Victorian Christian sermons and came across it all over and over again. Especially I remember this little gem of a book that I found somewhere in our book mess at home, a very old book that was devoted to the evils of drink, cards, dancing, theatre, ect. I read it cover to cover, I don’t know why. I must just be really perverse and seek out the worst stuff to read.
April 26, 2008 at 3:48 pm
Here is a link to an interesting blog that offers some thoughts on Chritian in the culture, both good and bad. What I found most interesting are this woman’s lists of stuff Christians like. Very revealing….
http://doxxa.wordpress.com/
April 26, 2008 at 6:31 pm
Oh, that link above was funny!
I for one, like the theme song on “7th Heaven”, and to quote Forrest Gump, “that’s all ah have to say ’bout thayat”. 
One group I didn’t see mentioned in that top post about Christian music alternatives is Creed. Everybody seems to want to sound like them in CMM. Toby Mac gets mentioned alot on there as an alternative for some secular artists, but I’ve liked his sound since 1990, before they were even popular as DCTalk. (I won one of their first albums in a radio call-in back then, and I’d never heard of Christian rap before.)
Nothing new under the sun, though, so said Solomon.
May 5, 2008 at 12:11 pm
Great topic!
I was brought up in Spain, a country that was invaded by American and other European missionaries in the late 70s and 80s (still quite a few there!)
The church I grew up in was initially a “daughter church” of a very American (OMS) church where my father worked as a national worker for the mission. They were cut off when my dad had some problems with the missionaries…. long story…
Anyway, I saw the GNAP culture from the outside, but I also saw how Evangelical churches were a bit like mini-America. Missionaries celebrated Thanksgiving (not a Spanish holiday), Christmas decoration was holly, evergreen branches, 4 advent candles and a Christmas tree. Spaniards decorate with tinsel and a manger scene,interestingly, a manger scene in a church was viewed as idolatry, but not the tree or the candles. Funnily, it kind of stayed with me that candles and stars are the “Christian” decorations for Christmas.
Missionaries had to sign a contract not to drink. Spanish Christians like wine in the communion cup, and they like a chunk of white bread, not a piece of cracker.
I knew one missionary who turned down a bottle of wine brought to him by his guests. I think that was downright rude, to be honest.
There are terms that Americans use a lot, like “fellowship”, “sovereignty”, “sanctuary”,”stewardship”, ” church retreat” etc.. that sound too churchian when translated into the Spanish language.
It’s interesting how they brought pianos and acoustic guitars (later on) when Spanish music is made with classic guitars, drums, castanets, etc…
Pastors were American, ordained men, who came with their wives in flowery dresses and their blond children. The wife played piano, sang like an opera singer and baked brownies (that everyone liked)
Now I’m in a Nigerian church in Germany. Again, the cultural shock is overwhelming at first. Worship is radically different to what I’d ever encountered before, and they use a lot of KJV language. It’s funny to hear “that is not your potion in Jesus name!” all the time. (they mean portion, but they say potion).
They talk in KJV-African English a lot, saying things like “in our midst”, a lot of “amen” and “in Jesus’ name”. I am certain a lot of it must be cultural. I think the Nigerian (or generally the African) church is a lot more the center of Christian’s lives, so they are used to spending hours on end at church, while we like our services short.
Regarding WOF. Oh my.. I told my husband on Sunday “you are not fit to drive”. He had spent most of the night up making fliers for the church’s upcoming “revival”. One of the women heard me say that and told me “do you know what you are saying? He has to drive you home! You are asking for an accident! Let that not be, my sister, in the name of Jesus!”. I added “you are not fit to drive us to Hamburg”. She relaxed.
Funnily, the lights in the kitchen weren’t working and nobody had enough faith words to command the lamps to work.
I felt under a lot of pressure with the whole word of faith thing. It just seems like gimmick.