Is Church Dangerous?
Well, pastors say it is. Evangelical superstar John Piper describes church as a place where you learn to love others to a degree where you joyfully lose your own life. In other words, the only way to have joy is self-sacrifice, and to the degree that you love yourself, you are unable to love others. So, not only is self-eradication efficacious for loving others and experiencing happiness, it is our “duty.” Piper’s pretense seems to advertise a positive duty to be happy, but in reality, it is a masochistic happiness which by the way is authentic Protestant orthodoxy.[1]
Biblically, a call to self-death, for the most part, refers to the one-time baptism of the Spirit where we die with Christ and are no longer under the law of sin and death’s condemnation. Then, in the same baptism, we are raised with Christ as new creatures who love the Spirit’s second use of the law: instruction for loving God and others. Taking up one’s cross refers to Christ’s call to be “born again,” not a life of self-eradication.
This call to joyful self-death as a definition of love is definitely a church thing, and another good example is this video [2].
So, yes, church is dangerous, but it’s a happy danger. Do you feel it yet?
And historically, church has been pretty dangerous if you think for yourself or disagree with leadership. But that wasn’t always necessary in order to end up dead at church. In the midst of heretics being routinely burned on a stake, women who made it a point to behave and mind their own business were often accused of being witches and drowned alive accordingly. Neither the Catholic Church nor Protestantism has ever apologized for their atrocities or even acknowledged them. Instead, the emphasis has always been the false narrative giving the Reformation credit for pulling mankind out of the Dark Ages. The exact opposite is reality.
Church, obviously, poses a risk to children in the form of sexual abuse and its propensity for supplying cover for pedophiles. This, in case you have been on another planet for a while, is common knowledge. Even more disturbing is the concerted effort by many churches and denominations to coverup child sexual abuse.[3]
Another risk factor is the church’s resistance towards involving secular law enforcement agencies in criminal activities that take place in church. In fact, many church leaders have stated on record that such are “family issues” and no concern for secular authorities. Other Church leaders claim that secular authorities have “no right to judge the church.”
Church leaders are, to a great extent, immoral and untrustworthy on many fronts. A myriad of examples could be cited, but one glaring example is pastor Tom Chantry, a well-known and respected Reformed theologian with an impressive Protestant pedigree presently awaiting trial for child rape (multiple counts). New church leadership scandals hardly fall short of being weekly affairs with the lesser-knowns not receiving press.[4]
As if this isn’t enough, now we can add active shooters to the list, and there are three things that make this not only possible, but likely. Public access (as with all institutions), participation in volatile domestic situations, and participation in volatile political debate.
I am going to close this post with something that I don’t do enough; I am going to offer a solution. The fact is, the assembling of God’s people together for edification wasn’t institutionalized until the 4th century. Aside from a plethora of practical considerations, the way “church” was done during its 1st century advent was totally different than what we see today. Even though this ministry has written extensively on the differences, I would like to summarize here.
Home fellowship is a totally different approach that not only emphasizes individual gifts, but is organized in such a way that results in thriving individual ministry naturally. This is because it’s an organized cooperative body instead of a top-down authoritative institution. Because meetings take place in private homes, there is no open access to anything the cat may drag in. In addition, our kingdom is future and presently in heaven, and therefore our focus is the gospel and not the necessary participation in politics that goes hand in glove with dominion theology. When your goal, like everyone else’s, is to be in control for the supposed betterment of man’s existence, you are just another political party or ideological group in the whole batch of humanity. Church made itself that when it became an institution in the 4th century.
The common assertion that home fellowships are in danger of cultism is a total misnomer. Cultism occurs when you fuse authority with faith. That’s the formula that produces cults, not a cooperative body operating under the freedom of conscience. While the institutional church constantly bemoans the dangers of “cults” and “lone rangers” that are not under its authority and supposed infinite wisdom, what goes on in the institutional church is the true epitome of cultism.
It’s ironic, no? While Protestant orthodoxy calls for the sacrifice of self and exalts those who take their families into dangerous mission fields, churches will now be packing heat during “worship services.” In a way it’s almost amusing to think that praise and worship bands who have perfected the aura of meekness and teary-eyed exaltation with arms lifted high will probably be packing heat in the small of their backs.
Times are changing alright, and with that change is the exposure of the institutional church as a fundamentally bad idea. Already, we have seen that it will not work in communist countries that require state approval to assemble, and in regions that are financially destitute. And as the institutional church continues to contribute to culture’s demise while claiming to be its moral compass, its inability to be fluid in any cultural situation will be further exposed.
In contrast, an organized cooperative body functioning on agreement in accordance with personal conscience and in a family format, finds itself able to conduct gospel business and love in any situation.
paul
[1] https://www.desiringgod.org/books/the-dangerous-duty-of-delight
[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uSv4vBcFyvo
[3] https://bangladeshmksspeak.wordpress.com/
[4] https://paulspassingthoughts.com/2015/09/01/this-weeks-sinner-saved-by-grace-sinning-and-in-the-news-rc-sproul-jr/
New Dilemmas for Institutional Religion
After the recent shooting massacre in Texas (First Baptist Church in Sutherland Springs), there is little doubt that churches will have to add another accessory in order to recommend themselves; armed security, otherwise known as a “security team.” They will have to add that to the “worship team,” the “leadership team,” and many other teams that make up a church’s repertoire of selling points.
But there are other things to think about that will escape most parishioners. Though I would never step foot in a Protestant temple for any reason, I can give some helpful advice to those who for some reason find comfort in the fusion of faith and authority. Indeed, armed security is important, a must, but more than likely, most churches will have armed security for the sake of being able to say they have it.
In other words, it will be parishioners who have obtained conceal carry permits, but rarely visit the range for target or tactical practice. In addition, these are unlikely participants in advanced firearm training. If there is an unfortunate event, this reality simply increases your chances of being shot by multiple sources instead of one.
But even if a church has qualified security, and the “teams” you like to see, there is yet another consideration; do they have formal counseling? If you attend a church that does formal counseling, more than likely, they will be supplying counsel for volatile domestic situations which places the congregation at very high risk. As a former elder in a Reformed Baptist church, I can tell you we frequently counseled in situations that put the congregation at risk. And of course, they were unaware of this.
Is this just another post suggesting more reasons why church is not only spiritually impractical and counterproductive, but dangerous?
Yes.
paul
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
3 comments