SermonIndex Audio Sermons
Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.
Looking for free sermon messages?
Sermon Podcast | Audio | Video

Discussion Forum : General Topics : Modernism and emotionalism in churches

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 )

Joined: 2004/11/21
Posts: 362
Tulsa OK


I rather would say that the church is living in the babylonian captivity and spiritual blindness and lukewarmness but praise God for the faithful ramnant who have not defiled themselves by worshiping other idols beside God.For long time it has been the problem of izrael beside worshiping God they builded altars in high places and sacrifuced to idols.

Thats the great apostasy and spiritual heresy of the majority of western evangelical christians, they proffess and proclain loud and clear the God of Israel but will cherish and proffess secret aliagence to the modern idols who often are very soffisticated and shapeless.

Easy believism, shallow theology, faith without repentance, a christianity without holiness and a savior without lordship is offered to people.No wonder the results lead often to spurious awakenings and fruitless lives.Only God can see how many millions hold the form of christian religion but deny its power.


 2007/10/17 15:31Profile

Joined: 2003/11/23
Posts: 4498


Hi Miccah...

Why am I telling you this? Because I think we need to be careful in suggesting that one of these places (modern) are not of the Lord. This place was holding me back, not because the people were bad, but because the saving grace of the Lord was not present throughout most.

I have been in many different churches that look and feel like your stereotypical church. The only think wrong with some of these churches is the that Lord is not manifest. Same goes for some of the "modern" churches. On the other hand, there are many churches down both sides that have the Lord manifest. Then guess what...sometimes the Lord is present even not being in a place of worship.

I think that I understand what you are saying.

For several years, I attended a more traditional Pentecostal/holiness type of fellowship. As time went on, however, I noticed the messages/leaders of the Church morph into a more prosperity, seeker sensitive charismania fellowship. It was a difficult thing to endure. There is a strong authoritarian attitude amongst many of these preachers. They feel that it is their obligation and/or responsibility to make certain that all of the sheep "fall in line" with the "vision" of the Church leadership. This particular church began encouraging people who didn't agree with everything to simply leave.

Eventually, I took their advice! However, I must be quick to point out that such a spirit of "our way or the highway" is not just confined to modern churches. There are traditional churches that are just as steeped in authoritarian levels of doctrinal enforcement. I even visited a pacifist congregation that violently resisted (using words, rhetoric and gossip rather than physical weapons) anyone who did not adhere to their particular views of the Church.

Should we dismiss all "modern churches" on the basis of some of their beliefs?

First of all, there is no clear definition of what a "modern" church is. To some, even a traditional Baptist, Methodist or Pentecostal congregation might be "modern" in regard to practice and administration. Often, we dismiss churches as "modern" simply because they do not adhere to what we feel are the "tried and true" beliefs of the traditional church. An honest look into the history of the Church (including our administration, meeting structure, buildings and even terminology) might reveal that even "traditional" churches are found lacking and "modern" when compared to the early Church.

There are certainly some obvious practices that we can regard as part of a movement that attempts to make Church more acceptable and accessible to the modern world. These sort of churches are largely concerned with "growth" and "involvement." These sort of fellowships "think outside of the box" in order to provide a "reason" to join a particular fellowship. Concerts, comedians, fellowships, music, dress, dramas, family programs, etc... are all used to "keep the ball rolling." While we can easily dismiss this sort of emphasis as taking away from the power and person of Christ, does this necessarily mean that such a Church is a "lost cause?"

In regards to the [i]Seven Churches[/i] found in Revelation 2 and 3, we discover that there can be true believers (and even HOPE) for the most errant of Churches. I suppose that we need to be careful to distinguish between the ideology, administration and institution of supposed "churches" -- and what makes up the true Church. We can no more completely dismiss a local Church that preaches tithing as a doctrine for not being a part of "true Christianity" than we can dismiss the Church of Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia and even Laodicea. The Church is [u]not[/u] the doctrine, but the people. It is the people that make up the Body of Christ. There are certainly some beliefs that are not proper representations of the Body of Christ. But at what point should we declare them ineligible of inclusion? Shouldn't we instead focus on the obvious roots of doctrinal flaws, rather that the outcomes of such roots? The root of prosperity could be greed or a lust for the things of this world. Do you see what I mean?

I know some wonderful believers who attend some of the questionable "modern" fellowships. I know some wonderful and sincere believers who tend toward once calvinist ideas, even though I don't actually agree with their beliefs. Yet I have no right or authority to question their spiritual state. I only have a right (and need) to question all beliefs and methodology that is presented as "truth" -- regardless whether it is "modern" or "ancient" in acceptance. We cannot have true "revival" until we first realize our state and the state of our Church union.



 2007/10/17 15:53Profile

Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.
Privacy Policy