Would you consider joining this "church?"

[agedman]

This church only leaves out what that they do not consider important.

Would you join in hope that you could show that what is left out is vital?

Click here to read: New Mega Church

Read the whole article, before making a comment, not just the headlines.

 

[annsni]

Why would any believer join that church?

 

[preacher4truth]

I don't know why the OP would think that any of the brethren here would 'join' such a church. Says a lot right there.

Other than that, I'd say this solidifies atheism as a religion or 'faith' system.

 

[agedman]

I don't know why the OP would think that any of the brethren here would 'join' such a church. Says a lot right there.

Other than that, I'd say this solidifies atheism as a religion or 'faith' system.

What is it that the Laodicean Church was without?

Who was/is outside that assembly knocking?

Yep, says a lot right there.

 

[Amy.G]

That is just about the dumbest thing I've ever heard of.

 

[go2church]

Church without Jesus, isn't a church, regardless of what they call it.

 

[Gina B]

No.

If they didn't focus purposely on taking G-d out, it's a great idea for a community to come together for the sake of improvement and seeing what they can do to better themselves and their community. It's what we need to do as humans, and doesn't seem much different from having town meetings, just a lot more personal and effective.

THAT part sounds great, but to come together as a group and say "let's get together because we're all people that deny our Creator" is a wicked, terrible thing and I would not want to be associated with such a group. The idea is repulsive and pains my heart. It used to be that people who didn't believe at least had respect for belief and many even seemed ashamed to a degree by their lack of faith, saying things like "I know I should but..." and that would be followed by an excuse of when they might, etc.. Now it's become something to take pride it and acceptable in society. That's something to weep over, not consider taking part in.

 

[preachinjesus]

Without Christ it isn't a church, its just an assembly.

Curious, I wonder why AP doesn't show up to cover our actual church...we've got plenty more than 400.

 

[SolaSaint]

Sounds like a block party.

 

[glazer1972]

Only if they agreed that I could be speaker every Sunday for at least a year.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

That is just about the dumbest thing I've ever heard of.

Yea but relevant for California! Supprised I haven't seen it here ....plenty of aethiest. They would flourish here.

 

[HAMel]

By definition, a "church" is a building for public Christian worship.

Consequently, these folks aren't building any kind of "church".

 

[Gina B]

An added note - joining to "tell them what they're missing" would be joining under false pretenses and a lie. That's different from witnessing.

 

[agedman]

I have really enjoyed the comments.

But, I do have questions.

What was left out of the Rev. church of Laodicea?

How would that assembly be any different than the one of the OP?

What steps does your assembly take to guarantee they are different than that of the OP.

It is easy to state the difference when in a noticeable extreme as presented in the OP, but remember the enemy of the believer(s) does not deal with extremes, but with merely minor distortions of the truth.

He "prowls" the gathering (for there is abundant food) and is it not true that more often the assembly is totally unaware until some devouring has gone on?

However, the OP and Laodicean church don't need the enemy to prowl, Christ is already excluded - and they are deluded into thinking the opposite.

How do you discern?

How do you maintain the difference?

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

What was left out of the Rev. church of Laodicea?

Probably not what -- or rather, "Who" -- you think was.

Charles Spurgeon wrote of the Laodicean church:

http://www.spurgeon.org/sermons/1185.htm​

The condition described in our text is, secondly, one of mournful indifference and carelessness. They were not cold, but they were not hot; they were not infidels, yet they were not earnest believers; they did not oppose the gospel, neither did they defend it; they were not working mischief, neither were they doing any great good; they were not disreputable in moral character, but they were not distinguished for holiness; they were not irreligious, but they were not enthusiastic in piety nor eminent for zeal: they were what the world calls "Moderates," they were of the Broad-church school, they were neither bigots nor Puritans, they were prudent and avoided fanaticism, respectable and averse to excitement. Good things were maintained among them, but they did not make too much of them; they had prayer-meetings, but there were few present, for they liked quiet evenings at home: when more attended the meetings they were still very dull, for they did their praying very deliberately and were afraid of being too excited. They were content to have all things done decently and in order, but vigour and zeal they considered to be vulgar. Such churches have schools, Bible-classes, preaching rooms, and all sorts of agencies; but they might as well be without them, for no energy is displayed and no good comes of them.

A Laodicean church isn't "lost." It is, after all a church, unlike this misbegotten garbage the unbelievers referenced in the OP's linked article want to claim is a "church." The Laodicean church was a vibrant, active, gospel-preaching church at one point, but when the Jesus instructs John to write to the church in 96 A.D., it has fallen into lukewarmness.

Laodicea was about equidistant from Colosse and Hieropolis. The former had icy waters, like ice baths. The latter had hot springs. The reference Jesus makes is that Laodicea is at the midpoint of its faith, neither abandoning it nor being on fire to make it alive. Jesus was not missing from the church. Commitment and obedience was missing.

 

[Havensdad]

Why would any believer join that church?

Are they congregational? Cause if they are we could easily outnumber the atheists and take the churches over... :laugh:

 

[agedman]

Probably not what -- or rather, "Who" -- you think was.

Charles Spurgeon wrote of the Laodicean church:

http://www.spurgeon.org/sermons/1185.htm​

A Laodicean church isn't "lost." It is, after all a church, unlike this misbegotten garbage the unbelievers referenced in the OP's linked article want to claim is a "church." The Laodicean church was a vibrant, active, gospel-preaching church at one point, but when the Jesus instructs John to write to the church in 96 A.D., it has fallen into lukewarmness.

Laodicea was about equidistant from Colosse and Hieropolis. The former had icy waters, like ice baths. The latter had hot springs. The reference Jesus makes is that Laodicea is at the midpoint of its faith, neither abandoning it nor being on fire to make it alive. Jesus was not missing from the church. Commitment and obedience was missing.

To consider them "saved" might be a possibility. However, the church shut out Christ, and God spewed them out kind of gives the idea that they were worthless, or as Spurgeon states, "for no energy is displayed and no good comes of them."

Not to say there were none in the assembly that were not saved, but this is the only church of the Rev. in which there was no praise, no condition of improvement, only judgment.

They might be as Paul warned in 2 Timothy:

1But realize this, that in the last days difficult times will come. 2For men will be lovers of self, lovers of money, boastful, arrogant, revilers, disobedient to parents, ungrateful, unholy, 3unloving, irreconcilable, malicious gossips, without self-control, brutal, haters of good, 4treacherous, reckless, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, 5holding to a form of godliness, although they have denied its power; Avoid such men as these. 6For among them are those who enter into households and captivate weak women weighed down with sins, led on by various impulses, 7always learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. 8Just as Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses, so these men also oppose the truth, men of depraved mind, rejected in regard to the faith. 9But they will not make further progress; for their folly will be obvious to all, just as Jannes’s and Jambres’s folly was also.

​

Now I know that some take this statement of Paul as only applicable to the heathen, but the display Paul describes is no different in any age. So, it seems rather elementary for Paul to write what was already typical of any time of history one might choose.

What may be different is taking this passage as particular to the assembly, too. Could Paul have been warning Tim of what might take place in the assembly. Already it is evident that the adultery and harlotry is being excused among some, the Scriptural standard of deacon and elder is no longer viable in some, the idol worship over Scripture truth, the list could go on.

Again, make no mistake, I would agree with Spurgeon's thinking as far as he took it, but I also would suggest the shape of the "last days" as described by Paul may be intended as a warning for the assembly, and if such then, coupled with the Rev., might be shown as not so atypical of what this group in the OP is overtly displaying.

The obvious difference being that the Rev. church thought that they were righteous and blessed, when they were not. They were deceived. It didn't happen suddenly. Rather, the assembly had both the priority of misaligned piety, and the collusion of/by the enemy to exclude Christ; for it is most evident Christ was not part of the assembly but excluded. In short, the assembly was deceived into thinking they were blessed and viewed distractions established by the enemy as indicators, all the while shutting out Christ.

What might the true assembly do to not only warn, but guard the gathering from such sly deceit?

What is the true assemblies now doing?

Is preaching enough?

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

To consider them "saved" might be a possibility. However, the church shut out Christ, and God spewed them out ...

Tell me where it says He "spewed them out"? He says He will, but then in in just two short verses gives them recourse:

Revelation 3, NASB
18 "I advise you to buy from Me gold refined by fire so that you may become rich, and white garments so that you may clothe yourself, and that the shame of your nakedness will not be revealed; and eye salve to anoint your eyes so that you may see.
19 "Those whom I love, I reprove and discipline; therefore be zealous and repent.
20 "Behold, I stand at the door and knock; if anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and will dine with him, and he with Me."​

Look particularly at v. 19. "Those whom I love, I reprove and discipline." He hasn't rejected this church, He didn't "spit them out." He urged it to repentance and revival. We have no historical evidence as to what the result of His admonishment was. We know the church at Laodicea disappeared, along with the city, long ago. But then, so did Ephesus, Philippi, and Thesolonica. Did they, too, get "spit out" or was it other historical events that put an end to the church and the city?

Too often, A/M, I see you leap to conclusions based on knee-jerk personal interpretations -- eisegesis if you will -- when a bit more study would save you embarrassment.

 

[agedman]

Tell me where it says He "spewed them out"? He says He will, but then in in just two short verses gives them recourse:

Revelation 3, NASB
18 "I advise you to buy from Me gold refined by fire so that you may become rich, and white garments so that you may clothe yourself, and that the shame of your nakedness will not be revealed; and eye salve to anoint your eyes so that you may see.
19 "Those whom I love, I reprove and discipline; therefore be zealous and repent.
20 "Behold, I stand at the door and knock; if anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and will dine with him, and he with Me."​

Look particularly at v. 19. "Those whom I love, I reprove and discipline." He hasn't rejected this church, He didn't "spit them out." He urged it to repentance and revival. We have no historical evidence as to what the result of His admonishment was. We know the church at Laodicea disappeared, along with the city, long ago. But then, so did Ephesus, Philippi, and Thesolonica. Did they, too, get "spit out" or was it other historical events that put an end to the church and the city?

Too often, A/M, I see you leap to conclusions based on knee-jerk personal interpretations -- eisegesis if you will -- when a bit more study would save you embarrassment.

Too often disconnected you are jumping to conclusions without support from Scriptures. Using your own words against your post.


You didn't start the quote soon enough:

NASB

15 ‘I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot; I wish that you were cold or hot. 16 So because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of My mouth.

​

NKJV:

16 So then, because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will vomit you out of My mouth.

​

The NIV uses what I consider a weaker form of the "I will" and states it as "I am about to." I don't think that translation is as strong nor accurate as what it could be. That is because (IMO) the NIV sacrifices literalness for readability, and in doing so must by default become a weaker translation.

NOTE: The NIV has its place. It is not some heretical rendition, it just isn't as accurate as the NASB in rendering a literal preciseness.

Now, again, there are those who would consider this assembly just a matter of taking a middle of the road attitude.

However, if one is to look at the words that disconnected quoted, it is clearly stated that: "you do not know that you are wretched and miserable and poor and blind and naked,"

The assembly has been blinded, deceived and in great need of repentance: "Those whom I love, I reprove and discipline; therefore be zealous and repent."


But is there any love expressed to this assembly?


Throughout the address to the church there is no statement of approval - nothing other than demand to straighten up and repent. The same demand given to the lost.

I realize some take such a rebuke, as well as the portrayal that Christ standing at the door knocking, to show that the assembly is an actual group that is saved. That Christ would not state that they needed to do certain other than repent if the assembly were not saved.

However, how does that present in comparison to other Scriptures:

Is it not true that Christ is in the believer?

Is it not evident that Christ is not in this assembly?

That is why I am not convinced the Laodicean church is made up of other than folks who are fakes - blind and naked - though they know it not.

IMO, there is room for both sides to take a stand on the validity of this assembly being made up of the redeemed or not.

I choose to acknowledge those that do and those that don't.

For the purpose of this thread, it really doesn't matter if the group is saved or not.

What matters is the steps you personally and those of the assembly are taking to not appear as this group (referring to the OP) or that of the Laodicea assembly.

What are they?


What do you expect?

Is preaching enough?

 

[Ed B]

Allow me to try to find the silver lining in this. Something mentioned in the article made me think that assemblies for atheist might not be all bad.

Jones got the first inkling for the idea while leaving a Christmas carol concert six years ago.

"There was so much about it that I loved, but it's a shame because at the heart of it, it's something I don't believe in," Jones said. "If you think about church, there's very little that's bad. It's singing awesome songs, hearing interesting talks, thinking about improving yourself and helping other people - and doing that in a community with wonderful relationships. What part of that is not to like?"

I would prefer not to have atheist and agnostics being members of our churches simply so they can relive some old fond memories from the churches they grew up in or visited during holidays. If they have their own assemblies where they do “churchie” things like sing songs, listen to deep thoughts by Jack Handy, and "enjoy community", then they are at least honest and they are not as likely to be unintentional wolves in sheep’s clothing in real Churches.

But then I don't know why they went to this much trouble when they could have just joined one of the more liberal United Church of Christ, Unitarian, or even the more liberal UMC congregations and been welcomed and felt right at home.

As one UMC friend of mine said, "You believe in Jesus? Short of? Come join us!"