Wikipedia says:
Primary source is a term used in a number of disciplines to describe source material that is closest to the person, information, period, or idea being studied.
In the study of history as an academic discipline, a primary source (also called original source or evidence) it is an artifact, a document, a recording, or other source of information that was created at the time under study. It serves as an original source of information about the topic. Similar definitions are used in library science, and other areas of scholarship. In journalism, a primary source can be a person with direct knowledge of a situation, or a document created by such a person.
Primary sources are distinguished from secondary sources, which cite, comment on, or build upon primary sources, though the distinction is not a sharp one. A secondary source may also be a primary source and may depend on how it is used. “Primary" and "secondary" are relative terms, with sources judged primary or secondary according to specific historical contexts and what is being studied.
One of the concerns about "citizen journalism", aka blogging, is about the lack of the rigors of formal journalism. A lot of what passes as “news” in the blogosphere is nothing more than gossip really. Of course, the declining standards in what constitutes “news” with the media these days does nothing to help the situation, but rather serves to blur the lines between good journalism and bad journalism even further.
The rigors are there for a reason. Whether or not “journalism” overall is really a field of study is beside the point. At very least, it is a discipline. The rules of the discipline are there for a reason.
Primary sources in an organization are those of the organization, its members and its representatives. Primary sources outside the organization would be those who have or have had direct observation of the organization.
Recently, it seems there is some confusion about what United Church of God, an International Association (UCGia, or UCG or short) teaches as far as crosses go. Is the cross an acceptable symbol for Christianity? Should one venerate the cross? Should one wear the cross as an outward sign of one’s belief?
Well, let’s go to the primary source and find out, shall we? Why not go to www.ucg.org and use their handy search tool and see what it is that they say about the cross?
Will you find a “Thou shalt not wear a cross”? Probably not. That begs the whole question of whether or not a church can really forbid anything. If you step over certain lines, you might be asked not to come to services for a while, but it is unlikely that their website will have a direct “command”, if you will, not to wear the cross. However, I did find several entries that make a pretty clear picture of what the guidelines are:
Shape of the cross not spelled out
The word translated "cross" in the New Testament is the Greek word stauros, which "denotes, primarily, ‘an upright pale or stake’" (Vine’s Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words, 1985, "Cross, Crucify").
"Both the noun and the verb stauroo, ‘to fasten to a stake or pale,’ are originally to be distinguished from the ecclesiastical form of a two beamed ‘cross’" (ibid.).
…
If we don’t know whether Jesus was executed on a stake or a cross, or what shape of cross, how did the t-shaped cross come to be the most popular symbol of Christianity?
Vine’s explains: "The shape of the [two-beamed cross] had its origin in ancient Chaldea, and was used as the symbol of the god Tammuz (being in the shape of the mystic Tau, the initial of his name) in that country and in adjacent lands, including Egypt. By the middle of the 3rd cent. A.D. the churches had either departed from, or had travestied, certain doctrines of the Christian faith.”
…
Thus we see that the most common symbol of Christ and Christianity was a symbol that long predated Jesus and biblical Christianity.
~ http://www.gnmagazine.org/booklets/JC/roman-crucifixion.asp
In The Good News magazine, Nov/Dec 1997, we read in “Modern Christianity’s Forgotten Roots” by Scott Ashely, a member of the COE:
Transformed by paganism
While the practices of the apostles were being banned, traditions from other religions were being incorporated and relabeled as Christian. "Subtly, so subtly that the bishops themselves had not seen them, the old gods had entered their churches like the air of the Mediterranean. And they live still in Christian ritual, in the iconography and the festivals of Christianity . . . The ancient sign of life, the ankh, which the gods had carried in their sculptures for thousands of years, was easily transformed into the Christian cross; the figure of Isis nursing her child Horus, Isis Lactans, became the figure of the Virgin with Jesus at her breast . . .
Then, there is this:
Sunrise Services at the Temple (Ezekiel 8)
Ezekiel 8-11 records the details of another powerful vision the prophet received from God. The date is a year and two months after the first vision (compare 1:1-2; 3:15-16; 8:1). This would seem to place it within the 40-day period during which Ezekiel lay on his right side to represent the punishment for Judah’s sins—following the 390 days on his left side for Israel (compare 4:4-8). (However, it should be noted that, as sometimes happens with the Hebrew calendar, it is possible that a 13th month had been added to the year, which would mean that the vision of chapters 8-11 occurred just after the 40-day period.)
…
The image is referred to as the "image of jealousy…which provokes to jealousy" (verse 3). This probably hearkens back to God’s commands against idolatry: "You shall not make yourself a carved image…[to] bow down to them nor serve them. For I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God… You shall destroy their [the Canaanites’] altars, break their sacred pillars, and cut down their wooden images (for you shall worship no other god, for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God)" (Exodus 20:4-5; 34:13-14). Israel is God’s wife by covenant, and He is rightly jealous over her loyalty and affections—demanding that she not enter into adulterous relations with other gods, adopting their worship customs. Of course, being provoked to jealousy essentially means being provoked to justified anger, which may be why the Jewish Tanakh translation renders verse 3 as saying, "that was the site of the infuriating image that provokes fury." The Revised English Bible has "where stands the idolatrous image which arouses God’s indignation."
There are different ideas as to what this image was. Some propose an image of Tammuz, the counterfeit savior of the Chaldean religion, since his worship is specifically mentioned in the chapter as occurring in the same place (Ezekiel 8:14). Surprisingly, the image could have been that of a large cross. As Vine’s Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words explains, the modern cross "had its origin in ancient Chaldea, and was used as the symbol of the god Tammuz (being in the shape of the mystic Tau, the initial of his name) in that country and in adjacent lands, including Egypt. By the middle of the 3rd cent. A.D. the churches had either departed from, or had travestied, certain doctrines of the Christian faith. In order to increase the prestige of the apostate ecclesiastical system pagans were received into the churches apart from regeneration by faith, and were permitted to retain their pagan signs and symbols. Hence the Tau or T, in its most frequent form, with the cross-piece lowered, was adopted to stand for the ‘cross’ of Christ" ("Cross, Crucify," New Testament Section, 1985).
~ http://www.ucg.org/bible-commentary/Ezekiel/Pagan-sunrise-service-in-God%27s-temple/default.aspx
The United News:
Anointing in the Church Today
How do we use the tool of anointing today? The Bible doesn’t specify details about a right versus a wrong way to anoint. Some religions anoint the head with their finger in the shape of the cross, which we readily understand is wrong. The question has been asked by some members in the past, "Do you anoint the part of the body that is ill?" We do not, for we follow the example given to us of anointing the head with oil (Exodus 29:7; Luke 7:46).
In addressing the youth, Vertical Thought had this to say:
Cross
Question: Why shouldn’t we wear a cross as a sign of being a Christian?
Answer: Having a desire to let our light shine and to share our faith are positive goals! In order to answer this specific question, though, we must also consider the background of the cross, the New Testament record and Jesus’ teaching about how to display our Christianity.
One of the first questions we might ask is, Who decided that the cross was to be the sign of Christianity? This tradition of wearing a cross does not come from the Bible or the practices of the New Testament Church. Though there are at least seven different types of crosses, we are not even certain that Jesus was crucified on a cross-like apparatus. Though crucifixion on a cross was common at the time, the Bible allows that Jesus may have been put to death on an upright pole (rendered "tree" in 1 Peter 2:24 from the Greek word stauros, which primarily means an upright stake).
A study of history shows that the cross symbol predates Christianity. According to author Ralph Woodrow, "Centuries before the Christian era, the cross was honored as a religious symbol by the people of Babylon. It is seen on their oldest monuments. Historians say that it was a symbol associated with Tammuz" (Babylonian Mystery Religion, p. 51). From Babylon, the cross spread to other nations and was associated with paganism long before Jesus’ crucifixion in A.D. 31.
Woodrow further explains, "It was not until Christianity began to be paganized that the cross came to be thought of as a Christian symbol. It was in 431 A.D. that crosses in churches and chambers were introduced, while the use of crosses on steeples did not come until about 586 A.D." (p. 50).
While most people today connect the cross with Christianity rather than paganism, we must also ask if the cross is something to be worshipped or honored. While the apostles preached "the cross [stauros]" as part of the history of Christ’s ministry for our sakes (1 Corinthians 1:17-18), it was not something they idolized. It was a shameful instrument of death (Hebrews 12:2). In His crucifixion, Jesus took on Himself our shameful sins. Having our sins forgiven is a wonderful blessing, but there is no need to glorify the instrument used.
Finally, consider what the Bible teaches about wearing any religious symbol. Under the Old Covenant that God made with ancient Israel, God instructed them to wear reminders of their faith upon their hands (Deuteronomy 6:8; 11:18). In fulfillment of this command, phylacteries, small leather boxes containing scriptural passages, were traditionally worn by Jewish men during their morning weekday prayers. Many did this to appear righteous to others (Matthew 23:5).
During His New Testament ministry, Jesus taught His followers to display their spirituality through their actions and deeds (Matthew 5:16). Under the New Covenant, ushered in by Christ, God’s laws are to be written on our hearts—that is, in our minds (Hebrews 8:10; 10:16). People who truly practice the Christianity of the Bible stand out as beacons of light in a spiritually darkened society because of the way they live. They have no need to wear external signs like a cross to identify themselves as Christian.
If you would like to learn more about the history of the cross and how this pagan symbol entered Christianity, read chapters 6 and 7 of Ralph Woodrow’s book, Babylon Mystery Religion. These two chapters are respectively titled "Is the Cross a Christian Symbol?" and "Constantine and the Cross."
One of the strongest statements is in:
Question and Answer: Why Doesn’t Your Church Use the Symbol of the Cross?
Thank you for your interest. The Greek word translated as "cross" is stauros. It means the upright or stake portion of an instrument of execution that has been used in several cultures down through history. Sometimes executioners used a crosspiece at the top of or in different places on the stake; at other times, there was no crosspiece. It’s impossible to know exactly what type the Romans used in the crucifixion of Christ. It is clear, however, that the Romans attached a sign over His head (Matthew 27:37), which could have been upon a stake or a crosspiece.
Because Christ’s death is of such monumental significance to the Christian, some have mistakenly thought that the cross should be a part of Christian worship. But we should remember that it was an instrument of torture. When we stop to realize that fact, it should be clear that it’s grossly inappropriate to wear it as religious jewelry or an object of worship. Some would argue that using a cross in this manner symbolizes the value of Christ’s death. We disagree.
It’s true that the apostle Paul referred to the cross in a symbolic way (1 Corinthians 1:17, 23). Paul also used the cup of wine from the Passover as a symbol (1 Corinthians 10:21). And John the Baptist referred to Christ as the "Lamb of God" (John 1:36). But this doesn’t mean that we should begin to use cups or figures of lambs as religious ornaments or as objects of worship.
Furthermore, the second of God’s Ten Commandments strictly prohibits the use of objects in worship. "You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them nor serve them" (Exodus 20:4-5). (For more information about how the Ten Commandments apply in everyday Christian life, please see our booklet The Ten Commandments. If you do not have a copy, we would be happy to send you one. Or you can find it online at the literature library of our Web site at www.ucg.org.)
God wants us to direct our worship and prayers to Him, not to any physical object. Christ explained this principle in John 4:24: "God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and in truth." Following the biblical instruction, the United Church of God does not use the figure or image of a cross in its worship services. Neither do UCG IA members wear crosses as symbols of devotion. We refer to the cross in the way that the Scripture refers to it—that is, as a figure of speech to explain Christ’s atoning death for us.
Conclusion
I cannot come to any other conclusion than that of UCG does not endorse the wearing of crosses.
A primary source is also eye witness, of course, and I can relate a story about when I hadn’t been attending UCG very long. A woman came to church wearing a somewhat prominent cross. It wasn’t so large as to attract immediate attention, but if you were close enough to speak to her, then you could easily notice it. I can tell you that after the second week of wearing it, she no longer came to church services wearing it.
As most of you know, I am no longer affiliated with UCG, so I don’t have anything personal to gain by pointing all this out, but if we cannot deal honestly with each other, then what does that say about us?
Thank you. The only thing he has to cite as evidence is a snippet from a 1995 personal correspondence department letter from Kubik. But that snippet can be taken many ways, depending on context of reply. Nonetheless the evidence against his claim is very high. I would say he’s a classic example of how people act when faced with cognitive dissonance. Among other things. I’m still not sure why I read his blog.
I think you should note when Kubic said that. It was in 1995 when UCG formed. Many of the current UCG leadership, Kubic included, accepted and taught Tkach’s changes until changing their minds again after UCG formed. I don’t believe it reflects the current UCG position as James seems to indicate.
As someone noted the only statement Malm quotes is 1995. I have a different take on that than safetman ed. That being, quite honestly at that point UCG had bigger fish to fry than the topic of crosses. It was 5 months into UCG. Doctrinal papers were being written on a variety of topics. Congregations were getting organized. The topic of crosses probably wasn’t even on the radar. That response could almost be looked at as a brush off on the topic. Additionally ‘Re: wearing a cross as a symbol of devotion to God, I see this as a personal matter about which the Church of God need not make an issue” He says “I” clearly speaking for himself Although it was from the PC department it’s unclear to me who it was addressing.
Malm uses Thiel, hardly an unbiased source of info on UCG, instead of going to the horse’s mouth when it’s easily available, a 15 year old quote at that.
James is really good at using isolated quotes with minimal context to prove a dubious point. Do I believe every minister or leader in UCG is 1005 onboard with every point of doctrine? If they are it would be the first time in my cog experience. James needs to look at what an organization is doing or publishing, not what some person says in an isolated case.
Another thing to point out is Thiel’s site also clearly states “UCG has since changed their stance on this matter.” But Malm won’t admit to that. He’s very good at taking small isolated examples and extrapolating them to a whole, whether they fit or not. But the other side if the coin is his brush off of more examples to the contrary of his opinions with simple dismissal (well it’s bot like that everywhere just yet. But this is still an example of how things are overall!) or plain ignoring them (such as my comment the other day on Robin Webber’s statement. I compared it to how I get up in the morning to go to work because I want to, not because I have to. But everyone knows that I still have to go to work if I intend to keep my job. The requirement didn’t disappear simply because I do it for wanting to and not from requirement). And shall we mention his pride in not attending any organization since the 80s and still tries to tell us the truth about how each org really is, despite his woeful lack of true knowledge or experience there?
Well Buckblog and Andrew, I can speak from experience. I was disfellowshipped in early 1993 for not going along with the Tkackisms. I joined GCG soon after their formation and watched as person after person was disfellowshipped for the same reason I was by ministers that now lead UCG! I saw it…I lived it!
I also had several ministers tell me how these same men compromised doctrinally at the end of WCG for a paycheck and then went on to UCG after they formed. It doesn’t surprise me that Kubic said that in 1995. That’s what most of them was teaching at the end of WCG and what they believed at the time.
John,
“One of the concerns about “citizen journalism”, aka blogging, is about the lack of the rigors of formal journalism. A lot of what passes as “news” in the blogosphere is nothing more than gossip really.”
I remember a radiotalk program between a panel of prominant journalists that dealt with the problems within professional journalism. The following is what I learned from that.
In essence true journalism just deals with the facts and only the facts and conveys them to the public. However nowadays a good deal of what passes for journalism even in reputiable newsagencies is nothing more than editorializing.
Freeonline Dictionary definition of editorialize: “2. To present an opinion in the guise of an objective report.”
However in most cases it is not black and white, there is a lot of grey where the writer’s personal bias filters through in small amounts. Which on one hand can be unavoidable but on the other hand has a much to do with the pressure of gaining and maintaining a readership. Which is something bloggers also face to one degree or another.
And when it comes to gossip, it was TMZ that found out about Micheal Jackson’s death and accurately reported it to the world long before all the major news agencies. But that is nothing in comparison when reporting on issues that pertain to the good news.
“Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in your name? .. And then will I profess to them, I never knew you: depart from me, you that work iniquity.” (Matt 7:22-23)
Here’s a good question, whether a person is a blogger or just posting. Can a person have the right facts, yet be irresponsible in how they decide to present them?
I believe what topics we talk or write about are less important than how we portray them.
BTW, good post. 🙂
@safeTmanEd: I don’t understand your comment about refusing to provide sources or links. What links are missing in the above article?
Thanks in advance.
John,
If you are referring to the comment I put on ShiningLight, you read it wrong. I was quoting him and questioning where he got that idea. I quoted him as saying:
“John Carmack has written and claims that the cross thing was later changed, however he refuses to provide his source or a link. I find that highly suspect. In any case some in UCG do wear crosses and this is certainly winked at. james”
And I said in response:
“I’d like to know where you get this idea from?? In 10 or more years, I’ve never seen anyone wearing a cross that attends UCG. How is it winked at?”
He has since backed up from that idea because he now says:
“I have been in further contact with John and will be deleting that comment.”
SafeTmanEd
Verifiable support for the cross in UCG:
Ask anyone in the Minnesota area. The last 5 or so years (maybe more, or less) the St. Paul Church area congregation met in a protestant (or other false Christian hall) where the cross was very prominently displayed.
Some members stopped attending there, and went to Minneapolis. I directly asked an elder why this was acceptable, and I was told that we weren’t “worshiping the cross” so it didn’t matter. (his wife agreed as well, and I assume so did all those attending there)
When I directly stated that the “cross is a pagan symbol”, I was told, by an elder of 30+ years in the Church, a former full time Pastor, currently an elder of UCG, that “the cross is not a pagan symbol”.
If you want the name of this elder to verify this story, email me, I am sure he will maintain this statement.
Robert,
If the elder in your area stated that, then he was not representing the teachings of UCG….but then again, he may believe that personally. Read what John posted in the article again.
And the topic was members wearing crosses, not meeting in a church building that may display one. Various COG’s have met in many places, including church facilities. I agree, I would not have been really comfortable meeting there but it’s not unheard of.
We attended a GCG congregation and a UCG congregation later, that both met in Masonic buildings (different cities). Many were uncomfortable with that as well.
I grew up in WWCG, was baptised in UCG. My father was a Pastor, I have 4 uncles that were Pastors, and both my parents and over a dozen aunts and uncles that graduated from Ambassador college. The “teachings” of UCG can vary as widely as the person teaching it.
I have watched almost every Beyond TV program since it started. They consistently called Catholic/Protestant churches “brothers in Christ” or some watered down version of this. Often times repeating popular political conservative talking points when referencing the lack of God in our schools, the removing the of ten commandments or the Christmas trees, and other politically charged “Christian” news items.
In small congregations, we watch video sermons from home office. After years and many, many sermons coming from all over the states and the home office, I can say from first hand experience, the UCG trend is towards accepting all “Christian” denominations as “Christian”. It’s has become _very_ rare to hear “false Christianity” anymore. (If you really need proof of this, start downloading sermons from the UCG site, or ask for DVDs of them)
The simple fact that we can’t wear a cross, but we can “officially” worship God surrounded by crosses is the very definition of hypocrisy.
Crosses on people = bad, but crosses on our meeting hall=”good”? Do as we say, but not as we do, etc…
I’ve often seen local areas unaffected by issues like these, so these people are ignorant of what is happening as a trend in the greater body. Or our own personal bias blocks our ability to see what is actually going on, even though we have evidence right in front of us. (like attending services in a pagan hall, like the Mason’s)
Would Jesus or Paul have held services in any of the Pagan temples in Rome or Jerusalem? If you say yes, then I doubt your ability to discern good from evil. If you say no, then why would you do it now?
If you need evidence that the Masons were blatant pagans, by their own writings, let me know I can post links. I am sure it’s not needed to prove that Catholicism/Protestantism is pagan in origin.
Robert wrote: “When I directly stated that the ‘cross is a pagan symbol’, I was told, by an elder of 30+ years in the Church, a former full time Pastor, currently an elder of UCG, that ‘the cross is not a pagan symbol’.”
and
“The ‘teachings’ of UCG can vary as widely as the person teaching it.”
If one of your elders said that, then I would agree. I’ve never heard an elder say that myself, and it would really make me wonder if I were in the right organization had I heard that firsthand. I don’t understand, though, how someone who so blatantly goes against written material can in good conscience remain an elder, nor how the ministry could keep him on.
True, I rarely hear “false Christianity” these days, but perhaps that isn’t necessarily a bad thing. When you use labels like that, you come off as judgmental, and that turns outsiders off — even outsiders that might otherwise consider what you are saying. There is a time for extreme rhetoric, but in the past I think it was overused and made more enemies than necessary.
However, the catch phrase seems to be more like “the world’s version of Christianity” or “mainstream Christianity” which still gets the point across without what could appear to be a deliberate insult.
I quit watching Beyond Today, though. It was never as good as the “Good News TV” programs were. I don’t recall them actually calling mainstream Christians “brother”, though. Maybe it’s because I watched too few of them.
I’ve stated it before, and I’ll state it again. God expects us to keep His Laws, at least His Ten Commandments. One of those requires the seventh day to be holy. If you are not keeping the seventh day Sabbath, then you are not acting like a true Christian should. I cannot call a Sabbath breaker “brother” any more than an pagan, idolator, blasphemer, disrespecter of parents, murderer, adulterer, thief, liar or one who constantly covets these things. While no one keeps these perfectly, to argue that any one of them is unnecessary, done away or a burden is showing an unconverted attitude. God requires repentance and conversion, not an attitude of pay Him lip service and go do what you want to do anyhow. That’s what ancient Israel did over and over again. God wasn’t pleased then, and He is not pleased with those who do the same now.
Mainstream Christianity is about as Christian as fools gold is golden. It is a fake and a counterfeit. Why yoke ourselves to Belial (2Co 6:12-16)?
“The simple fact that we can’t wear a cross, but we can ‘officially’ worship God surrounded by crosses is the very definition of hypocrisy.”
I cannot speak for every congregation, obviously. Even when we met for a time in a church hall locally, every effort was made to cover up the cross. Sometimes, it was next to impossible because of the location over a full baptismal tank. However, I remember one week, there was nothing to drape over it, so they actually found they could detach it from the wall.
I think it is better to just not rent halls like that for lots of reasons. The cross was actually one of the lesser problems in the long run, especially around December. It doesn’t mix. It doesn’t blend. Light and darkness cannot cohabit. Sooner or later, one will push the other out. I think if it were to happen with the new organization that if we started meeting in a church again, I would probably opt to go to a nearby city instead.
If you can show any scripture to back up this statement I will eat my hat. 🙂 This concern for people’s feelings needs to always give way to the truth. It is “false Christianity”, is there a specific phrase from scriptures? (I don’t know of one) I am all for speaking more eloquently, but “mainstream” is a generic term with no real inherent meaning, as there is plenty of “non-mainstream” Christian religions that are also false. Also, I may quote Jesus about being a friend of the world.
I get the sense that we have the same perspective on past communication methods though, they were accusatory, degrading and insulting. My wife was raised Catholic, is a baptised member (in UCG) and was consistently irritated with how Catholics/Protestants were referred to. (basically ignorant cause they didn’t “get it”) A very common theme in sermons since my childhood till today.
I have found a number of elders will easily back down and say ridiculous things when they feel they will come off as to “harsh”, or get backed into _any_ kind of corner where the obvious answer will either make them contradict themselves (ie, crosses in the hall) or contradict a sermon from home office, etc…
There is a general sense of no backbone in the Church these days, and mainly because having a backbone may mean you end up looking like a bigot, judgment or just a plain jerk in today’s environments.
What we need is the truth, it’s hard hitting on it’s own and easy to defend. The truth is you don’t even need a hall to get together. Ask the brethren in COGwa now (I just recently left UCG), they happily met in homes, and UCG started that way. I’ve lived on the streets, on a park bench, we have a pride issue in the Church that gets us into these issues, not technical ones.
What about New Years and Christmas? Our first Pastor (and I do believe this is an official written position) said it was ok for us to eat Christmas dinner with my in-laws! (I finally saw the error of this when our daughter started fighting us over keeping Christmas) And I know for a fact that growing up with a Pastor (later part time) as a father, there wasn’t a concern for going to new New Years parties either. (also reflected in my other relatives that were Pastors and elders that lived all over the country)
This is not a new problem, regardless of what the official documents say, they are danced around quite handily. (was there recent New Years celebrations posted on Facebook by UCG administration? Or is this a rumor?)
btw, I don’t want to come across as unreasonable with the ministry. Even most of the men I take issue with in regards to their waffling, I hold in high regard and respect. They do a difficult work taking care of their congregations. My own personal failings help me keep these issues in perspective, and help me maintain respect for those I disagree with. (as we can all change, and many problems are temporary or simply done out of ignorance)
Robert wrote: “If you can show any scripture to back up this statement I will eat my hat.”
Not sure what I am supposed to “back up”, since it is only an opinion, but do you mean something like “If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men”?
Even Jesus talked about friends in Lk 16, and about how the people of the world understand their kind better than we.
And, how much evangelism, trying to gain disciples, gets swept away because someone makes a careless and unnecessary remark?
“I get the sense that we have the same perspective on past communication methods though, they were accusatory, degrading and insulting.”
Yes, that is pretty much what I’m talking about. There is a time and place for everything, but the general rule should be to agree quickly with our adversary, go two miles instead of one, give your cloak as well as your coat, etc. Jesus’ words were called “gracious”, even when His opponents were protesting them.
Doing that while speaking the truth and not giving tacit approval of evil is a very fine line to walk.
Sorry, I realized I was fairly vague with my response on this. (poor quoting too) Typing not matching my brain sort of issue… Here’s your full quote:
I guess I take issue with your conclusion of “making enemies” by stating the truth. (which is often considered “extreme” all on its own) Though I realize you were making more of a point about the Church’s past poor communication style.
But if not, then should we really be concerned about how the world views us?
Other than having an honorable name, and the long list of other guidelines in scriptures, I wonder if being too concerned about how the world sees us has lead us to a pendulum swing towards wanting to be like other “mainstream” Christian groups.
I recall as a teenager on a city commuter train these men had their “burn in hell” boards over their chests like from the 30s street advertisers, and they asked me if I was “born again”. I said I was a christian, and rebuffed their question a little. They asked me what church I was in, I replied “the World Wide Church of God.” They all gasped, and one chastised me “That’s a cult!”
I am not sure how much this history plays into our current mess, but it seems to be that we aren’t _as_ hated as we used to be by the other “Christian” churches… maybe this should concern us, lol.
Robert wrote: “But if not…”
Actually, I was, but I’ll run with this anyhow. 🙂
“then should we really be concerned about how the world views us?”
Not so much about how the world views us, but are we dealing with others in a humble manner pleasing to God or are we being self-righteous and arrogant because “we have knowledge”?
To put it another way, you ever have a job review? Aren’t you the least bit concerned about how your boss and your peers perceive your work? Then, aren’t you being concerned about how others view you? What do you do with that feedback? Hopefully, you look at it and ask, “Is it true?” If it is true, then don’t you make adjustments?
“Other than having an honorable name, and the long list of other guidelines in scriptures”
OK, I’ll bite. Can we have “an honorable name” without a perception from others outside of our group? You know, Ps 16:7 talks about being at peace even with your enemies. Why? Because even if they don’t like you, they have a perception about you. They are afraid to go against the truly righteous because they realize God is watching over the righteous.
“I wonder if being too concerned about how the world sees us has lead us to a pendulum swing towards wanting to be like other ‘mainstream’ Christian groups.”
Like I said, it is a fine line to walk. In addition, people do all sorts of good things for all the wrong reasons. You can be kind but expect something in return, for example. You can tell people the truth, but it can come from hostility instead of love. That’s why we are supposed to speak the truth in love. You have to have both. By the same token, you can cater to other people but lose sight of God (ala Martha serving people instead of listening to Jesus teach). We all are required to look at ourselves and determine if we are doing things for the right reasons. God commands us to be humble, and “gentleness” is a fruit of the Spirit. However, only you and God knows if you are trying to please the world or please God.
I’m advocating we learn from our past. We were often called a cult because, honestly, sometimes we acted like one. Other times, it was a totally unwarranted attack. Again, we have to ask God to show us how we really are and make any necessary changes, but ask for strength to hang onto the things that should never change.
In short, we’ve not always been as discerning as we should be. If the feedback from “the world” rings true, then maybe we need to look into the Scriptures and see where we went wrong. If the feedback from “the world” is some made up flight of fancy that is easily disprovable by Scripture, then we can safely discard it. We are in this world to learn. However, we need to be in the world without being of the world.
I agree, we haven’t. And your statement in general seems to be “we should do better”. I guess talking about this kind of thing skirts the issues of bad-mouthing ourselves as a church vs constructive criticism.
The funny part about talking about all this, is that it kinda doesn’t matter. What is going to change? You and I obviously have similar views on current problems, and maybe many other do as well, but now what?
Robert wrote: “What is going to change? You and I obviously have similar views on current problems, and maybe many other do as well, but now what?”
We are only responsible for what we have control over. If we want change, it starts with ourselves. That means both how we treat others and how we react to events.
I know I have mentioned it to a couple of people when I thought their words could have been better chosen. I haven’t yet had anyone disagree with me, but of course I don’t make it a habit, either.
Of course, each of us ourselves have to be willing to change; we must be willing to accept constructive advice as well as give it.
Small things? Yes. However, God started the human family with one man and one woman. He sustained them through one family in a big wooden boat. He selected a chosen people through one man who became the father of the faithful. He started a church with 12 apostles. Jesus said we would be a little flock.
It seems we each should ask ourselves if we despise the day of small things. Are we going to try to influence each other for the better, will we be iron sharpening iron, and will we be content with our current roles while God prepares the entire Church for something much greater?