Is God Using Bloggers To Purify The Church?

Em says:

Michael, even though we don’t see everything eye to eye, you are doing God’s heart and His truth a service here. Thank you.work

Fortunately mortals are not in charge of placing people on the train to hell or i and several others here would be waiting at the depot with you
God keep, giving you strength of mind and body to keep on keeping on with this work

Reuben says:

This concept confuses me these days. The “church” is experiencing a modern day Tower of Babel, and seemingly exploiting it since day one.

6 And the Lord said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do.

7 Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another’s speech.

8 So the Lord scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth: and they left off to build the city.

One could argue that god has problems with this compounding knowledge of the filth of the church, that it becomes known to everyone, yet Christians claim to be under the authority of god in making it known. I would not argue with that personally, because Christians simply don’t know what evil they subject themselves to unless it is literally spelled out, which you, and others have done.

With that said, the Prophets seemingly always spoke words of warning and reprimand on behalf of god for various wickedness, so god seemingly condones this effort as well.

Dispensations aside, if bloggers are modern day Prophets, and they speak against the institution of god known as the church, rolling in their own filth may be the life they should expect to live, not gaining popularity with crushing increase.

Yet, there is hardly a corner of the world that maintains various religions that is also unaware of the corruption and evil therein, due precisely to the modern Tower. Christianity and Islam have a major trait in common in this regard, that they would much prefer these issues be dealt with “in house” so that events do not reflect on the institutions badly as a whole. Yet, nothing is EVER resolved this way, and the institution only becomes more powerful and evil when managing to sustain it.

Yeah, I am confused. All I can chalk it up to is the reality that religion is detrimental, and wholly capable of blood inside and outside, and indeed does. Daily. Regardless of the Prophets.

Reuben says:

MM, I literally posted the reason?

…let us build us a city and a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven; and let us make us a name, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth.

They could not build a tower whose top may reach unto heaven, but god opposed it anyway, so without missing the point entirely by drowning in trivial minutia, I would flip the question, and ask why did god prefer them scattered and incapable of communicating? And again, I already posted the answer to that.

The better question is, would god prefer we not discuss the reality of abuse in the church? What was so important to god that he confound people? Or are people like Michael simply perpetually reaching for the knowledge of good and evil?

MM says:

Dr. Seuss wrote about building towers, “Yertle the Turtle.”

Yes just a children’s story. Too bad we just read our children Harry Potter these days and let them play first person shooter games (yes I’m opposed to them). What we are eat often shows who we are.

Reuben says:

Absolutely false, MM.

Having a christocentric attitude towards religion is pointless as well. It’s all religions, except maybe maybe maybe Jainism, and the jury is still out. Christianity is the bloodiest religion in all of history, and nobody answers why, except to say it’s man’s fault. It’s a boring conclusion that will never bear any weight with me.

I will answer. You saw what god did, you emulated. Judaism and Islam saw the same god act out it’s deeds, and acted accordingly, so they can’t all be wrong, can they? I assume you would adopt the notion that they are all wrong, and I would agree, because of the damned religions.

But what really fails in this particular thread is that the idea is to make a name for god, and religion has been doing that in spades to the bitter and horrible end of BILLIONS of humans, again, none more so than your religion.

So don’t even start with the Stalin etc. lies. This is getting old. He was a seminarian and backed fully by the Russian Orthodox Church from beginning to end, and acted out the “will of god” on millions accordingly. Hitler, literally read from the Luther playbook to the glee of the Catholic Church, something they never adequately apologized for, and never will. Mao, a religion in and of himself, just read his little red book. North Korea, the Kim dynasty, the most religious state in the world today. They even have a holy trinity. And of all the examples you can think of, they all promote essentially the same things, and act out quite differently! Your god is just a different one, your religion merely normative in this regard. Older.

“Too bad we just read our children Harry Potter these days…”

Shake my head.

I once talked to a Calvary Chapel pastor, this is almost two decades ago, at a pastors conference, who kicked out half his church because of Harry Potter. You must be from that era, because I have not heard that gripe from a Christian’s mouth in almost as long. Get with the times, it’s the Tranny taking over the world now, look no further than the Linkathon for that.

I won’t get into what Atheism is here again, it’s twice as boring as your answer to evil conducted by your own religion.

But what bothers me in all your morning thoughts on the keyboard is that you did not answer my questions. What Michael does here, in my Marxist Anti-Theist totally depraved and reprobate mind, is a good thing. I believe god disagrees. Just answer the questions.

MM says:

Reuben

By the way you only post rhetorical questions, which it seems you really don’t desire to be answered.

Thank you though for responding.

MM says:

Reuben

In all your hate for god and the god stories, did it ever occur to you god leaves it up to us to debate these things and find out the best path to walk.

Again you ask rhetorical questions which have neither a yes or no answer.

BTW please avoid you personal attacks and try to understand the difference between reading Yertle the Turtle and Harry Potter. Neither of which I have recommended against reading, could it be the simple story of a turtle is more profound than trying to find a special powers and a magical answer to every thing.

Personally I find there’s no magical incantation or power that will fix the wrongs in life, just people willing to stand up for and alongside others.

Em says:

Hmmm… when i was a child i read Hans Christen Anderson and Aesop… fairy tales do not prepare you for life – not sure about the cowboy movies where the good guys always won… still believe in that, but the definition and the time frame have changed considerably 🙂
FWIW
I have found nothing in this life that makes more sense that what is laid out in the Bible and on that i hang my hat (and my soul)…

pstrmike says:

Thanks Wenatchee,
Much to ponder in your post. I was struck by your last few statements :

” I’ve felt like I’ve been able to make some fun breakthroughs in my consideration of what went on at MHC by doing a mash-up of Jacques Ellul with Theodore Adorno with Richard Sibbes.
Cold War era balkanization of the mind led to a lot of totalitarian ways of thinking that don’t recognize themselves as such, and the places where that happens most in my observation are in the religious right and also, not so surprisingly, in the new atheists.”

These are perennial ideas that in some sense, have a universal quality about them. We as humans seem to operate in similar patterns despite our different environments.

I did some reading of Ellul when working on my dissertation, though I did not address his work directly. That connection with Ellul, Adorno, and Sibbes is interesting, and on the surface, makes a great deal of sense. It is one that I am looking to pursue as early as this coming summer. I would think that Machiavelli, who is much more well known, might also round out that conversation. It has been said—though I’ve never read any evidence—that Stalin was a fan of Machiavelli, as was Pol Pot.

If you have any suggestions of areas where I might read, please send me a note at pstrmike01ATgmaildotcom Thanks

Reuben says:

Wenatchee,

First let me say that you being the structure, and Stephanie being the billboard, in my not so humble opinion, wasted the name Mars Hill, and for that, I am grateful.

Second, you both made names for yourselves. In this regard, in this regard alone, what exactly is the difference between you two and Mark? Mr. “It’s all about Jesus” made a name for himself, and he was inextricably linked to the mantra. You, and others have never been linked to such mantras, but you like to lay claim.

Did that sting? It should, because the last respectable thing about you is your inability to deal with dissent, and your MO played out perfectly, which is to speak of the dissenter as if they were not even there. Almost as if you view them as inhuman.

Failure to address the topic that I answered to in this thread, speaks volumes of anyone who posted here. “Is god using bloggers…” seems a rhetorical question, but by all means, let’s discuss Marxism instead. Literally, it is only Michael who came close to addressing the questions I pose, “He makes us uncomfortable…and maybe we should be.”

You should be.

The damage you did to Mars Hill is not something that can never be repaired. I will never besmirch that. It is the best thing that could have happened to Mars Hill. But instead of answering the questions, you attack the one who brings them by virtue of my political beliefs. Does this somehow discredit the questions? Have you achieved some solace through this? I question the belief that any of you have accomplished anything in god’s economy by even bringing down all of Calvary Chapel or Mars Hill. I seriously. question if he views this is a full attack on his institutions. “Whatsoever things are of good report…” “True and undefiled religion is this…”

I know for a fact that Michael is doing some real help behind the scenes with people who have been destroyed by your religion and its filthy heroes. Perhaps, and I suspect this is true, these works that go unnoticed, not in the public view, not on the blogs, are the ones that weigh heavily to your god.

Stalinism was coined Stalinism rather than Marxism for a reason, and you are being horrifically dishonest to conflate the two. Francis Schaeffer and Karl Marx, Wenatchee? The egalitarianism of the Jews? What exactly did that do for your religion and culture? Here is my singular point on this drivel. “You shouldn’t be in the dictatorship business if you can’t pull from a well of religious credulity.” – Christopher Hitchens, a Marxist to his dying days, speaking specifically of the “Great Atheist” Joseph Stalin.

Address the questions of the topic, and stop dehumanizing political beliefs. I am not here bashing Trumpers or Pelosi Prophets.

Reuben says:

:\

So your answer is a non-answer, dance, and another string of nonsense that has nothing to do with the points. You simply can not address the questions.

I will take very serious exception to your closing statement. You have to define evil in this case, because as we already discussed in this thread, we know god’s reasoning behind why he chose to confound and scatter people. I question the very motive, the very statement of your almighty, and reject it as the speak of an authoritarian dictatorship that spanned beyond his own wheelhouse to imposing that motivation on people who did not even regard your god as god. Evil.

So when you reference the apocalyptic writings of John, and cite “these” as the ones who should be opposed, you have defined “these” with no explanation, so I reject your claim. There is no difference in my view, so you skirted another shot at the question. I am acutely aware of the fact that the apocalyptic writings of John are debated to death, and Christianities insistence to parallel them with some current event. In broad terms, the writings implicate you. You create an apologetic, not an answer. This is to preserve your legacy. This also underscores the reality that you have an us v. them mentality in your own ranks. When do you start killing each other over it?

Karl Marx builds the tower. Implicating my ideals does not work here. I am not held accountable to your scriptures, you are. So this “if, therefore” method of not answering the question is relentlessly pointless.

When you say I am not at a place where I can see this yet, you hold me accountable to your rules. Again, I have no problem with you do, what Stephanie does (or did), what Michael does, in fact I applaud it more for the simple fact that you all do so within your own wheelhouse, and do it effectively. I am specifically questioning your rules, not mine.

Hitchens, the reason why I quoted him seems self evident, but it opens a door for you to fill pages to discredit someone. None of this topic has anything to do with Marxism or Hitchens. You have not established how it does.

Totally with you on bloggers being second rate reporters and commentators to media in general. As a former Christian, and as an Anti-Theist, I agree that mass-media has no fingers on the pulse of anything but ratings, and are simply incapable of including those who have watched and studied things for decades, such as my reading list of bloggers have.

“Reuben, human violence is ineradicable. It can be contained and sometimes redirected but never eliminated. It is also not necessarily or automatically predicated on “religion” in any organized sense but on a conception of “sacred”. I don’t think it should be necessary to point out how and why these two concepts don’t automatically overlap. You probably get that already.”

Interjecting a word such as “sacred”… and then making it the fulcrum point, man, this is some talented “if, therefore” skirting.

“If” religion can justify wiping out billions of “god’s creation” in the name of gods, shouldn’t “therefore” be some justification for greater humanity to do it for no religious reason at all? Unfortunately, it NEVER happened. Being stuck in the mindset that god somehow fixes this, or justifies this, or makes this righteous is as baffling to me as the flying teapot.

I think we are done here, because your next post will be to try to clarify the connections between Marxism, Hitchens, Schaeffer, and disposable plastic plates… and I am not interested.

MM says:

Reuben

“ and I am not interested.”

I’m not buying it.

When you write it is always a long diatribe of words and ideas loosely connected to the same theme, your hate for people who are religious.

I consistently get the idea reading your words you have either become or always were the very thing you accuse others of being or doing. I also believe these same writings give your answer to the not so cleverly veiled attacks behind your question.

I hope things work out for you.

Xenia says:

Anathema.

Reuben says:

MM, you have no idea. I just watched another “sheep” of mine buried, suicide. When you say, “…you have either become or always were the very thing you accuse others of being or doing” you quite literally have no idea. I’m sick of the blood. I am not sure what you implicate through that statement though, but you have zero clue. I don’t know how many people you are responsible for have taken their own lives, but when it happens, you wish your own death, regardless of what you taught.

pstrmike says:

I have given this thread some careful thought, including some back and forth conversations with Michael. I remembered my own experience of abuse and the systemic structures that enable such to happen. It seems that there are two characteristics that are inherent in all social/political systems, and the church is no exception. There is hierarchical structure between those who have and those who don’t, and there is a bent toward a mental posture that can only be described as totalitarian in nature. In both cases, civility envisions a peaceful co-existence by rooting out the dissidents. We become defenders of our own dogmatic positions.

I saw this dynamic in full swing in a church group that is considers itself as progressive, moderate, and inclusive of all others. Conservatives and particularly fundamentalists need not apply. The group took on a hierarchical structure and those with the power attempted to enforce a unification based on a narrative, that quite frankly, lacked serious biblical framework. Those who didn’t buy into that new party line found themselves on the outer orbit.

All of this led me to ask, are there two competing systems at work here? We have abusive ecclesiastical structures (churches and colleges) and the reformers seeking to unseat them. Obviously church reform has gained enough momentum that we now have a conference about it. Both those with the power, and the reformers who are seeking to expose them seem to operate with the same methods, both claiming to speak for God, and therefore God must be on their side, both of them are riding the waves of media exposure which reminds me of my days in the ocean with too many surfers competing for the same waves on a crowded point break.

To be clear, I don’t see Michael or Wenatchee as a part of that system of reformers. But I do wonder about Roys, Beach and others who were once a part of abusive ecclesiastical systems (I’m not sure that Roys was ever an insider at an abusive system). In fairness, I recognize that they were also victims of such a system. Their stories should be told, and they deserve justice. But in some cases, I suspect that there are those who received at least some form of benefit due to their place on the inside. Such an exposure to privilege and the benefits they bring is always a temptation.

It is like the glaring inconsistencies of the justice crowd who fly all over for speaking engagements at conferences, seminars and strategic meetings complete with the numerous photo ops pasted all over social media. Such is the way that momentum is established and maintained, I get that. But their lifestyles appear to be rather privileged, and to me, seem so disconnected from the very people they claim to advocate for. Advocating for justice is biblical, even better with frequent flyer miles.

It is my hope that this current trend to reform evangelicalism is pure, and that they resist the temptation to build their own Tower of Babel. Otherwise, we will again hear the words of the prophet Roger Daltrey: “meet the new boss, same as the old boss.”

pstrmike says:

You ask a hard question Reuben.

I see this thing expanding in various pockets, and will take on different characteristics with the typical church mixture of wheat and chaff. My exposure to the more “catholic” side of the church aisle has been for me, among other things, a greater comprehension of our humanity. I don’t dwell on the Imago Dei as much as I do the Incarnation, which for me, makes the entirety of the Christian faith both believable and acceptable. What am saying here? I think we often semi-impose our own preferences, ambitions, including avarice desires upon the Spirit of God and attempt to give Him credit in justifying our lusts for power. Talk about blasphemy……. We don’t adequately consider our bent to taint God’s calling with our own selfish impulse.

One problem with grass root movements are that they grow up to be mature plants. We are never satisfied with the days of small things. A few years ago, one of the pastors here had this wonderful ideal of a Good Friday gathering where there would be stations of prayer, communion and Bible reading; everyone could choose to participate as they wanted. He invited our church and another church to participate. Next thing I know, the other pastor wants to place ads in the paper, have a big band for worship, and change the venue to a larger building accommodate more people. All those things are fine, but I felt suspicious of the motive behind all of it. When a spiritual encounter with God is turned into a marketing tool, you stomp the pneuma right out of it.

Using the analogy in this thread, you can build a house of worship, or you can build a tower of Babel. What do want to build? The reality is, most people don’t know the difference. And that will continue until people take their spiritual lives more seriously rather than deferring so much to their favorite talking head. The call for justice and accountability in evangelicalism requires iconoclastic measures. These things should be self-evident the Christian, but for whatever reason, they are not.

A true grassroots movement stresses a personal devotional life, aimed at the Spirit’s work in our souls of purgation, illumination and union with God. If I am humbly letting God change me, I am more apt to love my neighbor rather than to screw him over for selfish gain. A strong life of Spiritual Formation‑ a personal devotional life—balanced with gracious partnering with other likeminded people in the faith, are the best way of becoming tainted by our own personal ambitions and desires.

Reuben says:

“I think we often semi-impose our own preferences, ambitions, including avarice desires upon the Spirit of God and attempt to give Him credit in justifying our lusts for power. Talk about blasphemy……. We don’t adequately consider our bent to taint God’s calling with our own selfish impulse.”

Massive. And it directly speaks to my original inquiry.

“When a spiritual encounter with God is turned into a marketing tool, you stomp the pneuma right out of it.”

I know what you mean by that, and respect it, as I believed this strongly as well. Speaking from the perspective I have now… ratings are what drive media, money is what drives pharmaceutical companies, ultimate fame is what drives Kanye West, and keeping tithing people in the pews is what drives churches. The entirety of modern evangelical Christian culture is defined by this. The leverage of the pulpit, backed by an all powerful and knowing god is what keeps them there. Fear.

“The call for justice and accountability in evangelicalism requires iconoclastic measures. These things should be self-evident the Christian, but for whatever reason, they are not.”

Agreed. 100%. However, tradition has paramount leverage in defining the church. Maybe not so much in the US, because this is a cultural tradition that is almost “traditionless”. Globally, religious traditions dictate to this day the very identity of entire cultures.

“A strong life of Spiritual Formation‑ a personal devotional life—balanced with gracious partnering with other likeminded people in the faith, are the best way of becoming tainted by our own personal ambitions and desires.”

I will insert “not” between of and becoming as I assume that is what you meant. To the point, this is the thing that hung me up (because I believed it) so much prior to my departure, for over a decade prior, really. My life’s verse was Acts 20:22-24, which seemed to underscore what the servant of god looked like in the pragmatic. There is no Biblical reason to believe it extends anywhere beyond that. Expectations otherwise was simply interjecting yourself, and that was (in my mind) the ultimate heresy. I may have been wrong, but I have never been convinced otherwise. When I started to recoil from the belief that my own ambitions had catastrophically tainted my teaching, and god’s ideal for me, I went to the Anglican church to essentially simplify, in hopes that it would bring me back to the Pauline example of living in salvation.

“My exposure to the more “catholic” side of the church aisle has been for me, among other things, a greater comprehension of our humanity.”

I relate completely. It is ultimately what killed my desire to try (spiritually) anymore. All I could do was try to clean up my own mess. It is still a big mess, and I have not darkened the door of a church (unless it was work related, or AA) in maybe 7 years. I became an alcoholic. I prayed for death in the midst of examining the damage I had done to people. Like I explained to MM, I watched one take his own life in a state of absolute hopelessness 7 days ago, because his humanity would never fit the ideal, and he knew, as I did, that there was never going to be an escape from the self hatred. I imagine Paul beat himself because he was acutely aware of this as well.

When I examine church abuse, I do it from the perspective of the abuser, and from this perspective, it does not look like the grand examples of abuse, but rather the long term abuse I inflicted on people by driving them to a place where things like 7 days ago happen. My “flock” has long since grown into “normal” lives with spouses and children, jobs, mortgages, and they exist on therapy, drugs, alcohol, confusion, self hatred, or outright denial.

The reason why I ask who you envision this playing out is because there is much to address, and how is this done by the Paul’s? How is it done in a purity that transcends self to the degree that one’s name no longer matters? I almost imagine that it could only come from new blood, new wine skins, a total redefinition of what religion is, and you used the word beautifully, untainted.

I want this to happen, not because I believe in your god, but because it will literally save lives. I am surrendered to the reality that religion will never go away, but if it can become genuinely safe, I stand behind it completely, as an Anti-Theist.

Reuben says:

Em,

For the most part, I ignore you, because you speak of me, but rarely to me, and most of the time, I have no clue what you are on about. But the. following comment, directed at me. or not, I will not let slide:

“…mindless fanatics or others who are susceptible to mind control of one kind or another. A Muslim or a Buddhist, perhaps..”

This is such an outrageous statement that you should count yourself lucky you say it in a relatively closed readership where there is occasionally only me around to call it out. This kind of bigoted nonsense is one of the most glaringly obvious examples of how the vast majority of Christians in this country have almost zero comprehension of reality outside their own church, let alone the rest of this planet.

How is it that a Muslim or a Buddhist is a mindless fanatic? Or somehow more susceptible to mind control than you? Are they stupid or something because they are Muslim or Buddhist? What on god’s blue planet can you possibly mean by that?

“For those serious about the why of mankind,”

Do you honestly think Muslims or Buddhists are not serious about “the why of mankind”?