Con-to-Lib "Hybrid" Churches: Let's be Honest

[GraceAmazing]

But I'm sure that you don't mean conservatively JUST in dress

I too, found that once I desired to KNOW Him more and to learn more of HIS ways, I was more conservative too. I was more conservative in how I talked, how I acted and how I lived!

[StillStanding]

I haven't read this entire thread, but a church is like a big ship. If it changes direction too fast, it will tip over!

The successful churches have made changes very slowly. In fact, I still believe the best thing to do is to say nothing! No announcement is needed until the issue is forced. In some cases, it never becomes an issue. When preaching on standards ceases, things will evolve naturally over time.

[warrior]

Originally Posted by GrowingPains

This is a sincere and honest question.

There are many UPCI churches "loosening" up on their dogmatic stances concerning particular standards. There are many implications from these actions. Why? Well, you have a church that has been conditioned with rules-based holiness that inevitably forms into a tradition, and not to mention the subconscious conditioning that a person develops over years of this stuff.

So, when certain others of the church start trimming their hair, wearing make-up, etc what do the others that are content living the way they've lived? Doesn't the "stumbling block rule" apply to these churches? Should these churches be built from scratch and not implemented into rooted, seasoned churches? What about the youth groups -- how have they responded? I've heard, though many fight standards in favor of a true holiness (those who personally seek to please God, willing to give up anything if it hinders their walk), that instead, what happens in these "hybrid" churches is a picture of the ugliest of carnality. Pleasing God is back seat to new-found so-called freedoms. It's like the rebellious 18-year old who has the world to his own, but the entire, or half the church is that 18-year old. And "rebellion" in any degree isn't good.

Do you know a church that has made this transition well? Without collapsing and imploding (either in numbers or in spirit)? Surely, not all those who want to step away from dogmatic standards want a church culture of "anything goes." I know some on here see it that way (nothing we can do to merit his love, so quit worrying about it, etc), but not everyone sees it that way.

Interested in your feedback.

Yes, I do know it is possible and can be done. The largest church in the state where I live used to be a very conservative apostolic church many yeasrs ago. They were traditional conservative apostolic in every way. They wore head coverings, uncut hair, no pants, no makeup, just conservative apostolics. The Bishop became ill and could no longer pastor full time. He placed the church in his son's hands. His son made a swift transition from all of the rules and standards. Now, that church has more than tripled in number, but really is the most successful church in the state.

Would I take on membership there? No

Have I been there to visit? Yes

Do I think sin is running rampant there? Possibly

Was sin running rampant there before the transition? Possibly, who knows!

Did people hide behind the standards and traditions as holiness? I am almost sure of it.

[*AQuietPlace*]

Originally Posted by GrowingPains

I agree with these points. The reason why, when you take it away, the thing blows up is a testimony of itself. It's bothersome, and I suspect keeping many pastors insistent on their old ways.

This is one of the problems with legalism. Once you have it, it is extremely hard to get rid of it. It becomes a foundation. Start removing that foundation, and the structure begins crumbling.

It would have been great if we had avoided legalism to begin with.

[Pragmatist]

I do think a pastor is probably better off starting over with a new congregation that doesn't have the legalism mindset. Otherwise, very slow changes and encourage people to study and pray for themselves before changing anything about their lifestyle. And be supportive of those who do not wish to change, as long as they aren't judgmental towards others.

[warrior]

Originally Posted by *AQuietPlace*

This is one of the problems with legalism. Once you have it, it is extremely hard to get rid of it. It becomes a foundation. Start removing that foundation, and the structure begins crumbling.

It would have been great if we had avoided legalism to begin with.

I also think that without the legalism so many people have no spiritual identity. That what gives them a definition to who they are. They forget about Jesus himself, and replace it with the rules. When people move away from it, their faith is shaken.

[GrowingPains]

Originally Posted by Pragmatist

I do think a pastor is probably better off starting over with a new congregation that doesn't have the legalism mindset. Otherwise, very slow changes and encourage people to study and pray for themselves before changing anything about their lifestyle. And be supportive of those who do not wish to change, as long as they aren't judgmental towards others.

Until the first Sunday School teacher that is causing ire because she has trimmed hair. Then the congregation has forced your hand. Slow is right, but when the hand is forced you have to say something. Your silence is a glowing endorsement and lack of speaking on the issue could create more gossip/drama.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by GrowingPains

I'm not sure I believe this... at least completely.
It's akin to a Mormon seeing the revelation of the Gospel of Christ. They usually become an atheist first. Their world has flipped upside down. Doesn't necessarily mean they never had a relationship with Christ, and we shouldn't use it as a test. We should do what we can to not be a stumbling block. Which is why more and more I'm inclined to believe these guys should be planting new churches instead of steering a Titanic around, resulting in heavy casualties.

I'm not impressed with whiners who complain about stumbling blocks. I used to be. But a guy from the church I used to attend believed that eating pork was wrong and he'd make an issue whenever we all went out to eat or whenever we had a church function involving food. It almost got to the point where people were afraid to eat pork or ham around him for fear of being a stumbling block. I got an attitude and said, "He needs to toughen up." I made a ham sandwich and purposefully sat down next to him and starting eating. He would barely look at me and tried to act all "offended". Get real.

Anyway... lol

I think these churches are in trouble because they were taught more about standards than being taught how to identify REAL sin. For example, let me ask you... what is "Sin"? Can you tell me?

[GrowingPains]

Originally Posted by Aquila

I'm not impressed with whiners who complain about stumbling blocks. I used to be. But a guy from the church I used to attend believed that eating pork was wrong and he'd make an issue whenever we all went out to eat or whenever we had a church function involving food. It almost got to the point where people were afraid to eat pork or ham around him for fear of being a stumbling block. I got an attitude and said, "He needs to toughen up." I made a ham sandwich and purposefully sat down next to him and starting eating. He would barely look at me and tried to act all "offended". Get real.

Anyway... lol

I think these churches are in trouble because they were taught more about standards than being taught how to identify REAL sin. For example, let me ask you... what is "Sin"? Can you tell me?

Sin is disobedience to God's commands and/or His voice personally to us; Missing the mark.

Elder saints, sweet and kind, growing up in church and this is all they know. They served God the best they could, were obedient to where they were planted.... young people, zealous for God, going along with what they were taught... it's to these that I use the "stumbling block" rule. The fellow that enjoyed fussing about pork was in no danger of stumbling, judging by his vocal objections that became nagging. It's greater than pork. It's living life, and all you know is Jewish law, then you meet Christ, and that's cool... but you're dizzy because the Law is no longer strapped on your back, instead it's written in their hearts. This is why Paul was being sensitive to these new believers. I think this example Paul uses often fits more with the hybrid church.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by GrowingPains

Sin is disobedience to God's commands and/or His voice personally to us; Missing the mark.

Elder saints, sweet and kind, growing up in church and this is all they know. They served God the best they could, were obedient to where they were planted.... young people, zealous for God, going along with what they were taught... it's to these that I use the "stumbling block" rule. The fellow that enjoyed fussing about pork was in no danger of stumbling, judging by his vocal objections that became nagging. It's greater than pork. It's living life, and all you know is Jewish law, then you meet Christ, and that's cool... but you're dizzy because the Law is no longer strapped on your back, instead it's written in their hearts. This is why Paul was being sensitive to these new believers. I think this example Paul uses often fits more with the hybrid church.

I agree, doing something that might cause someone to stumble into "sin" is presenting a stumbling block. But again... what is "sin"? You said,

Originally Posted by GrowingPains

Sin is disobedience to God's commands and/or His voice personally to us; Missing the mark.

I see a glaring problem with your answer as to what sin is. Because to "miss the mark" a mark must be definately set. What is the "mark" we are aiming to hit? For example, a young girl sees her older friend wearing pajama pants. Will this cause her to begin questioning why she can't wear regular pants? What if she sees her older sister wearing pants when out and about. Will this cause her to begin questioning why she shouldn't wear pants? Maybe. But is that being a "stumbling block"? I mean, is wearing pants a "sin"? If so, where does the Bible say so? My point is, God has set a sure mark for defining what is sin and what isn't. It isn't abritrary, based on a pastor or brother's opinion. Some say facial hair is a "sin". Really? So if I wear a five o'clock shadow... is that presenting a stumbling block? Where is that in Scripture?

My point is - what is "sin"? Define it definately. God has.