Comments on: Institutional Christianity http://www.nosq.com/blog/2005/09/institutional-christianity/ Culture, faith, technology, art - shaken, not stirred. Thu, 24 Jul 2008 07:38:08 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1 By: jamesvl http://www.nosq.com/blog/2005/09/institutional-christianity/#comment-1113 jamesvl Mon, 28 Nov 2005 08:01:21 +0000 http://www.nosq.com/2005/09/institutional-christianity/#comment-1113 <p>So I finally took some time to write out the fullness of my thoughts. You can find them at this new post, here: <a href="http://www.nosq.com/2005/11/church-the-poor-and-bigger-buildings/" rel="nofollow">The Church, the Poor, and Bigger Buildings)</a></p> So I finally took some time to write out the fullness of my thoughts. You can find them at this new post, here: The Church, the Poor, and Bigger Buildings)

]]> By: Kendra http://www.nosq.com/blog/2005/09/institutional-christianity/#comment-977 Kendra Thu, 17 Nov 2005 06:17:09 +0000 http://www.nosq.com/2005/09/institutional-christianity/#comment-977 <p>"That writer does the most for us who brings to our attention thoughts that lay close to our minds waiting to be acknowledged as our own. Such a man acts as a midwife to assist at the birth of ideas that have been gestating long wihtin our souls, but which without his help might not have been born at all. There are few emotions so satisfying as the joy that comes from the act of recognition when we see and identify our own thoughts."</p> <p>-A.W. Tozer</p> “That writer does the most for us who brings to our attention thoughts that lay close to our minds waiting to be acknowledged as our own. Such a man acts as a midwife to assist at the birth of ideas that have been gestating long wihtin our souls, but which without his help might not have been born at all. There are few emotions so satisfying as the joy that comes from the act of recognition when we see and identify our own thoughts.”

-A.W. Tozer

]]> By: Jisch http://www.nosq.com/blog/2005/09/institutional-christianity/#comment-332 Jisch Thu, 29 Sep 2005 17:31:27 +0000 http://www.nosq.com/2005/09/institutional-christianity/#comment-332 <p>"I mean we only have church-as-we-know-it because we have ridiculous piles of completely Disposable Income."</p> <p>The way this reads, he's complaining that people are giving their disposable income to the church. Am I wrong? There's some serious confusion in this post over whether he's upset with christians that are a)are wealthy or b)wealthy and misusing their money by giving it to large churches or he's upset with churches that are a)wealthy or b)wealthy and misusing their money by having unnspecified "programs" and building buildings. Maybe all of them.</p> <p>It's not like God would ever endorse a huge church with gold adornments and rich textiles and a large multipurpose room out front. On a hill. In the middle of a city. I know, I know, those are old wineskins. But jimmy shaw should be sure that in his righteous indignation he doesn't engage in the same misplaced judgements that he accuses his brothers of.</p> <p>In fact, think of the churches in this area. Aren't they largely housed in rented schools or Odd Fellows Halls or in the gym of another church? The ones I know were all begun in a house, then outgrew to a school, then outgrew to a warehouse. Isn't that a good thing? Would he consider any of the churches in town a megachurch?</p> <p>Has he even really been a part of a megachurch and seen the leadership and seen how it operates? Or is he just taking potshots at a strawman because it's easy to do and easier than, you know, engaging the problem.</p> <p>Or maybe I'm just be contrarian to see if you'll respond.</p> <p>Heh, thanks James!</p> “I mean we only have church-as-we-know-it because we have ridiculous piles of completely Disposable Income.”

The way this reads, he’s complaining that people are giving their disposable income to the church. Am I wrong? There’s some serious confusion in this post over whether he’s upset with christians that are a)are wealthy or b)wealthy and misusing their money by giving it to large churches or he’s upset with churches that are a)wealthy or b)wealthy and misusing their money by having unnspecified “programs” and building buildings. Maybe all of them.

It’s not like God would ever endorse a huge church with gold adornments and rich textiles and a large multipurpose room out front. On a hill. In the middle of a city. I know, I know, those are old wineskins. But jimmy shaw should be sure that in his righteous indignation he doesn’t engage in the same misplaced judgements that he accuses his brothers of.

In fact, think of the churches in this area. Aren’t they largely housed in rented schools or Odd Fellows Halls or in the gym of another church? The ones I know were all begun in a house, then outgrew to a school, then outgrew to a warehouse. Isn’t that a good thing? Would he consider any of the churches in town a megachurch?

Has he even really been a part of a megachurch and seen the leadership and seen how it operates? Or is he just taking potshots at a strawman because it’s easy to do and easier than, you know, engaging the problem.

Or maybe I’m just be contrarian to see if you’ll respond.

Heh, thanks James!

]]>