“Unhealthy Church - Members are not charitable - the leaders are secretive and unaccountable.”

I’d also say an unhealthy church teaches that you must tithe, to get blessed.  If you don’t tithe, you’re under a curse.  Teach that people must tithe by mis-applying Malachi ch 3, and not teaching Malachi in context.

Healthy: teach true stewardship, as in the parable of the talents.  We are accountable for all we have received by God, not just 10% of the increase.  And if you’re poor, you shouldn’t be robbed in the name of God, but rather helped.

Here’s an example of how NOT to do it:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0899008240/104-3542579-3745518?v=glance&n=283155

(My review is on the webpage.)

I agree.

Excellent!!!

I love the contrasts within the elements of health:
• Emphasis on grace PLUS on repentance and confession of sin
• Diversity, thinking and questioning encouraged PLUS doctrinal purity
• Need based evangelism and outreach to the poor PLUS high cohesion and strong emotional ties among members.

I think the diversity PLUS doctrinal purity is the hardest to pull off.  On another post (I think it was “Just believe and shut up”), BeHim and Peter (if you’re reading) seemed to agree that there are not multiple “correct or acceptable” interpretations of scripture.  I disagree. 

Joseph Arminius and John Calvin and now their followers, espouse completely different “correct” interpretations of scripture regarding election and eternal security.  Dispensational and Covenant theologians have completely different “correct” interpretations of scripture regarding the end times.  Similarly dispensationalists interpret scripture regarding the function of the Holy Spirit today and the “sign gifts” in a completely different way than do Pentecostals and Charismatic denominations.  Some denominations interpret I Tim. 2 as normative and restrict the ministry of women while others interpret it as descriptive and contextual and ordain women.  These are just a few, but are they not different and acceptable interpretations of scripture?  No matter which side any of us lands on the interpretive examples above – we’ll all share eternity together, right?  Doesn’t that make either interpretation acceptable?

So my question related to this post is how much diversity of theological and interpretive opinion can exist among members of a particular church if it is to be healthy?  If we can learn to say “I interpret scripture to say . . .” rather than “scripture says . . . “ can significantly different interpretations and theological positions be held among members of the same local church?

I think so, if respectful discussions, thinking and questioning is encouraged.  In fact, I maintain that when inspiring the writers of scripture, the Holy Spirit intentionally left some things disputable, so that we could have unity amidst diversity . . . and model for the lost world a healthy body.

Bernie,

Yes, we do need to draw a line around the circle of orthodoxy, only those things related to salvation such as the deity of Christ and as you pointed out, His bodily resurrection.  But I think too often (as evidenced in the blog world) we toss methodology into our circle of orthodoxy.  Or . . . we pick statements from books or sermons, taken out of context, and try to prove some pastor or his church is compromising orthodoxy.  I don’t think that is fair.

That’s not to say that I don’t think there are those who water down their message or preach a “prosperity gospel” - of course there are.  I just think we’re wasting so much time trying to find the chinks in the armor of Christian leaders that we’ve become “unhealthy” as Garrett points out.

As another example, my pastor is not afraid to address the sin of abortion, but we will never have a bulletin insert that says “Abortion kills babies” or rally our people to picket abortion clinics.  We’ve made this choice because we want a woman who might have had a past abortion to feel grace from us, she can’t get her baby back after all.  We support the local Crisis Pregnancy Center with volunteers and resources.  These represent different “methods” or ways for a church to live out a biblical truth that they share a commitment to.  However, some in our community have tossed picketing and political activity into their “circle of orthodoxy,” accusing us of being “soft” on the biblical truth related to sanctity of life because we refuse to participate in such things.  That is not fair, and its not true.

BishopDave says:
“Everybody I know who teaches Malachi 3 (including myself) teach it in conjunction with stewardship”

Dave- ever teach Malachi 2?  I doubt it. I’ve heard lots of tithe teaching in my life, and I NEVER heard Mal. ch. 2 mentioned… you’d think Malachi only had one chapter, ch. 3.  I challenge you next time you teach about Malachi, try teaching it in context.  Include Malachi Ch. 2.

Also about 2 Corinthians… it’s not a collection for the church building or ministry or Pastor (as tithes are primarily used for today).  It was for the poor living in Jerusalem.  Another example of tithe-scripture twisting.  Church members would give like they did in Corinthians if it was for the poor and needy, rather than for a megahurch structure.

Stewardship does not mean handling the 10% of your increase correctly (giving it to the local church).  It means managing ALL your time and treasure for the Lord.

Just my opinion, but I think it’s very important in the topic of a healthy church.  I agree Malachi is inspired, but that doesn’t mean it can be twisted to mean something it’s not meant to.

Hi Bishop Dave-

Wow, you’re the first tithe teacher I ever heard that mentioned Mal. ch. 2.  However, looking at your outline notes, I don’t really see you explaining the text about the crooked Priests.  I wish you had an audio download so I can hear more of what you actually taught.

On your link about “robbing God,” I see many of the old repeated errors (your link http://foxavebapt.com/Sermons/Sermon%20Outlines/2004/08-22-04.pdf ).  Let me hit the first point, your foundation.  You say 1 Cor. 16:2 is a command to tithe.  Do you seriously think so? Verse 1 (the prior verse) says what the collection is for, and it’s not the tithe.  It’s for the special Jerusalem fund.  Curious, do you knowingly misrepresent this, or are you just repeating what the other tithe teachers preach?  I’d really like to know… And this is the best that tithing teachers can come up with because there is no tithing verses in the New Testament.  Look in Acts how the early believers lived; everything in common, not just 10%. They met in houses and at the temple. They were ready for the Lord to return at any minute, not thinking about starting a building fund.  I’m not against churches and building funds, but I am against false tithe teaching.

Even though we disagree on this, I still love you as a brother.  Keep up the good fight.

Hey. Can we please stop down grading each other please. This is getting old.

Healthy Church…
1) Confesses what Peter did to Jesus. This is the foundation of the church.
2) Loves the Lord your God with all your heart, mind, soul, might.
3) Loves your neighbor as yourself.
4) Is not a respector’s of Person.
5) Carries out the great commission.
6) Disciples those who come into the fold from the great commission.
7) Worships together.
8) Fellowships together. Whether you know it or not this does not mean EATING TOGETHER....

Unhealthy Church…
1) Believes that all men can be saved by just being placed on the church role.
2) Loves the minister more than God. Idol worship.
3) Blantly disregards their neighbor.
4) Sergatation. Black/White/poor/wealthy/etc…
5)Sits on their butt’s for only them on Sun. morning/evening/Wed. No commission.
6) Does not disciple people. Get’em in, get’m saved, turn them loose. No Training Union.
7)has no true worship.
8) Does not fellowship with one another.

End of comments.

Wendi, you said “I think the diversity PLUS doctrinal purity is the hardest to pull off. On another post (I think it was “Just believe and shut up”), BeHim and Peter (if you’re reading) seemed to agree that there are not multiple “correct or acceptable” interpretations of scripture. I disagree.”

Sorry to get back so late, I have been pretty busy. I think you’re so right that it is VERY hard to pull off. But I have to agree with Bernie a little on this, although how it plays out for us might be different. I have my own ideas about the specifics you mention, but that would take too long. I think it remains that a single passage of scripture has a single meaning that was intended by the original author to the original hearers. That is what I’ll call it’s “meaning”. There may be multiple principles or applications, and that is I think where much of the disagreements lie.

But at the final bell, I do believe that each scripture can NOT mean two very different things, and someday we’ll understand them better… but we’ll be in heaven—;-) --.

But then you and I and Bernie for instance would all agree that lines have to be drawn somewhere anyway. We might disagree on the placement of that line, and there are some non-negotiables…

...non-negotiables that I think HEALTHY churches understand. Unhealthy churches, for me, either ignore them, or make long lists of peculiar non-negotiables based on a lot of things that are often cultural and not spiritual in nature. For me, that line is the Nicene Creed/Apostles Creed, which includes all that jazz about the authority and inspiration of Scripture, who God is, Who Christ is, what man is, et cetera.

btw, am I the only one who thinks that most churches are somewhere in the middle between these two “extremes” on most issues?

Peter said:
“For me, that line is the Nicene Creed/Apostles Creed, which includes all that jazz about the authority and inspiration of Scripture, who God is, Who Christ is, what man is, et cetera.”

I don’t think the creeds deal with the “inerrancy” of the scripture.  I think that’s a relatively new creed… since the “enlightenment” and later with the challenge of evolution (science vs. religion).

It used to be “what do you think of Christ?” but now is “what do you think of the Bible?”

The inerrancy of the Bible… I hope to write a book on this topic soon… not one that is one-sided and pro-Christian but one that gives the best arguments from both sides… and adresses every angle and concern in the debate.

Wendi,

I so love the tenderness and genuine love you express in your writings here. In a forum where we really cannot always know whether we are sensing the true heart of a person’s comments, I am often hesitant to even express any disagreement for concern that it will be received by some as accusatory or demeaning.  You do an excellent job of airing your disagreements in a spirit of love and I want to affirm you and encourage your continued contribution.

With that said, I want to just touch something you wrote that I find myself questioning. I’m not sure I can even come close to a clear presentation of what I may disagree with you on without opening a can of worms. If I fail and cause offense I ask you and others to forgive me even now.

You wrote, “...dispensationalists interpret scripture regarding the function of the Holy Spirit today and the “sign gifts” in a completely different way than do Pentecostals and Charismatic denominations.”

Okay, if the use of the word denominations following Charismatic is “KEY” in what you are saying, I can do nothing but agree with you, in which case the rest of what I write here is irrelevant.

However, if it is not, and the key words are actually “interpret”, and “completely different way” (which I suspect is the case, then I would like to offer a challenge to that thinking.

The Holy Spirit issue that separates Dispensationalists from Charismatics and Pentecostals is far too critical and central to the life and means of walking out authentic Christianity in general and Christian Ministry specifically, to be relegated to a level of non-essentials.

Absolutely, if we are only referring to what makes one “saved”, and therefore joint heirs together as members of the Body of Christ, this is a non-essential issue and should never be allowed to surface in a way that could divide us on that plain.

However, we are not writing about what makes us saved here, and we are not writing about what keeps us all as members of His family now and for eternity.  We are writing about how we walk out the Christ life individually and corporately, and how and with what measure of authenticity and authority we “do church and ministry”.

What I am compelled to bring to your attention here is that there is an inherent flaw in the idea that this issue is a matter of “interpretation” from both perspectives.

To automatically assume that Hermeneutics, which by definition is “the study of the methodological principles of interpretation” (Webster), is the only appropriate, preferred or mutually accepted means of receiving God’s intended Truth, Power and Instruction from Scripture, is just not legitimate.

Believe me when I say I understand this position. I’m not boasting credentials; but just so you can see I’m not coming from ignorance, I hold earned degrees in Biblical Languages and Hermeneutics as well as separate Masters degrees in Theology, Cross-Cultural Studies and Counseling.

While I will agree with you that even the vast majority of those who call themselves Pentecostal and Charismatic, do acquiesce to the use of their cognitive faculties in some applied hermeneutic so that they are, in fact, iterpreting Scripture with their natural mind, this is not the case for those who are walking out the reality of Charismatic and Pentecostal posture toward Scripture.

Without question or argument I agree that Dispensationalists, be they scholars or ignorant, are committed and confined to the process of Biblical interpretation.

Okay, here is where I set myself up for attack as a heretic. Before I do though, I know we can agree that Scripture, i.e. the Bible, is a “thing of God.” Well, Paul tells us that it is absolutely impossible through any means of using the logical, rational faculties of cognition (our natural mind) to understand “the things of God, for they are spiritual and must be spiritually discerned.” He tells us then, the Holy Spirit has been given to provide the ability to understand the things of God and to evaluate and judge between those things which truly are spiritual and of God, and those things which are not.

I am definitely not suggesting there is a superiority or some kind of “better than” quality about Charismatics/Pentecostals as compared to Dispensationalists.  So, please don’t go there.  But I am saying, since Dispensationalists, from the use of their hermeneutic skills of interpretation, have invalidated the Holy Spirit immersion experience and accompanying Gifts of the Spirit, they have, in so doing, excluded themselves from appropriating the only means a true Charismatic or Pentecostal could ever acknowledge as authentic and authoritative for understanding things of God, including His Word and instruction for walking out how we do Church and ministry.

On the other hand, Pentecostals and Charismatics are not without the same abilities Dispensationalists have to develop their hermeneuitic skills and are completely capable of understanding anything and everything a Dispensationalist can.

So, even if one takes a completely Dispensational view to interpretation of Scripture; honesty and integrity, if nothing else, should at least cause that one to admit he/she is truly not equipped to engage a Pentecostal/Charismatic in debate concerning Scripture or the right/wrong of how we do Church and Ministry.

With all that said, I must also say, any truly Spirit filled Charismatic/Pentecostal who is actually walking in what they claim to believe, will not be found spear chucking and demeaning the rest of His Church, either here or anywhere else. They will not accuse Dispensationalists or non-charismatic believers of heresy for not embracing the truth as they know it, but they will understand the limitations involved in relational application of church and ministry.

I just read my own post and it is far too long! Please forgive me and chalk it off to sensationally based foolishness of getting caught up in what I thought was the Spirit if that will ease any animosities.

Believe me, I still have plenty of uncrucified flesh!