So I checked out our competition's webpage. No real surprises there. I dare say I could walk into one of their services and not notice much of a difference. They advertise themselves as a nondenominational congregation that stresses the Bible. So does mine. On one hand it's an essentially meaningless phrase that says nothing and on the other it is a cleverly disguised way of saying certain viewpoints are not welcome here without having to come right out and say it.
I thought it interesting in light of the fact that we are studying Paul's letter to the Galatians that there was nothing said on this church's website about its history or background. This was something that was very important to Paul. He spends a lot of time in Galatians talking about false teachers and his credentials. He doesn't shy away about saying where and how he got his mission and what his connections were with Peter and the original apostles. To be fair none of that information is on my church's website either. Maybe it is because I was raised in a church that claims to have an unbroken connection to the apostles but this is something that is important to me. It is not enough to say you are interdenominational and Bible-believing. I want to know where you came from, what your history is, and how you are connected to other area groups so that I can judge for myself how legitimate you are. Anyone can pick up a Bible and start a church. But if I understand the New Testament correctly not every group that called itself a church was considered legitimate. Paul's letters are filled with warnings not to listen to just anyone who claimed to be preaching the Gospel.
It makes me wonder why these small churches that are springing up everywhere are reluctant to reveal their origins. For example, my church is an offshoot of a local Baptist church whose reputation is pretty well-known. So even though I might disagree with its teachings I do know that I am getting into something fairly stable as opposed to a cult. I can go back to the parent church and ask questions if I have any doubts about the character of this church's leadership. So that makes me trust them a bit more. It could be this other group has similar local ties. But why don't they say so?
Again, while they discussed their views on baptism and communion, there was a lot more that went unsaid. Are they young-earth creationists? What do they feel about women in leadership? How welcoming would they be towards someone who was gay or transgender? It's not enough to say they are Bible-based. If they have a specific stance on a specific issue they should say so instead of hiding behind "where the Bible speaks, we speak, where the Bible is silent, we are silent." Are they saying that all interpretations are valid? I don't think so. They are probably not very open to views other than their own. So in that sense they are a denomination; they just don't want to admit it.
Well it shall be very interesting to see how the relationship between the two churches shapes up. Will they become partners or will they become rivals or will they simply ignore each other.
I thought it interesting in light of the fact that we are studying Paul's letter to the Galatians that there was nothing said on this church's website about its history or background. This was something that was very important to Paul. He spends a lot of time in Galatians talking about false teachers and his credentials. He doesn't shy away about saying where and how he got his mission and what his connections were with Peter and the original apostles. To be fair none of that information is on my church's website either. Maybe it is because I was raised in a church that claims to have an unbroken connection to the apostles but this is something that is important to me. It is not enough to say you are interdenominational and Bible-believing. I want to know where you came from, what your history is, and how you are connected to other area groups so that I can judge for myself how legitimate you are. Anyone can pick up a Bible and start a church. But if I understand the New Testament correctly not every group that called itself a church was considered legitimate. Paul's letters are filled with warnings not to listen to just anyone who claimed to be preaching the Gospel.
It makes me wonder why these small churches that are springing up everywhere are reluctant to reveal their origins. For example, my church is an offshoot of a local Baptist church whose reputation is pretty well-known. So even though I might disagree with its teachings I do know that I am getting into something fairly stable as opposed to a cult. I can go back to the parent church and ask questions if I have any doubts about the character of this church's leadership. So that makes me trust them a bit more. It could be this other group has similar local ties. But why don't they say so?
Again, while they discussed their views on baptism and communion, there was a lot more that went unsaid. Are they young-earth creationists? What do they feel about women in leadership? How welcoming would they be towards someone who was gay or transgender? It's not enough to say they are Bible-based. If they have a specific stance on a specific issue they should say so instead of hiding behind "where the Bible speaks, we speak, where the Bible is silent, we are silent." Are they saying that all interpretations are valid? I don't think so. They are probably not very open to views other than their own. So in that sense they are a denomination; they just don't want to admit it.
Well it shall be very interesting to see how the relationship between the two churches shapes up. Will they become partners or will they become rivals or will they simply ignore each other.
