The Myriad Abuses of "Churchianity"
Our obsession with "church" and church idols (edifices) are not the only reasons we have an apostate establishment on our hands, nor are they the only culprits. For even "congregation," "community," and "assembly"—correct renderings of the Greek ekklesia—are not immune from ecclesiastical abuse. And if our English "church" had never surfaced, our people would have devised another foreign icon to use as their sacred cow.
When we adopt any label or title that separates us from our fellow Christians, as we have done with "church," we become a divisive religious league—a party, sect. I like the way The Living Bible tenders Galatians 5:20. It identifies the party spirit as "the feeling that everyone else is wrong except those in your own little group." I'm inclined to believe this strikes at the very core of our divisive predicament. The New English Bible renders "party intrigues," and The Christian Bible describes the party spirit as "dissensions, sects."
So we need to inquire: Have we adopted the "church" epithet to separate ourselves from other believers and to identify ourselves as a particular breed of Christians? To clarify, are we Baptist Christians, Methodist Christians, Church of Christ Christians, Lutheran Christians, Presbyterian Christians, Assembly of God Christians, or Church of God Christians?
If "yes" to any of the above, the Spirit justly charges us with possessing the party spirit (Gal. 5:20). No tossing of the coin will alleviate that fact. And if we are guilty of creating and/or promoting religious parties, how can we then claim that Jesus authored our churches? He founded the "one body" of believers, not our multicolored schisms (Eph. 4:4). His children are scattered among most sects—for wherever He has a child, we have a brother or a sister. But He is not the framer of our denominations, just as He was not the framer of the sects of his day.
There are, of course, other earmarks of a sect or religious party besides its name, label, or title. When a group of professed believers sets up a doctrinal platform, whether based on truth or fallacy, and rejects other believers who cannot accept it, that group becomes a religious party or sect. The "Christ party" at Corinth was as wrong as the "Paul party," the "Apollos party," and the "Cephas party" (I Cor. 1:12-13). It was wrong because it rejected other believers.
May your Thanksgiving be a great one
: Reformer Sun Nov 23, 2025 - 21:06:00The Myriad Abuses of "Churchianity"
When we adopt any label or title that separates us from our fellow Christians, as we have done with "church," we become a divisive religious league—a party, sect. I like the way The Living Bible tenders Galatians 5:20. It identifies the party spirit as "the feeling that everyone else is wrong except those in your own little group." I'm inclined to believe this strikes at the very core of our divisive predicament.
And your anti-church diatribe is the attempt to establish but one more "divisive religious league--a party, sect".
You are what you are lambasting in this little speech. Clearly, again and again, you express "the feeling that everyone else is wrong except those in your own little group."
: Reformer Sun Nov 23, 2025 - 21:06:00The Myriad Abuses of "Churchianity"
Our obsession with "church" and church idols (edifices) are not the only reasons we have an apostate establishment on our hands, nor are they the only culprits. For even "congregation," "community," and "assembly"—correct renderings of the Greek ekklesia—are not immune from ecclesiastical abuse. And if our English "church" had never surfaced, our people would have devised another foreign icon to use as their sacred cow.
When we adopt any label or title that separates us from our fellow Christians, as we have done with "church," we become a divisive religious league—a party, sect. I like the way The Living Bible tenders Galatians 5:20. It identifies the party spirit as "the feeling that everyone else is wrong except those in your own little group." I'm inclined to believe this strikes at the very core of our divisive predicament. The New English Bible renders "party intrigues," and The Christian Bible describes the party spirit as "dissensions, sects."
So we need to inquire: Have we adopted the "church" epithet to separate ourselves from other believers and to identify ourselves as a particular breed of Christians? To clarify, are we Baptist Christians, Methodist Christians, Church of Christ Christians, Lutheran Christians, Presbyterian Christians, Assembly of God Christians, or Church of God Christians?
If "yes" to any of the above, the Spirit justly charges us with possessing the party spirit (Gal. 5:20). No tossing of the coin will alleviate that fact. And if we are guilty of creating and/or promoting religious parties, how can we then claim that Jesus authored our churches? He founded the "one body" of believers, not our multicolored schisms (Eph. 4:4). His children are scattered among most sects—for wherever He has a child, we have a brother or a sister. But He is not the framer of our denominations, just as He was not the framer of the sects of his day.
There are, of course, other earmarks of a sect or religious party besides its name, label, or title. When a group of professed believers sets up a doctrinal platform, whether based on truth or fallacy, and rejects other believers who cannot accept it, that group becomes a religious party or sect. The "Christ party" at Corinth was as wrong as the "Paul party," the "Apollos party," and the "Cephas party" (I Cor. 1:12-13). It was wrong because it rejected other believers.
May your Thanksgiving be a great one
I would offer from another perspective.
Without the "recipe" of 2 Corinthians 4:18, we cannot rightly divide the parables—parables through which Christ spoke continually, and without which He did not speak. Their purpose is to hide the mysteries of faith from "the god of this world" while revealing spiritual understanding to those who are born again.
Parables do not change the historical realities of Scripture. Rather, when the spiritual is compared with the historical, the mysteries of God are unlocked, giving the believer true rest. When we mix them improperly—when we compare and confuse rather than discern—we lose the gospel rest described in Hebrews 4:1-2. Without the Spirit's illumination, the meaning signified by the parable remains a mystery.
But when understood rightly, parables allow us to compare the temporal and historical with the unseen and eternal things of Christ. This brings no fear and no contradiction. Instead, the historical is enriched—like honey—for the believer.
: Reformer Sun Nov 23, 2025 - 21:06:00The Myriad Abuses of "Churchianity"
Our obsession with "church" and church idols (edifices) are not the only reasons we have an apostate establishment on our hands, nor are they the only culprits. For even "congregation," "community," and "assembly"—correct renderings of the Greek ekklesia—are not immune from ecclesiastical abuse. And if our English "church" had never surfaced, our people would have devised another foreign icon to use as their sacred cow.
When we adopt any label or title that separates us from our fellow Christians, as we have done with "church," we become a divisive religious league—a party, sect. I like the way The Living Bible tenders Galatians 5:20. It identifies the party spirit as "the feeling that everyone else is wrong except those in your own little group." I'm inclined to believe this strikes at the very core of our divisive predicament. The New English Bible renders "party intrigues," and The Christian Bible describes the party spirit as "dissensions, sects."
So we need to inquire: Have we adopted the "church" epithet to separate ourselves from other believers and to identify ourselves as a particular breed of Christians? To clarify, are we Baptist Christians, Methodist Christians, Church of Christ Christians, Lutheran Christians, Presbyterian Christians, Assembly of God Christians, or Church of God Christians?
If "yes" to any of the above, the Spirit justly charges us with possessing the party spirit (Gal. 5:20). No tossing of the coin will alleviate that fact. And if we are guilty of creating and/or promoting religious parties, how can we then claim that Jesus authored our churches? He founded the "one body" of believers, not our multicolored schisms (Eph. 4:4). His children are scattered among most sects—for wherever He has a child, we have a brother or a sister. But He is not the framer of our denominations, just as He was not the framer of the sects of his day.
There are, of course, other earmarks of a sect or religious party besides its name, label, or title. When a group of professed believers sets up a doctrinal platform, whether based on truth or fallacy, and rejects other believers who cannot accept it, that group becomes a religious party or sect. The "Christ party" at Corinth was as wrong as the "Paul party," the "Apollos party," and the "Cephas party" (I Cor. 1:12-13). It was wrong because it rejected other believers.
May your Thanksgiving be a great one
::preachit:: ::preachit::
: Reformer Sun Nov 23, 2025 - 21:06:00The Myriad Abuses of "Churchianity"
Our obsession with "church" and church idols (edifices) are not the only reasons we have an apostate establishment on our hands, nor are they the only culprits. For even "congregation," "community," and "assembly"—correct renderings of the Greek ekklesia—are not immune from ecclesiastical abuse. And if our English "church" had never surfaced, our people would have devised another foreign icon to use as their sacred cow.
When we adopt any label or title that separates us from our fellow Christians, as we have done with "church," we become a divisive religious league—a party, sect. I like the way The Living Bible tenders Galatians 5:20. It identifies the party spirit as "the feeling that everyone else is wrong except those in your own little group." I'm inclined to believe this strikes at the very core of our divisive predicament. The New English Bible renders "party intrigues," and The Christian Bible describes the party spirit as "dissensions, sects."
So we need to inquire: Have we adopted the "church" epithet to separate ourselves from other believers and to identify ourselves as a particular breed of Christians? To clarify, are we Baptist Christians, Methodist Christians, Church of Christ Christians, Lutheran Christians, Presbyterian Christians, Assembly of God Christians, or Church of God Christians?
If "yes" to any of the above, the Spirit justly charges us with possessing the party spirit (Gal. 5:20). No tossing of the coin will alleviate that fact. And if we are guilty of creating and/or promoting religious parties, how can we then claim that Jesus authored our churches? He founded the "one body" of believers, not our multicolored schisms (Eph. 4:4). His children are scattered among most sects—for wherever He has a child, we have a brother or a sister. But He is not the framer of our denominations, just as He was not the framer of the sects of his day.
There are, of course, other earmarks of a sect or religious party besides its name, label, or title. When a group of professed believers sets up a doctrinal platform, whether based on truth or fallacy, and rejects other believers who cannot accept it, that group becomes a religious party or sect. The "Christ party" at Corinth was as wrong as the "Paul party," the "Apollos party," and the "Cephas party" (I Cor. 1:12-13). It was wrong because it rejected other believers.
May your Thanksgiving be a great one
Seems to me you were deeply hurt by a local congregation and their leadership. Instead of realizing it was people who hurt you, you have chalked it up to buildings, edifices, structure, instead of the people. In house churches you will have the same problems. People are people wherever you go.
In my own family, it's the women who are most likely the ones to attend church services - not the men. The men would rather stay home, for various reasons.
My maternal (step) grandfather rarely went to church with my Methodist grandmother - much to her dismay. He always said he felt closer to God when he was outside, alone, in nature, and didn't feel that way in a church building, at all.
OTOH, my grandmother said she felt closer to God when she worked in the church nursery, singing spiritual songs to the babies while rocking them.
My paternal grandmother (Baptist) enjoyed church, but my paternal grandfather rarely attended with her.
I wish I would have asked them more about this before they all passed away.
Oh, and my biological maternal grandfather never went to church at all. He divorced my grandmother while she was still pregnant with my mother and none of us ever met him. However, on his death bed, in the nursing home, his sister called for an ambulance to go pick him up, haul him to the local church of Christ, and had him baptized - even though he was not of sound mind at that time and shortly passed. So, again, the female member of the family pushing her senile brother to get baptized.
Just wondering if my family experiences are the norm - women taking the lead in going to church while the men not really want to participate.
(Sorry for the derail, Buff)
: mommydi Mon Nov 24, 2025 - 19:26:49In my own family, it's the women who are most likely the ones to attend church services - not the men. The men would rather stay home, for various reasons.
My maternal (step) grandfather rarely went to church with my Methodist grandmother - much to her dismay. He always said he felt closer to God when he was outside, alone, in nature, and didn't feel that way in a church building, at all.
OTOH, my grandmother said she felt closer to God when she worked in the church nursery, singing spiritual songs to the babies while rocking them.
My paternal grandmother (Baptist) enjoyed church, but my paternal grandfather rarely attended with her.
I wish I would have asked them more about this before they all passed away.
Oh, and my biological maternal grandfather never went to church at all. He divorced my grandmother while she was still pregnant with my mother and none of us ever met him. However, on his death bed, in the nursing home, his sister called for an ambulance to go pick him up, haul him to the local church of Christ, and had him baptized - even though he was not of sound mind at that time and shortly passed. So, again, the female member of the family pushing her senile brother to get baptized.
Just wondering if my family experiences are the norm - women taking the lead in going to church while the men not really want to participate.
(Sorry for the derail, Buff)
Thanks for sharing.
Quite common. Sounds like Ephesians 5 loving commandment. Husbands are to wash their wives with the water of the word the doctrines of Christ that fall like rain.
Its seems thing have gotten turned upside down .A reflection of the fall.
Scripture often describes the fall as a reversal or distortion of God's original order—relationships strained, roles confused, and love replaced with struggle or self-interest. What was meant to be protective can sometimes becomes controlling or absent; what was meant to be welcomed and growing can become defensive or burdened.
: garee Mon Nov 24, 2025 - 20:44:38Thanks for sharing.
Quite common. Sounds like Ephesians 5 loving commandment. Husbands are to wash their wives with the water of the word the doctrines of Christ that fall like rain.
Its seems thing have gotten turned upside down .A reflection of the fall.
Scripture often describes the fall as a reversal or distortion of God's original order—relationships strained, roles confused, and love replaced with struggle or self-interest. What was meant to be protective can sometimes becomes controlling or absent; what was meant to be welcomed and growing can become defensive or burdened.
The scriptures never even describe or speak of "the fall".
: 4WD Wed Nov 26, 2025 - 03:43:21The scriptures never even describe or speak of "the fall".
That statement is misleading. The scripture talks often about mankind's seperation from God because of their sin in the garden. That is what is often referred to as "The Fall." That occurance is the exact reason Jesus had to come to Earth, be crucified and be resurrected to pay for that sin and the sin handed down through mankind generation after generation. The entirety of scripture revolves around that original event.
: Reformer Sun Nov 23, 2025 - 21:06:00The Myriad Abuses of "Churchianity"
Our obsession with "church" and church idols (edifices) are not the only reasons we have an apostate establishment on our hands, nor are they the only culprits. For even "congregation," "community," and "assembly"—correct renderings of the Greek ekklesia—are not immune from ecclesiastical abuse. And if our English "church" had never surfaced, our people would have devised another foreign icon to use as their sacred cow.
When we adopt any label or title that separates us from our fellow Christians, as we have done with "church," we become a divisive religious league—a party, sect. I like the way The Living Bible tenders Galatians 5:20. It identifies the party spirit as "the feeling that everyone else is wrong except those in your own little group." I'm inclined to believe this strikes at the very core of our divisive predicament. The New English Bible renders "party intrigues," and The Christian Bible describes the party spirit as "dissensions, sects."
So we need to inquire: Have we adopted the "church" epithet to separate ourselves from other believers and to identify ourselves as a particular breed of Christians? To clarify, are we Baptist Christians, Methodist Christians, Church of Christ Christians, Lutheran Christians, Presbyterian Christians, Assembly of God Christians, or Church of God Christians?
If "yes" to any of the above, the Spirit justly charges us with possessing the party spirit (Gal. 5:20). No tossing of the coin will alleviate that fact. And if we are guilty of creating and/or promoting religious parties, how can we then claim that Jesus authored our churches? He founded the "one body" of believers, not our multicolored schisms (Eph. 4:4). His children are scattered among most sects—for wherever He has a child, we have a brother or a sister. But He is not the framer of our denominations, just as He was not the framer of the sects of his day.
There are, of course, other earmarks of a sect or religious party besides its name, label, or title. When a group of professed believers sets up a doctrinal platform, whether based on truth or fallacy, and rejects other believers who cannot accept it, that group becomes a religious party or sect. The "Christ party" at Corinth was as wrong as the "Paul party," the "Apollos party," and the "Cephas party" (I Cor. 1:12-13). It was wrong because it rejected other believers.
May your Thanksgiving be a great one
What is your solution? You make these posts about all of these problems with the church, but you offer no solution. Pointing out what you see as a problem is useless unless you also offer a solution.
Even saved, no society will be dedictaed to one single cause and one single type of worship, or preaching because we are still flawed. There is no Earthly Utopia. Ever.
My solution? you asked. Home assemblies - not idols in the form of "church edifices."
: Reformer Wed Nov 26, 2025 - 13:03:56My solution? you asked. Home assemblies - not idols in the form of "church edifices."
That is not even practical. You are making assumptions about conditions in the first century years after Pentecost. It probably wasn't practical in some of the larger "assemblies" in NT times or those early first centuries.
It is not happenstance that no details are given about the typical meeting places in NT times. How many "home assemblies" were there in Corinth when Paul wrote his letter to the Corinthians? How were his letters distributed? Were they copied and then delivered to all those home assemblies you think were in place then? Did someone go house to house to read his letters to all those home assemblies? Were there more than one home assembly in Corinth? Did each home assembly have elders or was there just one set of elders for all the "home assemblies"?
Paul addressed his first letter to the Corinthians to the "ekklesia" (singular). That said nothing about how or where they all met.
You are fixated on what you think is a problem which probably is not a problem and probably was never a problem.
4WD, it is strikingly clear that the early meetings were bereft of pulpits, collections to buy and maintain flashy edifices and to keep an elite orator vocationally afloat, ritualistic nonsense, and pew-sitters. Their environment was family-like. Our gatherings resemble formal business meetings, where business or "worship" doesn't begin until the hands on the clock are at a certain crossroads. Our overall anatomy mirrors a Corporation, an Institution, not a compassionate community of concerned ones.
What dissimilarity! We have retrogressed, not progressed. We have traded the holy for the common, the celestial for the terrestrial, the spiritual for the materialistic, the sacred for the plain. Yet there are many receptive and seeking hearts within the corridors of the modern church. God will deliver them, if they are willing to remove their soiled garments and replace them with garments of reconciliation. His children no longer need wallow in the partisan litter of the Religious Establishment, for God will raise up reformers to rescue His elect. He always has. He always will.
: Reformer Fri Nov 28, 2025 - 12:01:434WD, it is strikingly clear that the early meetings were bereft of pulpits, collections to buy and maintain flashy edifices...
One of my previous church of Christ congregations dwindled down to about 20 members, so a couple of years ago, they folded and sold the building - which was a huge building and property in a historic district. It sold for 1.8 million to a diocese of the Anglican Church - which is another interesting situation, IMO. I've been wondering what happened to that 1.8 million. I'm not insinuating something nefarious happened with that money, but it would be interesting to know what happened to the proceeds from that sale. In a traditional denomination, I'd assume that money would go back to the church headquarters? What happens to the profits when a church of Christ congregation sells their building, especially if there are no elders?
About 40 miles south of that building is my old hometown congregation that has dwindled down to 12 members on Sunday mornings from about 250 when I was a teen. Again - just assumptions, but I seriously doubt a dozen members, elderly, retired, are paying for insurance, utilities, upkeep, etc, so probably other congregations are sending monthly financial help? IDK what it would take to turn around that congregation and grow their numbers to keep the doors open. This congregation has suffered a long, slow death. If nothing major happens, in the next 10 years or so, there will be no members left. When the building is sold, who decides where that money goes? The last member standing?
If there's a scripture reference for these types of situations - please post, because I can't think of one.
: mommydi Fri Nov 28, 2025 - 15:40:55One of my previous church of Christ congregations dwindled down to about 20 members, so a couple of years ago, they folded and sold the building - which was a huge building and property in a historic district. It sold for 1.8 million to a diocese of the Anglican Church - which is another interesting situation, IMO. I've been wondering what happened to that 1.8 million. I'm not insinuating something nefarious happened with that money, but it would be interesting to know what happened to the proceeds from that sale. In a traditional denomination, I'd assume that money would go back to the church headquarters? What happens to the profits when a church of Christ congregation sells their building, especially if there are no elders?
It went to whoever's name was on the deed to the property and to whoever's name might have held a lien on the property.
: 4WD Fri Nov 28, 2025 - 15:51:24It went to whoever's name was on the deed to the property and to whoever's name might have held a lien on the property.
OK, 4WD, I just paid $9 to access the property records for that church building. The name on the deed (before it was sold to the Anglican Church) was the official name of that church of Christ. That's it. Just "Street name church of Christ." There were no liens on it at the time of sale.
So, does that mean every member of that congregation at the time of sale was a co-owner and would equally share in the 1.8 million?
: mommydi Fri Nov 28, 2025 - 16:24:26OK, 4WD, I just paid $9 to access the property records for that church building. The name on the deed (before it was sold to the Anglican Church) was the official name of that church of Christ. That's it. Just "Street name church of Christ." There were no liens on it at the time of sale.
So, does that mean every member of that congregation at the time of sale was a co-owner and would equally share in the 1.8 million?
You would have to ask someone more knowledgeable about such things than I, but I would think it would depend upon the details of how the membership of that "organization" was officially established. There must be some record somewhere how the "Street name church of Christ" was legally constituted. That $1.9M went somewhere.
It is interesting enough that I am going to look into that situation for my own church. I am not so much interested in any profits due to selling the property, which I do not expect to happen in my lifetime, but I am a bit anxious to know if I, as a member of the congregation, could be liable for any significant losses that might occur.