Leaderboard

I'm sure most of us have heard the saying that, "A church is a hospital for sinners -- not a rest home for saints." Following along that idea, has anyone ever wondered why no one ever gets "well"?? It seems to me that a church is more like a palliative care center, rather than a "hospital." So, rather than "curing," the focus should be on alleviation of the *effects* of sin... not only offering the "Blessed Hope" in the form of sermons and evangelistic efforts, but on actively helping and providing for others in big or small ways... just being friends, visiting -- just making people feel like they *matter*....

I understand the practicality of this pastor and his list of things he does not intellectually agree with. Intellectual assent to all of these biblical teachings does not produce any change in character, so why believe them. They are not useful to the intellectual who is seeking substance in his or her spiritual walk. They are actually irrelevant to daily living, and finding one's own ways to be a responsible, an ethical and spiritual person. If you are not inspired by the Holy Spirit to recognize the cross which is foolishness to some, but is the power of God unto eternal life to others, you may find yourself to be a very responsible person trying to find your way to a good life in spite of religiousness. i can understand putting religion and all of it's trappings aside to find one's relationship to the Holy Spirit. The flesh may not only present decadent and epicurean, and indulgent in sin, it can also be very righteous and holy and religious. It was the religious elite that hated Jesus unto death. Religion and "belief" in the Bible does not equal "Love for God" and others, and a life changing relationship to God.

Perhaps more important than what we wear is what we think of what others wear and how we treat them as a result of what they wear. Seems more consistent with what Scripture has to say on the matter. Jesus said, "Why worry about what you wear? Consider the lilies..." And both Paul and Peter admonished the believers that better than fancy attire is a right attitude and postive conduct. The context of Paul's comment was worship.

Humans are born naked. A Christian is ashamed of his sinful nakedness. A Christian seeks to cover his shame. Jesus died to cover the Christian's sinful nature. When the Christian wears Christ's robe of righteousness, no one can see the denim or the wool, the polyester or the cotton. No one can see the wrinkles, or the wear and tear, the stains or the faded inks and dyes.

Here is an article I got from the TED newsletter:

And for many, that is a real worry for them, even here in America. Maybe not whether they will have clothes at all but that if what clothes they will have will be acceptable in Church, especially when the indirect message is that one must where a nice suit and tie. They may not have dress clothes or what they have are obviously second hand, patched, somewhat dated, poor fitting or something like that. I know because I have experienced exactly that as a poor farm boy. Sometimes a person might just not feel like going to church because their clothes are not nearly as nice as most everyone else. Jesus said we shouldn't worry about it. And I think it should be a part of our Christian conduct toward others to make them feel very welcome regardless of what clothes they wear to church. We shouldn't worry about it, nor should we create a worry barrier about it for others. Just come as you are. We need to stop looking at a person's outside and consider their heart.

This is the way I see it. Not necessarily a "doctrine". "And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul" (Gen. 2:7) "Dust" = Body "Breath" = Spirit "Body" + "Spirit" = "Soul"; just like "wood" + "nails" = "crate" Man doesn't "have" a soul; he "IS" a soul.

Toxic shame is harmful it is relentless condemnation and inhibition of a person to even be themselves. By faith in God's love for us, however broken we are, we are free to be our self in Christ and stand reconciled to God. Healthy shame is social consciousness, and inhibits us from doing and saying things that are harmful to others. And it does not attach itself to our being but just to behaviors. Yes let everyone, and everyone is broken, be reconciled to God and to be true to themselves. This cannot happen in our church relationships while we continue to be shaming towards the broken, and this we do unless our hearts are changed by the Love of God. For everyone is a sinner, not just the whores and the drunks, as sinner's were described in Jesus day. The sin of religious self righteousness is far more dangerous to a person's eternal life. Just because someone may be broken in a different way then you are does not make you superior or less of a sinner.

Some really interesting points so far! In a way I feel that getting into having to wear your absolute best clothes for church because its in some way for G-d is just theology I cant agree with, it follows in my mind that I would then have to dress like that every day because I don't just meet with G-d at church meetings and feel that its an everyday relationship not just a weekly visit on Sabbath. If I fall into the ideal of dressing up for church, what becomes my best, - Louis Vuitton, Armani, Hugo Boss perhaps? Perhaps in a way I feel conflicted by the movie "Leap of Faith" where Steve Martin portrays a pentecostal healer. In it one of the lines is "always dress better than they do". I don't doubt that is factual for many in the Prosperity Gospel movement and I am aware that Steve Martin went along to several of these meetings to mould his character for the film. Perhaps its also true that my own attitude becomes then an over reaction to this ideal. Interesting thoughts to ponder anyway!

I agree Pam... even if your best is "bargain basement" I feel it is disrespectful to not have them clean, pressed, etc. I have seen lots of blue jeans (denim) in various churches; If one is attending a Cowboy Church then by all means denim. Even then they can be pressed,& clean. As one fellow said, "these are my very best glad rags." Jesus lived in a different time, society, etc. To paraphrase Zig Ziegler, "If you wanta feel better about yourself, Get Up, Clean Up, fix up and things will Look Up, I submit that perhaps when we put on our Sabbath Best for church that we will experience an uplift in mental & spiritual health.

These things are social signals, so it depends on the social context. I'd hope in general that your clothes wouldn't cross your mind at church. So they should be physically comfortable, and similar enough to those of others that you don't feel as though you stick out like a sore thumb. Jeans at a suit church or suit at a jeans church won't work so well. God doesn't care, I don't think: "man looks on the outward appearance, but the Lord looks on the heart". That is to say, the clothes are relevant only as they are reflections of the heart... and hypocrisy before God is impossible.

Up until yesterday I have been at the forefront of talking about the Church being a hospital for sinners. Yesterday, my wife caused me to have an epiphany. The Church should not be a hospital for sinners. In the world of today, people spend 3-days in the hospital treating a single problem. Then they return to their prior existence, minus that problem. But, they may nto be healthy. The Church should be an Assisted Living Facility. People come there because they need assistance on an on-going basis. Rather than addressing one problem, they are helped in all areas of their life in which they may need help. They likely remain there for an extended period of time. There is typically no expectation that they will reach the place where they no longer need help.

When people suffer from shame isn't the church a place where you WANT them to go?

Yes, Joe, if you search the Internet you will find many examples of the story being told. However, the facts remain that what I have stated is false is false. A lie repeated 1,000 times remains a lie and is not truth. I find it interesting that you have not responded to the specific reasons that Snopes has given for stating that it is false. You response is simply that there are over a million posts of the material. In Post # 9 your referenced a medical person. Here is one such statement in your citation: Yes, that citation has people who disagree with Dr. Tabu.

1) Genetically modified organisms: True. genetically modified organisms are involved in the production of vaccines. See: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/897705/genetically-modified-organism- GMO/279978/GMOs-in-medicine-and-research This has resulted in better, more effective and less expensive vaccines. I do not think tht EGW would have objected. I see no reason for us to object today. Hepatitis B is produced from Yeast. Many other vaccines are produced from a GMO. These are a great blessing. NOTE: Do not confuse a vaccine with a food. 2) Fraud in MMR Vaccine: Please see: http://www.snopes.com/medical/disease/cdcwhistleblower.asp I am uncertain as to your point of reference. If this was the issue, it is false. If you are talking about some financial issues or some problems in some research studies, then there may be a bit to your charge. But, probably not a whole lot as far as the clinical issues go. 3) Catholic Bishops in Africa: Please see: http://www.snopes.com/medical/disease/tetanus.asp In short this is false.