Alliance Church

  • Thread starter Thread starter Emese
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Hello! Very sorry to bump this thread by 2 months, but I feel that my (name removed by moderator)ut could be valuable here

I belong to a CMA church and have my whole life. I thought I’d list off the most important core beliefs of the denomination, and leave it to you to decide if we are in a “cult”.

We tend to believe similarly to Pentecostals, with one MAJOR exception in the Trinity. We believe in ONE god in three forms as the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Jesus was the son of God.

We believe salvation is found in Christ alone, not by works but through faith, and this is one of the main things that separates us from Catholicism. We do believe, however, after attaining salvation, one should have a desire to do good works, not TO save themselves, but BECAUSE they are saved.

We practice communion, but deny transubstantiation.
e
We do practice Lent, Advent, etc…

We fit more into a mainstream Evangelical description than anything else

So many people here seem to say we hate Catholics, and that is NOT true. It seems, quite honestly, that you are being more anti-Protestant than we are anti-Catholic. We don’t agree with Catholics, but we do not say anything about you usually. Just because we don’t line up on beliefs doesn’t mean we teach you are all mislead 😦

I’m not angry there by the way, just feeling misunderstood.

Please forgive the late reply 😛

God bless you!
For someone that is not angry, and a newbie, your post comes off pretty angry.
This is a debate forum. So, you will be challenged.
We have plenty of Protestant posters, who have been here for years, who have no problem with the various topics discussed. And do it in a spirit of charity. Both Catholics and non-Catholics are expected to abide by the rules of the forum, which you can read in the stickies at the top of the forum.
 
We tend to believe similarly to Pentecostals, with one MAJOR exception in the Trinity. We believe in ONE god in three forms as the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Jesus was the son of God.
One minor quibble from a fellow member of the Alliance:

The very first point of our statement of faith (The Alliance Stand) is, “There is one God, who is infinitely perfect, existing eternally in three persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.”

Now, that clearly stands in stark opposition to Oneness Pentecostalism, but not all Pentecostals are Oneness Pentecostals. The Assemblies of God are certainly Trinitarian as are the vast majority of other Pentecostal denominations and groups.

In addition, the formulation of the Trinity you stated, namely “One God in three forms” is actually perfectly in keeping with Oneness Pentecostalism, which holds to a form of Modalism, wherein the One God reveals Himself as the Father in the OT, the Son in the NT, and the Holy Spirit in the Church. He can express any of those three “faces” at any point in time, but the point is that He is only one of them at a time and that those “faces” are not persons in the proper sense, each with their own independent identities.

That’s not what we believe. We in the Alliance hold to a thoroughly orthodox view of the Trinity that is perfectly in keeping with other Protestants, Orthodox, and Catholics.
 
Also, do you believe that the Catholic Church aims for “World Conquest” as this article states from your church’s website?
Wow. Great work dude.

It’s always nice when people dig up an editorial from a 1951 issue of The Alliance Weekly and then try to make it appear as if that’s current mainstream opinion. 👍

I wonder how many embarrassing editorials from old Catholic publications are out there? 🤷
 
Wow. Great work dude.

It’s always nice when people dig up an editorial from a 1951 issue of The Alliance Weekly and then try to make it appear as if that’s current mainstream opinion. 👍

I wonder how many embarrassing editorials from old Catholic publications are out there? 🤷
Itwin,

I asked a totally fair question. This article is on their Church’s website. Why criticize me? Why do you not hold this church accountable for their actions and beliefs?

I don’t know if it is current thinking or not but I assume it would be so if their Church currently has it posted and available for its members. If it is not current thinking, should it not be incumbent on their church to remove it?

Frankly, I’m insulted that you would point to me that I did something wrong. I did nothing but to ask a question, of an article posted on their website that reflects an anti-Catholic viewpoint of which the poster wondered why people held their Church to be anti-Catholic.

And the dude comment is condescending as well.
 
I asked a totally fair question. This article is on their Church’s website. Why criticize me? Why do you not hold this church accountable for their actions and beliefs?
Oh I do. I just think you need to be reminded that the Alliance makes this available for historical purposes. Just as the Catholic Church cannot and should not wash its hands of its mistakes, the Alliance can’t either. The fact that the Alliance posts it shows that as a denomination the Alliance is attempting to be honest and open about its history.

Would you rather they hide it?
I don’t know if it is current thinking or not but I assume it would be so if their Church currently has it posted and available for its members.
It’s posted as archival data. Do you realize that for a graduate student, like me, what a blessing it is to have all of these documents digitized and easily available.

They are doing so much to advance the knowledge of their church’s history by making this stuff so easily available.
If it is not current thinking, should it not be incumbent on their church to remove it?
It’s an editorial from 1951. How can it possibly represent “current thinking?” And once again, its located in a section of the website called “archives.” It’s meant as a historical resource not as a representation of current thinking.
Frankly, I’m insulted that you would point to me that I did something wrong. I did nothing but to ask a question, of an article posted on their website that reflects an anti-Catholic viewpoint of which the poster wondered why people held their Church to be anti-Catholic.

And the dude comment is condescending as well.
I don’t mean to be condescending. But I thought your post was misleading. You failed to mention to everyone that the linked article was from a 1951 magazine and was not even an “official” document of the Alliance. I wouldn’t have had a problem if you gave more information and context about the link before you asked C&MA posters if they agreed with the editorial. You could have said something like this:

“I read this editorial in the March 1951 issue of The Alliance Weekly that spreads anti-Catholic conspiracy theories. Is this kind of thinking still prevalent in the Alliance today?”
 
Oh I do. I just think you need to be reminded that the Alliance makes this available for historical purposes. Just as the Catholic Church cannot and should not wash its hands of its mistakes, the Alliance can’t either. The fact that the Alliance posts it shows that as a denomination the Alliance is attempting to be honest and open about its history.

Would you rather they hide it?
Itwin, agree that “archive” means historical, a place to put historical documents. But it does not mean that the teachings are out of date or not adhered to.
It’s posted as archival data. Do you realize that for a graduate student, like me, what a blessing it is to have all of these documents digitized and easily available.
have no doubt that having a one stop place for information is helpful. It was helpful for this graduate student to type in the word “Catholic” to see what came up.
They are doing so much to advance the knowledge of their church’s history by making this stuff so easily available.
Agree
It’s an editorial from 1951. How can it possibly represent “current thinking?” And once again, its located in a section of the website called “archives.” It’s meant as a historical resource not as a representation of current thinking.
Again, what in the word Archive means that on faith and morals it should no longer be followed or adhered to? I can point to some very old Protestant documents that refer to the Pope or Papal Office as the Anti-Christ. Despite being old, these beliefs are still held. Very unbiblical I may add.
I don’t mean to be condescending. But I thought your post was misleading. You failed to mention to everyone that the linked article was from a 1951 magazine and was not even an “official” document of the Alliance. I wouldn’t have had a problem if you gave more information and context about the link before you asked C&MA posters if they agreed with the editorial. You could have said something like this:
“I read this editorial in the March 1951 issue of The Alliance Weekly that spreads anti-Catholic conspiracy theories. Is this kind of thinking still prevalent in the Alliance today?”
The date of the article was self evident when one opened it up. I would never try to mislead anyone. Agree that I could have had a bit more set up.

But my question still stands. Is this still the thinking of the Alliance Church, that the Catholic Church is after “World Conquest”? If not, when did it change? And is this view still held by members?

PnP
 
I do find it odd that this gal has become so hostile towards Catholicism if she joined the C&MA. It doesn’t sound like them at all. Whatever she’s gotten herself into, it’s just too bad she feels she has to abandon all she was taught and think of herself as superior to others. I do pray this phase of her conversion experience doesn’t last long–for her sake as well as those of her friends. 🙂
I believe I can answer this, or at least present a theory.

My husband and I were enthusiastic members of a Christian and Missionary Alliance church for ten years when we lived in North Carolina.

It was a wonderful church. Had we not moved away from North Carolina, we would probably still be members.

It is the only “good” church that my younger daughter has any memories of (she was four when we left). Every other church, without exception (including Catholic churches) have acted badly and betrayed us and/or her.

What characterizes the C&MA is missionary zeal. Although the stats may have changed, at the time we were members, the C&MA had the HIGHEST percentage per membership of missionaries working in the field of ANY Protestant denomination, including such missionary powerhouses as the Southern Baptists and the Assemblies of God.

I’m sure that even if the stats have changed, the C&MA still has a fantastic percentage per membership of working missionaries.

Even more amazing, at the time we were members of the C&MA church, many of the churches in the denomination dedicated amazing percentages of their church budgets to foreign missions. Our church worked hard to donate at least 50% of their budget to foreign missions! Many other C&MA churches did the same–50% of the budget was given to foreign missions. C&MA churches were (and possibly still are) known for members taking off their jewelry and putting it into the offering plate in response to calls for more funds for foreign missions.

To give you a frame of reference most Protestant churches give around 3% (or less) to foreign missions. :eek: So the accomplishment of the C&MA churches is impressive.

In fact, most C&MA churches here in the U.S. are fairly small. We attended a church that grew in a few years from 200 to around 500, and that was considered large. But many of the churches are in the 100-200 member range.

But overseas (outside of the U.S.) many of the C&MA churches are megachurches.

The reason for this missionary zeal is because C&MAers are filled with a desire to fulfil the Great Commission. They are “evangelicals” extraordinaire!

It’s really really FUN to be part of a C&MA church, because there’s an actual purpose in attending other than just “being spiritual.” For those of us who enjoy “working” and who have trouble just “sitting around and praying and worshipping,” the C&MA is a breath of fresh air! In other words, lots of Marthas! I’m this type of person–I have a million ideas and in the C&MA church, I was not only allowed, but ENCOURAGED to DO those ideas, to make them happen!

So it’s a great place for worker bees! I think the more contemplative types would feel kind of lost in the C&MA, because everyone is dashing about doing stuff, while they just sit.

But DON’T get the very mistaken idea that the C&MA doesn’t pray! WRONG! They have an entire manual filled with the names, addresses, and probably emails of EVERY missionary, pastor, evangelist, office staff member, etc. in the C&MA, and there is a SCHEDULE of prayer so that a person can spend an hour or so a day praying through this manual for all these workers! It’s really cool. I’ve never seen anything like it in any other Protestant church.

I hope I’ve given you all a “flavor” of what it’s like to be C&MA.

But back to the “anti-Catholic” question. Our dear C&MA pastor and his family (wife and four children) were missionaries to Viet Nam throughout the duration of the war from 1956 through 1972. They lived the war daily. All four of the children were born in Viet Nam under the most primitive of circumstances. The family got out, along with the last remaining Americans, in 1972 only two weeks before the Fall of Saigon.

During their time in Viet Nam, the C&MA worked well with all other missionary organizations–except the Catholics. The Catholics refused to cooperate with them during the building of the leprosarium, and in any other Christian effort. In fact, the Catholics made it difficult for the C&MA missionaries to work.

Our pastor had nothing good to say about the Catholics in Viet Nam. He was normally the most loving man, but not when it came to his experiences in Viet Nam with Catholic priests.

And THAT’S why there may be anti-Catholicism in assorted C&MA churches. IF there are people, especially ex-missionaries, in the church who had bad experiences with Catholics overseas, they have no good memories or experiences with Catholics, and so they are prejudiced against them. It’s hard to argue against someone who had to look a Catholic priest in the face and be told, “We don’t want to help you with the lepers” or whatever.

Apologetics is always trumped by hatefulness. It doesn’t matter what the “facts” are, or what “the truth” is if there’s no love, or at least, no perceived love. I realize that the Catholic priests had to be true to their beliefs, but it didn’t sound like the Catholics in Viet Nam had any idea of “Christian brotherhood.” This was all before Vatican II. Oh well–we don’t know the Catholic side of the story, so perhaps the hatefulness was on the side of the C&MA.

But you’ll meet other C&MA pastors and missionaries who have good things to say about Catholics!

At any rate, I hope this explanation makes sense.
 
Just as a quick note, other than Ravi Zacharias, to my mind the most well known C&MA pastor and writer would be A.W. Tozer, a mystic and contemplative Christian who loved Julian of Norwich’s writings. I have most, if not all, of his books. I don’t recall coming across anti-Catholicism from his works. At any rate, he certainly knew Julian of Norwich was Catholic, but he considered her his greatest human influence from what I remember.
 
Doing a quick search on Tozer on the web without going through his books which I have, he also much relied upon St. Teresa of Avila, St. John of the Cross, “The Cloud of Unknowing”, and Brother Lawrence, among other Catholics. Indeed, some fundamentalists condemn Tozer for being Catholic-sympathetic.
 
Tozer, as Simpson before him, was fairly anti-Catholic although no more so than his contemporaries. And again, as with Simpson, Tozer’s willingness to read and at least tacitly (if not publicly) recommend Catholic Mystics was in fact seen used against him by his contemporaries as evidence that he was not anti-Catholic enough.

On the missionary note from earlier, even with the “rebranding” of our churches from being explicitly C&MA to just “Alliance,” we still maintain the old missionary fervor. All member churches are required to have a line item on our donation envelopes for the Great Commission Fund so that, if people want to donate directly to that, they can. In addition, every church and district (kind of like a diocese) is required to pay a percentage of their gross income to the Great Commission Fund. As we like to say: “Missionary is our middle name.”

Our commitment to missions is more than simply a cultural value for us. In fact, one of the distinctives of Simpson’s theology and of the theology of the C&MA after him is the notion that, while Christ can certainly return any time He likes, He told us that He would after we had accomplished the Great Commission that He gave to us to preach the Gospel to the whole world. To put it bluntly, we have something to say and do about when our Lord returns, and if we want to see that day, then we had best be about our Father’s business.

Our missionary efforts are directly related to that vision of “preaching in the Kingdom” by establishing self-sufficient national churches, able to train and educate their own pastors and missionaries, for every national, ethnic, and language group. The National Churches in Ecuador and Korea and Japan have already more or less achieved that and are training and sending their own missionaries into some of the hardest places on earth: China, North Korea, Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Syria, and even Saudi Arabia.
 
Itwin, agree that “archive” means historical, a place to put historical documents. But it does not mean that the teachings are out of date or not adhered to.
No. But you haven’t shown me any indication that what is represented in that opinion peace is official C&MA teaching. It’s an opinion peace which is in keeping with general Protestant attitudes toward Catholics in the 1950s. We can expect the C&MA today to express the same sort of opinion towards Catholics that similarly situated evangelical churches do.
Again, what in the word Archive means that on faith and morals it should no longer be followed or adhered to?
It’s a 1951 opinion peace, not a papal encyclical. That opinion peace was not “authoritative” for anyone in 1951 and it most certainly isn’t “authoritative” on faith and morals in 2013!
But my question still stands. Is this still the thinking of the Alliance Church, that the Catholic Church is after “World Conquest”?
That’s a conspiracy theory fed by the political and religious climate of the 1950s. I’m sure there are some people in the USA who still believe this, but most Protestants have moved on from worrying that the Pope is trying to take over the world. I believe the C&MA to be in line with what most evangelicals believe about Catholicism–that it is in many ways theologically suspect but not out to conquer the world.

What exactly are you looking for? An apology, a disclaimer, a what? It’s a magazine article. A snap shot in time. Not a theological manifesto meant to be indicative of long term beliefs.
 
No. But you haven’t shown me any indication that what is represented in that opinion peace is official C&MA teaching. It’s an opinion peace which is in keeping with general Protestant attitudes toward Catholics in the 1950s. We can expect the C&MA today to express the same sort of opinion towards Catholics that similarly situated evangelical churches do.

It’s a 1951 opinion peace, not a papal encyclical. That opinion peace was not “authoritative” for anyone in 1951 and it most certainly isn’t “authoritative” on faith and morals in 2013!

That’s a conspiracy theory fed by the political and religious climate of the 1950s. I’m sure there are some people in the USA who still believe this, but most Protestants have moved on from worrying that the Pope is trying to take over the world. I believe the C&MA to be in line with what most evangelicals believe about Catholicism–that it is in many ways theologically suspect but not out to conquer the world.
Itwin,

An opinion piece written by the editor of the Official Church Magazine. I did see that this was AW Tozer, referenced in one of the previous posts. Itwin, maybe it is because you are protestant and don’t understand the Catholic side. We see many denominations viewing the Church as the whore of bablyon or the Pope as the anti-Christ. These beliefs have been out there for a long time, long before 1951 and have not changed. It is a reasonable question for me as a Catholic, to ask someone attending a Church that I know nothing about, whether they hold to this view when I read an article on their Church’s website, from the Editor of their Church’s Official Magazine. I’m not trying to prove, argue or take a position. Just asking a question which as a Catholic is somewhat familiar to ask.

PnP
 
Itwin,

An opinion piece written by the editor of the Official Church Magazine. I did see that this was AW Tozer, referenced in one of the previous posts. Itwin, maybe it is because you are protestant and don’t understand the Catholic side. We see many denominations viewing the Church as the whore of bablyon or the Pope as the anti-Christ. These beliefs have been out there for a long time, long before 1951 and have not changed. It is a reasonable question for me as a Catholic, to ask someone attending a Church that I know nothing about, whether they hold to this view when I read an article on their Church’s website, from the Editor of their Church’s Official Magazine. I’m not trying to prove, argue or take a position. Just asking a question which as a Catholic is somewhat familiar to ask.

PnP
PorknPie—Seeing that the editorial in question is by Tozer, I think this tozer.simpsonu.edu/Pages/About/Tozer-AWTozer.htm. short “Who Is Tozer?” article may help put things in a different light. On the left side of the page is a boxed quote from him. A strong dislike of perceived or suspected smooth talk was characteristic of him, regardless of the source. That was a personality issue of his, which may well be coloring the tone of the editorial as much as, or more than, the general distrust of the CC of the times among non-Catholics.

Although I don’t share Tozer’s mistrust of the CC—thanks in great part to the string of Popes I’ve been privileged to witness in my lifetime —I’m going to argue that much of that editorial is just starkly stating the truth of what would be required of any non-Catholic who wanted to pursue Christian unity with the CC. Tozer admired sober, serious, un-fluffy thinking and he grants that quality to the CC. When he states that the CC will not compromise, and that for any Catholic/non-Catholic reunion all doctrinal compromise must come from the non-Catholic side, he’s just stating the truth. (I admit that I for one didn’t know that myself till less that half a dozen years ago. The meaning of “ecumenism” from a Catholic perspective is a whole different animal to what most Evangelicals mean by it. As much as I strongly disagree with the overly suspicious tone of Tozer here, I frankly would not have minded learning the true Catholic meaning of “ecumenism” earlier. I was taken aback when I did learn, I have to confess.)

I’m also going to venture my opinion that I surmise Tozer wasn’t thinking of “world conquest” in terms of worldly or political power for the CC. Maybe he was; the CC certainly has been so accused at times. But reading the whole of the editorial, which focuses on the CC’s spiritual power, and knowing from his writings that Tozer himself was strongly focused on spiritual rather than worldly interests, I think it likely that he was talking about spiritual world conquest. And the stark truth is that the CC does want to conquer the world for the Kingdom of God, with the Bishop of Rome as the head of the Church for the entire world. Although I disagree about the necessity of that, I do believe the CC has love as its overall driving force behind that. Tozer lacked, I think, that trust in the loving motives of the CC. But, in essence, he was not wrong in what he said if he was thinking in terms of spiritual world conquest.

These are just my thoughts, as someone who has read much of Tozer’s devotional writings. I understand where you’re coming from, but it’s still my educated guess that Tozer’s suspicion which he displays here was not really typical “Whore of Babylon” ranting.
 
PorknPie—Seeing that the editorial in question is by Tozer, I think this tozer.simpsonu.edu/Pages/About/Tozer-AWTozer.htm. short “Who Is Tozer?” article may help put things in a different light. On the left side of the page is a boxed quote from him. A strong dislike of perceived or suspected smooth talk was characteristic of him, regardless of the source. That was a personality issue of his, which may well be coloring the tone of the editorial as much as, or more than, the general distrust of the CC of the times among non-Catholics.

Although I don’t share Tozer’s mistrust of the CC—thanks in great part to the string of Popes I’ve been privileged to witness in my lifetime —I’m going to argue that much of that editorial is just starkly stating the truth of what would be required of any non-Catholic who wanted to pursue Christian unity with the CC. Tozer admired sober, serious, un-fluffy thinking and he grants that quality to the CC. When he states that the CC will not compromise, and that for any Catholic/non-Catholic reunion all doctrinal compromise must come from the non-Catholic side, he’s just stating the truth. (I admit that I for one didn’t know that myself till less that half a dozen years ago. The meaning of “ecumenism” from a Catholic perspective is a whole different animal to what most Evangelicals mean by it. As much as I strongly disagree with the overly suspicious tone of Tozer here, I frankly would not have minded learning the true Catholic meaning of “ecumenism” earlier. I was taken aback when I did learn, I have to confess.)

I’m also going to venture my opinion that I surmise Tozer wasn’t thinking of “world conquest” in terms of worldly or political power for the CC. Maybe he was; the CC certainly has been so accused at times. But reading the whole of the editorial, which focuses on the CC’s spiritual power, and knowing from his writings that Tozer himself was strongly focused on spiritual rather than worldly interests, I think it likely that he was talking about spiritual world conquest. And the stark truth is that the CC does want to conquer the world for the Kingdom of God, with the Bishop of Rome as the head of the Church for the entire world. Although I disagree about the necessity of that, I do believe the CC has love as its overall driving force behind that. Tozer lacked, I think, that trust in the loving motives of the CC. But, in essence, he was not wrong in what he said if he was thinking in terms of spiritual world conquest.

These are just my thoughts, as someone who has read much of Tozer’s devotional writings. I understand where you’re coming from, but it’s still my educated guess that Tozer’s suspicion which he displays here was not really typical “Whore of Babylon” ranting.
Thank you for your post!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top