Idolatry in an SBC Church

[Rete]

Those mega churches are a fusion of consumer capitalism and Protestantism.

I doubt most Evangelical churches are run like a business, with marketing and entertainment qualities like a mega church. I don’t really know for sure though.

 

[ltwin]

A lot of mega churches seem to be much less Evangelical Christianity and much more a sort of pop religion which is very light on doctrine and doesn’t dare to go much beyond the surface. It is better termed “Revivalism”. Evangelicalism in the classical sense is something else entirely.

Many mega-churches, at least in the US, tend to be “lightweight, generic evangelical” in theology. However, in practice and program, they tend to adopt “seeker-sensitive” approaches to ministry. The seeker-sensitive program basically says, “Make the primary church services fun, interesting, comfortable, and not controversial at all so that non-churched ‘seekers’ will come.”

Theoretically, these churches are supposed to gradually disciple and train these seekers in more mature aspects of Christian faith and life. However, many criticize the seeker-sensitive model as never getting beyond the seeker stage. The result is that many people who attend mega-churches have a shallow and immature conception of Christianity.

 

[ltwin]

Those mega churches are a fusion of consumer capitalism and Protestantism.

I doubt most Evangelical churches are run like a business, with marketing and entertainment qualities like a mega church. I don’t really know for sure though.

Most aren’t run like a business. However, many evangelical churches do have high energy services because they think that church should be a celebration of God.

 

[Fairwinds]

God appreciates a good rock concert as much as any of us, maybe even more.

 

[Rete]

Most aren’t run like a business. However, many evangelical churches do have high energy services because they think that church should be a celebration of God.

Most mega churches are not run like a business? I disagree with that. They are run and based upon consumer capitalism. They use marketing just like a business. They get everybody all revved up just like a corporation tries to do with its workers. They approach Christianity like they are fighting for market share. But it’s not their particular faith which is competing so much as the one physical mega church.

Put it this way. You would not have the American mega church without American-style capitalism.

 

[ltwin]

Most mega churches are not run like a business?

Uhm . . . you stated, “I doubt most Evangelical churches are run like a business, with marketing and entertainment qualities like a mega church.”

I responded by saying that most evangelical churches are not run like a business. If you think that all evangelical churches are megachurches or imitate megachurches in the way they operate, then you are woefully mistaken. However, many small to medium sized evangelical churches, while not ran like businesses, do have high energy church services because they view corporate gatherings of worship as times of celebrating and praising God.

I’m not even gonna get into the consumerism comment in depth. Suffice it to say that American religion has always been (at least since the collapse of the colonial state churches around the time of the Revolution) based to some degree on free market principles. Those religious groups that are relevant and meet the needs of contemporary Americans thrive (or at least remain stable). Those that don’t (read Protestant mainline) collapse under the weight of bloated bureaucracy, budgets, and mortality rates.

 

[jericho777]

Uhm . . . you stated, “I doubt most Evangelical churches are run like a business, with marketing and entertainment qualities like a mega church.”

I responded by saying that most evangelical churches are not run like a business. If you think that all evangelical churches are megachurches or imitate megachurches in the way they operate, then you are woefully mistaken. However, many small to medium sized evangelical churches, while not ran like businesses, do have high energy church services because they view corporate gatherings of worship as times of celebrating and praising God.

I’m not even gonna get into the consumerism comment in depth. Suffice it to say that American religion has always been (at least since the collapse of the colonial state churches around the time of the Revolution) based to some degree on free market principles. Those religious groups that are relevant and meet the needs of contemporary Americans thrive (or at least remain stable). Those that don’t (read Protestant mainline) collapse under the weight of bloated bureaucracy, budgets, and mortality rates.

Fidelity with God’s resources is good stewardship. Speaking of businesses I don’t know of any mega churches that are into international banking with multi billion dollar reserves.

+1 We should exuberently celebrate our Lord and Savior just as was done in ancient Israel.

 

[ltwin]

Fidelity with God’s resources is good stewardship. Speaking of businesses I don’t know of any mega churches that are into international banking with multi billion dollar reserves.

Well, the sad truth is that there are megachurches that apparently exist solely to give the senior pastor a million dollar slush fund. When you have millionaire preachers living in mansions, riding private jets, and making poor church members feel bad because they don’t pay a full ten percent of their income to the pastor, then that strikes me as a for-profit business model.

I’m not saying that all megachurches are like that. However, they are out there.

+1 We should exuberently celebrate our Lord and Savior just as was done in ancient Israel.

I agree.

 

[exnihilo]

Anyway, the first half of today’s service was dedicated to patriotism – saying the pledge of allegiance, singing our national anthem, as well as other patriotic “hymns” while patriotic symbols and images (e.g., the statue of liberty, a bald eagle, American flag) flashed up on the screen. Each attendee was also provided an American flag to wave during the festivities, and there were several American flags on stage.

I find this time of year very troubling as a Christian. I find it interesting that groups that will not say a creed in church will say the pledge of allegiance. I find it interesting that churches that will have nothing other than a plain cross will deck the sanctuary with flags. So much behavior is at odds with stated beliefs and practices. The most charitable conclusion I can draw is they simply have not thought about the implications of this exception to their typical ways.

I find this allegiance to the state very odd from Christians who deny a visible church. They say the church is not a visible organization to which they owe allegiance. But the state is. We can break with the Catholic Church over doctrinal issues but we must never fail to praise and obey a government that makes war on the world, considers abortion a fundamental right, and now imposed same sex marriage on its people. I can’t imagine the early Christians had standards of the Roman Empire in their church services.

When I was catholic we would sing the Battle Hymn of the Republic at the Fourth of July. Was that too idolitrious?

I do not think it very appropriate in a Christian service. It was written by a Unitarian. It is a war song: ‘I have read a fiery gospel writ in burnished rows of steel’. The Gospel is written by rows of guns? It is about making war on half of America. It has improper imagery such as saying: ‘In the beauty of the lilies Christ was born across the sea’. I thought Christ was born in a manger. Certainly not lilies.

 

[AbideWithMe]

I find this time of year very troubling as a Christian. I find it interesting that groups that will not say a creed in church will say the pledge of allegiance. I find it interesting that churches that will have nothing other than a plain cross will deck the sanctuary with flags. So much behavior is at odds with stated beliefs and practices. The most charitable conclusion I can draw is they simply have not thought about the implications of this exception to their typical ways.

I find this allegiance to the state very odd from Christians who deny a visible church. They say the church is not a visible organization to which they owe allegiance. But the state is. We can break with the Catholic Church over doctrinal issues but we must never fail to praise and obey a government that makes war on the world, considers abortion a fundamental right, and now imposed same sex marriage on its people. I can’t imagine the early Christians had standards of the Roman Empire in their church services.

I do not think it very appropriate in a Christian service. It was written by a Unitarian. It is a war song: ‘I have read a fiery gospel writ in burnished rows of steel’. The Gospel is written by rows of guns? It is about making war on half of America. It has improper imagery such as saying: ‘In the beauty of the lilies Christ was born across the sea’. I thought Christ was born in a manger. Certainly not lilies.

I think the “In the beauty of the lilies Christ was born across the sea” is probably a reference to the Virgin Mary. Lilies, especially Madonna lilies, are an ancient symbol for Mary.

 

[GaryTaylor]

There seems to be a general social awareness of Christianity in light of the USA today also, It can’t help but be noticed, I don 't interpret it as idolatry, its concern. Perhaps not always well placed.

 

[Rete]

It’s worth pointing out that the Protestant revolt can also be described as state takeovers of the Catholic Church in those nations.

Protestant nations didn’t suddenly have a new Protestant religion that was independent of the state like the Catholic Church. These became national churches in most cases, controlled by the monarch, positions of authority appointed by the monarch, and completely supportive of the monarch.

If you look at Church history through the lens of the interplay between secular and Church power, the Reformation makes quite a lot more sense than if you only focus on the doctrinal objections.

Obviously it transformed somewhat when Europeans emigrated from Europe to what would become the United States, but plenty of them still have that culture engrained.

You can continue that historical throughline by examining the trend of state governments seizing charitable organizations, outlawing them, regulating them into obscurity, etc. What was the role of the Church throughout much of Western history is increasingly being seen as the role of the state. That’s where much of our current conflict lies today here in America.

 

[ltwin]

It’s worth pointing out that the Protestant revolt can also be described as state takeovers of the Catholic Church in those nations.

Protestant nations didn’t suddenly have a new Protestant religion that was independent of the state like the Catholic Church. These became national churches in most cases, controlled by the monarch, positions of authority appointed by the monarch, and completely supportive of the monarch.

If you look at Church history through the lens of the interplay between secular and Church power, the Reformation makes quite a lot more sense than if you only focus on the doctrinal objections.

Obviously it transformed somewhat when Europeans emigrated from Europe to what would become the United States, but plenty of them still have that culture engrained.

You can continue that historical throughline by examining the trend of state governments seizing charitable organizations, outlawing them, regulating them into obscurity, etc. What was the role of the Church throughout much of Western history is increasingly being seen as the role of the state. That’s where much of our current conflict lies today here in America.

But isn’t the megachurch that started this whole thread a Baptist church? Baptists, if you guys remember your American history, were the denomination that fought against state control of religion.

Baptists were not part of the magisterial reformation. They come out of the radical reformation. So, while your critique may have merit in some Protestant traditions, its more complicated when it comes to Baptists, who have never had the status of a “national” or “state church” and have usually been persecuted by such establishments.

 

[Rete]

That’s fine. I didn’t dispute that. But this is where Baptists came from. At a specific point in time, the people who became Baptists belonged to a specific branch of Protestantism. One that emerged from a state seizure and occupation of the Church (namely the English monarchy).

If you look at the latest battles in this fight, Baptists certainly play their part to cede authority to the state. Granted, they still have Baptist hospitals in some places, I think, but in general, they are not expanding or even remaining at status quo. They seem to be reducing in those charitable services as well.

There are better examples of some Protestant denominations reverting back to a direct opposition to state power, but they are fewer in numbers. More like aberrations. Also, they had to undo the cultural developments of the Reformation in order to get to that point.

One interesting aspect of this is why exactly some of our founders fought to get the establishment and free exercise clauses included in the first amendment. Was this because they recognized the power a state church afforded any monarchy of their time? They were not very friendly toward the Catholic Church at the time either. So it’s not like they actually believed everybody should just pursue what religion they felt was best. It had more to do with power than anything else.

 

[Indifferently]

That’s fine. I didn’t dispute that. But this is where Baptists came from. At a specific point in time, the people who became Baptists belonged to a specific branch of Protestantism. One that emerged from a state seizure and occupation of the Church (namely the English monarchy).

If you look at the latest battles in this fight, Baptists certainly play their part to cede authority to the state. Granted, they still have Baptist hospitals in some places, I think, but in general, they are not expanding or even remaining at status quo. They seem to be reducing in those charitable services as well.

There are better examples of some Protestant denominations reverting back to a direct opposition to state power, but they are fewer in numbers. More like aberrations. Also, they had to undo the cultural developments of the Reformation in order to get to that point.

One interesting aspect of this is why exactly some of our founders fought to get the establishment and free exercise clauses included in the first amendment. Was this because they recognized the power a state church afforded any monarchy of their time? They were not very friendly toward the Catholic Church at the time either. So it’s not like they actually believed everybody should just pursue what religion they felt was best. It had more to do with power than anything else.

The English Church both before and after the Reformation was under a great deal of state control. The bishops were appointed by the monarch who only very occasionally faced opposition from Rome. Ecclesia Anglicana (the Church of England) is mentioned in the most ancient English statutes.

 

[exnihilo]

One interesting aspect of this is why exactly some of our founders fought to get the establishment and free exercise clauses included in the first amendment. Was this because they recognized the power a state church afforded any monarchy of their time? They were not very friendly toward the Catholic Church at the time either. So it’s not like they actually believed everybody should just pursue what religion they felt was best. It had more to do with power than anything else.

The first amendment was for the second constitution of the United States which was itself a triumph of federal power. The original constitution had no such amendment because its intent was a true confederation. Several of the states themselves had state churches and religious tests for offices both before and after the current constitution of the US was enacted. I think the first amendment is better understood as a protection against national power. It failed as the constitution as a whole did in actually containing that power. Anyone celebrating the US federal government, which is what we are talking about here, is celebrating the utter failure of the principle of subsidiarity. What is odd is that many of the people celebrating typically advocate for that principle. In my observation this is not a Catholic versus Protestant or even liberal versus conservative issue. In my experience Americans of all sorts celebrate the imperium.

I think the “In the beauty of the lilies Christ was born across the sea” is probably a reference to the Virgin Mary. Lilies, especially Madonna lilies, are an ancient symbol for Mary.

That is certainly possible. I would think it unlikely a Unitarian would be using symbolism for the Virgin Mary here. Lilies being plural also makes that symbolism, if the actual intent, hard to see.

 

[jericho777]

I find this time of year very troubling as a Christian. I find it interesting that groups that will not say a creed in church will say the pledge of allegiance. I find it interesting that churches that will have nothing other than a plain cross will deck the sanctuary with flags. So much behavior is at odds with stated beliefs and practices. The most charitable conclusion I can draw is they simply have not thought about the implications of this exception to their typical ways.

I find this allegiance to the state very odd from Christians who deny a visible church. They say the church is not a visible organization to which they owe allegiance. But the state is. We can break with the Catholic Church over doctrinal issues but we must never fail to praise and obey a government that makes war on the world, considers abortion a fundamental right, and now imposed same sex marriage on its people. I can’t imagine the early Christians had standards of the Roman Empire in their church services.

I do not think it very appropriate in a Christian service. It was written by a Unitarian. It is a war song: ‘I have read a fiery gospel writ in burnished rows of steel’. The Gospel is written by rows of guns? It is about making war on half of America. It has improper imagery such as saying: ‘In the beauty of the lilies Christ was born across the sea’. I thought Christ was born in a manger. Certainly not lilies.

Yes it was written by a Unitarian but from what I understand Unitarianism had different theology at that time since they had not joined to the Universalist. There is no doubt it is a war song that fit into the national psyche of the times. It was a rallying cry for the North’s just cause against slavery. Just as God Bless America was a song of America fight against Nazi’s during WWII. It is always best if you can claim God on your side during a fight.

Here is the full stanza in context.

I have read a fiery gospel writ in burnished rows of steel:
"As ye deal with my contemners, so with you my grace shall deal;
Let the Hero, born of woman, crush the serpent with his heel,
Since God is marching on.

The verse in question is written about Christ and no one else as well as the whole song. I don’t see the issues you have raised when you read in context.

The song is not saying Christ IS born in lilies but “born in the beauty OF the lilies.” There is a big difference.

 

[exnihilo]

Yes it was written by a Unitarian but from what I understand Unitarianism had different theology at that time since they had not joined to the Universalist.

I don’t know what specific changes you refer to but Unitarians fundamentally deny the deity of Christ. So keep in mind all references to Christ by someone who adheres to this theology are about a good or great man and not the Son of God.

There is no doubt it is a war song that fit into the national psyche of the times. It was a rallying cry for the North’s just cause against slavery. Just as God Bless America was a song of America fight against Nazi’s during WWII. It is always best if you can claim God on your side during a fight.

Right, and as a war song is not really a hymn about worshiping God. It is full of Biblical imagery but all with the intent of making war, which is not a Christian virtue. It seems to me inappropriate in a worship service. God Bless America sings praises about America and God. The Battle Hymn is a rallying cry against slavery and about destroying a people deemed as evil. But the particular war it was sung about was not originally about ending slavery. Lincoln himself said he had no such intention. So the song is more of a propaganda piece.

The song is not saying Christ IS born in lilies but “born in the beauty OF the lilies.” There is a big difference.

What is ‘the beauty OF the lilies’? And how does that relate to the traditional understanding that Christ was born in hardship?

 

[jericho777]

I don’t know what specific changes you refer to but Unitarians fundamentally deny the deity of Christ. So keep in mind all references to Christ by someone who adheres to this theology are about a good or great man and not the Son of God.

Right, and as a war song is not really a hymn about worshiping God. It is full of Biblical imagery but all with the intent of making war, which is not a Christian virtue. It seems to me inappropriate in a worship service. God Bless America sings praises about America and God. The Battle Hymn is a rallying cry against slavery and about destroying a people deemed as evil. But the particular war it was sung about was not originally about ending slavery. Lincoln himself said he had no such intention. So the song is more of a propaganda piece.

What is ‘the beauty OF the lilies’? And how does that relate to the traditional understanding that Christ was born in hardship?

I’m not here to defend Unitarianism. The song on its face does not contradict scripture. The song links the judgment of the wicked at the end of time. The propaganda issues aside. There are hymns that portray God as coming in judgment. After all God is a Mighty Warrior.

I would not expect this song to be sung down South. And I respect that. I think we would both agree that slavery is an evil the world can live without. The political historical issues surrounding the Civil War will be debated forever. The war ultimately became about slavery and the other underlying issues were not on the forefront.

It is poetically describing Christ’s beauty as lilies. In scripture He is called the Rose of Sharon.

Happy Fourth of July my friend.