In a recent discussion concerning the topic of Christian Churches and the Social Gospel, I addressed a few issues that are central to the true Biblical Gospel. I had expected the conservative brethren to show up but only one or two commented briefly. Now, what is keeping them from joining the thread?

-- Anonymous, May 03, 2002

Answers

Lack of interest, perhaps?

-- Anonymous, May 04, 2002

AMEN! Berry - It must be lack of something

-- Anonymous, May 05, 2002

1) Personally, I do not often join threads in which any particular writer writes pages and pages and pages in most of their posts. It becomes too big to answer or address without adding my OWN "pages and pages and pages". The bigger a reply and repost gets, the less I am likely to be involved.

2) Once one person in a discussion states my view, or something very close to it, I reckon I don't also need to jump in. I'll sit back and wait to see where it goes. If it is being handled well, I'll stay out of it.

Not a lack of interest, but a lack of necessity for me to jump in.

That's just me, tho.

-- Anonymous, May 07, 2002

I agree with Sam.

Plus....I've been busy turkey hunting!!

-- Anonymous, May 07, 2002

Sam You are absolutely right, of course. I would probably approach a thread the same way. However, if it was me stating something my conservative brethren object to (i.e. “baptism in the Spirit for all believers”), than they would be jumping all over me in a heartbeat (tongue-in-cheek). I guess my question to you is, who was the one doing the posting of “pages and pages”? Also, who was the one that most represents your views?

As for Danny, I assume that the turkey you were hunting was of the feathered species (jokingly).

-- Anonymous, May 07, 2002

Dittos ;)

-- Anonymous, May 07, 2002

Phillip:

As far as pages and pages, you started, and then Bill exceeded you, and then you both traded them back and forth.

As to which side I would take, since you both came to the end appearing to be in basic agreement, I'd have to say, neither and both. I leaned most heavily toward Bill at first, but also saw value in what you were saying.

I saw you as saying things that were a little too much of a blanket indictment and rejection of EVERYthing socially helpful, while Bill allowed that there is a strong place for the church's involvement in social outreach. I agreed with Bill at that point. But, again, at the end, you said to Bill, "It seems that our differences may have been more of a matter of semantics than anything else." And you accepted his apology for his (temporary) attitude of sharpness with you. So I conclude that, in essence, I agree with both of you.

Hope that makes sense.

Sam

-- Anonymous, May 07, 2002

Sam,

Regarding the "pages and pages" exchanged between Bill and I, that was only because Bill apparently felt that a full replay of everything previously said was necessary. In all fairness though, he stopped doing that when I asked him to. Sam: “Now, as to which side I would take, since you both came to the end appearing to be in basic agreement, I'd have to say, neither and both. I leaned most heavily toward Bill at first, but also saw value in what you were saying.” I appreciate your open-mindedness. My argument was never against any social involvement on behalf of the church. As you may have noticed, I testified that I have often reached out to believers and non- believers alike in Christian love and benevolent ministry. Bill saw this as a contradiction with what he was saying, but in reality it was not. I will attempt to contrast both views: Bill’s View: Christians ought to be involved in benevolent outreach as a means of building bridges with non-believers for the purpose of winning them to Christ.. Since the original question posted had to do with para-church agencies such as AMOR, I assume that Bill is talking about this kind of ministry in general. Phil’s View: No amount of “benevolence” is going to be enough to convince anyone of their need to surrender their life to Christ – only the Gospel is able to produce conviction of sin and of their need of the Lord. Benevolence is useless if the subjects are on their way to hell on a full tummy. (Note: just this morning I was talking to my dear brother Javier Bastida about this issue, and he mentioned a conversation he had with a friend of his. This fellow testified that he and many others would flock to a certain church when they knew that the “gringos” would be coming to give them stuff – but as soon as the groups left, the church became empty again. This is all too common in mission work. I ought to know, since I have lived in Mexico all my life, whereas Bill hasn’t – but neither has Gayla, Scott, or Sherman P.). Summary: I believe that we need to rip Maslow’s hierchy of needs out of evangelism and restore New Testament benevolence as outlined in Galatians 6:10. Bill seems to disagree, though his heart is undoubtedly in the right place. Sam: “I saw you as saying things that were a little too much of a blanket indictment and rejection of EVERYthing socially helpful, while Bill allowed that there is a strong place for the church's involvement in social outreach.” How so Sam? Could you give me a clear example of a “blanket indictment” (within context of course)? What is social outreach in your thinking? Would you be kind enough to define it for us who may understand those same terms in a different way? Sam: “I agreed with Bill at that point. But, again, at the end, you said to Bill, "It seems that our differences may have been more of a matter of semantics than anything else." And you accepted his apology for his (temporary) attitude of sharpness with you. So I conclude that, in essence, I agree with both of you.” I must confess that what I hear you saying is “I am neither for or against” At the risk of reviving the proverbial buried ax, your description of Bill’s rebuttals as a “temporary attitude of sharpness” seems like an understatement.

-- Anonymous, May 07, 2002

Phil I think the answer is summed up in one scripture Proverbs 13 : 10 "Only by pride cometh contention:but with the well advised is wisdom" no need to argue and fuss like little children.I'm right your wrong Just state your point ant leave it at that.I have not seen a arguement change anyone.Even in preaching the gospel we are mearly seed sowers we can,t argue and make people believe we just so seed.

-- Anonymous, May 08, 2002

Chuck,

Frankly, I don't have a vaguest idea of what you are addressing in your comment:

"Phil I think the answer is summed up in one scripture Proverbs 13 : 10 "Only by pride cometh contention:but with the well advised is wisdom" no need to argue and fuss like little children.I'm right your wrong Just state your point ant leave it at that.I have not seen a argument change anyone.Even in preaching the gospel we are merely seed sowers we can,t argue and make people believe we just so seed."

It was Sam that used the "choosing sides" terminology -not me. I have no need to "fight like little children". I believe that I have stated my argument and it stands on its own. I was only curious as to which of the two arguments Sam most identified with -that's all. By the way, Sam has not presented his case as yet, and neither has any of my so-called conservative brethren, other then a couple of brief comments in another thread.

Now Chuck, what you stated is obviously true; it's just out of sync with the context of the thread is all. Thanks for the reminder though.

-- Anonymous, May 09, 2002

For the benifit of those who have just joined this discussion, I shall re-state my proposition:

Dearly beloved, At first, I hesitated to write this message because it will most likely be deemed anomalous and tacky by some. Yet, in the interest of restoring true New Testament evangelism, I am compelled by strong conviction and love for the truth to bring this matter to your knowledgeable attention. It seems that in the process of getting people to accept the Gospel, the Church has embraced a Gospel that is acceptable to people - the gospel of Abraham Maslow’s (a godless atheist) hierarchy of needs that is. In a recorded/posted message, “God’s Antidote for Hurt” (La Habra Christian Church http://www.mylhcc.com/ ), Gayla Congdon, female preacher and founder of AMOR ministries, develops Maslow’s classic approach to solving man’s deep-seated problems by first fulfilling his physical needs and then moving on up (or down) the hierarchy of needs until the spiritual necessities are met. The problem with this socialized Gospel is that it turns Jesus’ words upside down, who said that we are to seek first the kingdom of God. What good does it do to tend to man’s physical needs if his soul is in grave danger of going to Hell?? Of course, many Christian leaders today do not believe in a true Hell as described in Scripture. A second problem with this social gospel is that it creates rice-Christians. "So what if we seduce people into the church by providing for their physical needs?" you ask. Well, you might fill the churches for a little while but the results will not last into eternity. True conversion involves conviction. First it creates a conviction of sin or wrongdoing, and then of sound doctrine. Neither of these is produced by Congdon’s version of the social Gospel. It seems that Gayla has made quite a name for herself over these years. Clearly, she wields an unprecedented influence, specially among our more-liberal minded brethren. She has virtually built an empire around herself via AMOR ministries – an interdenominational organization that began at PCC and eventually made its way down to San Diego where it is housed in an impressive warehouse building close to the Mexican border. Since its inception, AMOR has gained tremendous momentum and a high-profile image through its shelter- building activities in Mexico. Though the Congdon’s claim that the Body of Christ is being built up in Mexico through their benevolence ministry, this is not entirely accurate. Yes, they have and do work with or through local congregations, but I would challenge anyone to go back to any of those churches today and see how many of those that were “reached” through AMOR are actually loyal to those congregations and are growing in the Lord. Furthermore, AMOR is not a Christian Church/ Church of Christ ministry though it tries to pass itself off as one. Thus, it seldom (if ever) contributes to the growth of Mexican Christian Churches and Churches of Christ, yet it freely solicits support from brotherhood churches who blindly and naively contribute to this quasi para-church organization. AMOR is, in a very real sense, a LEACH organization that sucks resources out of the Christian Churches and Churches of Christ (as well as other religious groups) and invests it non CC/CC interests. It seems that Gayla is more concerned about building her personal legacy than with seeing people come to Christ through the New Testament Gospel that includes immersion in Christ for the remission of sins.

“The World Christian Movement” By Albert Dager http://www.banner.org.uk/globalism/WCM1.html http://www.banner.org.uk/globalism/WCM2.html http://www.banner.org.uk/globalism/WCM3.html http://www.banner.org.uk/globalism/WCM4.html La Habra Christian Church http://www.mylhcc.com/ Gayla Congdon's Social Gospel http://www.mylhcc.com/audio/ Join the discussion forum http://www.mylhcc.com/phpBB2/viewforum.php?f=2

-- Anonymous, May 09, 2002