'Altars' in 'Christian' churches

[Asyncritus]

I never fail to feel uneasy whenever I go into one of these churches with one or more 'altars' in it.

What do people think of the practice of having these things there?

Especially in view of:

Heb. 13.10 We have an altar, whereof they have no right to eat which serve the tabernacle.

That altar is clearly Christ in that context.

 

[handy]

In our church the altar holds the elements for communion, a crucifix, and the Bible from which the gospel is read.

All symbolic of Christ's sacrifice for us, and the altar itself, which is nothing more than a narrow table after all, is symbolic of that same sacrifice. In this case, the altar reinforces Hebrews 13:10 rather than contradicts it.

I know that in other churches, like the Nazarene and the Assemblies of God, the altar is the place where people go to repent of their sins or lay their burdens before God. Again, the altar is symbolic of the fact that, as Christians, we have no need of animals blood, we are free to go directly to God and place our sins and burdens there. In that case, I don't think there is a violation of Hebrews 13:10 either.

In the context of Hebrews 13, a violation would be an altar upon which animals were sacrificed.

 

[Gazelle]

Unfortunately (or fortunately depending upon how you look at it) the new religion of Chrislim has churches removing altars, pulpits and crosses (along with pews and hymnals.) Perhaps only the "real" Christian churches will keep them all? TC

 

[Former Christian]

Gazelle

What is Chrislim?

FC

 

[Former Christian]

Asyncritus

The Christian idea of the Altar is a remnant of the OT Tabernacle ritual. As handy said, the Christian version is symbolic of heaven. Just as the Tabernacle ritual is symbolic of heaven. The question is whether now that that the Tabernacle ritual has been fulfilled in Christ, do we still need such symbolism?

If symbolism is to still have meaning today, it should be the same symbolism that was evident in the ritual originally given by God, in the Tabernacle ritual. The symbolism evident in Christianity today is man-made, though sometimes imitative of the Tabernacle ritual. But one can have a Church that includes the entire Tabernacle motif without having to sacrifice animals. It is how the Eastern Orthodox Churches are built. From the three sections evident in the Tabernacle itself down to the Altar in the third section where Christ is symbolically offered as reminiscent of the actual events of the crucifixion, resurrection, and ascension of Christ into heaven. If any kind of symbolic representation of Christian faith is to be considered legitimate, this would be the most legitimate, in my opinion.

FC

 

[Asyncritus]

In our church the altar holds the elements for communion, a crucifix, and the Bible from which the gospel is read.

Why do you /we need an altar to do that? Jesus managed quite well with a low table.

Is there any NT evidence that such things were in use?

All symbolic of Christ's sacrifice for us, and the altar itself, which is nothing more than a narrow table after all, is symbolic of that same sacrifice. In this case, the altar reinforces Hebrews 13:10 rather than contradicts it.

I beg to differ. The ones I've seen have candles, collection plates, 'wafers', considerable amounts of gold or something similar, and I really don't know what else. Can all this be right, I ask myself?

I know that in other churches, like the Nazarene and the Assemblies of God, the altar is the place where people go to repent of their sins or lay their burdens before God. Again, the altar is symbolic of the fact that, as Christians, we have no need of animals blood, we are free to go directly to God and place our sins and burdens there. In that case, I don't think there is a violation of Hebrews 13:10 either.

But we are to confess our sins to Christ, and I can't easily recall anywhere that an altar is mentioned in the process.

In the context of Hebrews 13, a violation would be an altar upon which animals were sacrificed.

Agreed.

 

[Asyncritus]

Asyncritus

The Christian idea of the Altar is a remnant of the OT Tabernacle ritual. As handy said, the Christian version is symbolic of heaven. Just as the Tabernacle ritual is symbolic of heaven. The question is whether now that that the Tabernacle ritual has been fulfilled in Christ, do we still need such symbolism?

If symbolism is to still have meaning today, it should be the same symbolism that was evident in the ritual originally given by God, in the Tabernacle ritual. The symbolism evident in Christianity today is man-made, though sometimes imitative of the Tabernacle ritual. But one can have a Church that includes the entire Tabernacle motif without having to sacrifice animals. It is how the Eastern Orthodox Churches are built. From the three sections evident in the Tabernacle itself down to the Altar in the third section where Christ is symbolically offered as reminiscent of the actual events of the crucifixion, resurrection, and ascension of Christ into heaven. If any kind of symbolic representation of Christian faith is to be considered legitimate, this would be the most legitimate, in my opinion.

FC

Unless I am very mistaken, the whole of the Letter to the Hebrews is a VIOLENT CONTRAST to the Law of Moses. Every element Paul picks up is discarded one after the other.

High priests and sacrifices are the most obvious ones - and the system of altar worship goes the same way as they do.

The altars were the shadows of the real thing - which is in heaven.

So why do it? Just look at Catholic, Anglican, Eastern Orthodox practice: don't you ever wonder how much connection with truth is being exhibited there?

And then there's the question of 'priests', 'bishops', 'archbishops' and I have no idea how many other ranks there are. I see no evidence in the NT of such, but I'm prepared to be shown.

 

[Gazelle]

Gazelle

What is Chrislim?

FC

"Chrislim" is a new religion being formed by Rick Warren and Dr Robert Schueller (yes, of the Crystal Cathedral.)

The organization already has "churches" in 46 States. It's goal is to bring Christians and Muslims together on the things that the two religions agree upon, in the interest of--? tolerance and joint worship?

The urban dictionary defines it:

Chrislim 7 up, 26 down
n.
A believer in or adherent of both Christianity and Islam. Typically these followers show a loving concern for life, a deep humanity and an openness to others. The Chrislim faith’s three pillars are love, integrity, and respect. The adherence to the rituals and customs set forth by Jesus and Mohammed is encouraged but not mandatory. In general Chrislims are taller, better looking, and have superior memories than their single religion brethren.

Chrislim Doctrine: “When I do good, I feel good. When I do bad, I feel bad. That is my religion.â€
"Chrislims are the outcome of so much love that cannot be contained within any one religion."

My apologies to the misspelling, as I heard of it before it went "public" ... it is calling itself CHRISLAM and here is a website: http://www.chrislam.org/

http://www.nowtheendbegins.com/blog/?p=5441
American Churches to embrace Chrislam...

This is not a conspiracy, it's real. Some of the suggestions (and you will see this if you watch many of the megachurches on TV, that they have done most of these steps, some of those locally in FL have also recently changed their names)
ELIMINATE HYMN BOOKS AND THE CHURCH CHOIR.

CHANGE MUSIC TO CONTEMPORARY ROCK.

ELIMINATE WEDNESDAY PRAYER MEETINGS AND SUNDAY EVENING SERVICE.

REMOVE THE NAME CHURCH AND CALL IT A CAMPUS.

ELIMINATE THE WORDS, UNSAVED, LOST, HELL, HEAVEN.

REMOVE THE CROSS AND CHRISTIAN SYMBOLS.

 

[Webb]

Thus far in this thread I agreer with Asycititus. Thanks Handy for the link on Chrislam.

 

[handy]

Why do you /we need an altar to do that? Jesus managed quite well with a low table.

Is there any NT evidence that such things were in use?

Probably not, but then again, there is no evidence that such things weren't in use either. As far as "Jesus managed quite well with a low table", well, a narrow table is exactly what the altar at my church is. It's not low, but then if it was our pastor would have to bend over in kind of an unseemly manner to take the elements of communion off of it. ;)

Going back to whether there is or isn't NT evidence that such things were in use...this brings up again the area of whether we will use only what the NT mentions...for instance...there is no mention of using musical instruments during worship in the NT either...and at least one denomination, The Church of Christ, do not have instruments in the church.

I don't know if Church of Christ have altars...where's Jeff (StoveBolts) when we need him? :D

If you are of a mind that only that which is specifically mentioned in the NT should be used during worship, then one would expect that such things like altars, baptismals, crosses and crucifixes, pews, organs, guitars, pulpits, and even, if we want to be completely intellectually honest about it, microphones and amplifiers and church buildings themselves must not be used.

I tend to go more with the idea that only things that are specifically forbidden should be forbidden and things that are specifically mentioned must be included...and that we have a lot of freedom there is freedom in the "things not mentioned".

The ones I've seen have candles, collection plates, 'wafers', considerable amounts of gold or something similar, and I really don't know what else. Can all this be right, I ask myself?

Candles are pretty traditional in worship and this goes back to the Old Testament as well. I know that some churches put the monetary offerings on the altar as they are our physical offerings...our pastor doesn't, he feels that nothing but the Scriptures and elements for communion (which wafers "unleavened bread" are) and the crucifix should be there...and most of the time the collection plates are gold toned.

There is a word...adiaphora...which means that in things that are not essential, we should allow freedom. I think what elements different churches view as important to their worship services is a good example of adiaphora.

But we are to confess our sins to Christ, and I can't easily recall anywhere that an altar is mentioned in the process.

No, we don't need an altar to confess our sins to Christ...but, if those low benches or pews, what passes as "altars" in churches like the Nazarene Churches and the Assemblies of God serve the function of being the place folks can physically bring their burdens of sin and prayer to God, why not? Are we not to worship God in both body and spirit?

So why do it? Just look at Catholic, Anglican, Eastern Orthodox practice: don't you ever wonder how much connection with truth is being exhibited there?

You can add Lutheran in that mix as well, as our worship services tend to be very similar. And, as I am currently learning about the liturgy I am very uplifted with how much truth is in the liturgy. If you want to discuss it, I'll be happy to share how much I've learned. For now I'll say that there is this quote, "We learn what the Church believes by the way in which she worships." Going through the liturgy one can learn that in our church we believe that we have a need to confess, that God forgives all who sincerely confess, that we know God as Father, Son and Holy Spirit, that God is a God of mercy, that He is a God who listens to the prayers of His people, that His word is divinely inspired and profitable for us to listen to even today, that Christ gave His Body and Blood for the remission of our sins......do you see any connection with any truth in this? I certainly do!

And then there's the question of 'priests', 'bishops', 'archbishops' and I have no idea how many other ranks there are. I see no evidence in the NT of such, but I'm prepared to be shown.

There were recognized "offices" in the early church

Bishop - Greek word "episkope" defined as an overseer of the church. 1 Timothy 3:1 "It is a trustworthy statement: if any man aspires to the office of overseer, it is a fine work he desires to do."

Elders - Greek word "presbyteros" This word had application for the Jews as well as the Christians but it is a "presiding" office. Acts 14:23 speaks of "appointing elders".

The elders and bishops were generally ordained (and yes, that word can be found in the New Testament as well) by the Apostles and by other elders. For instance, Timothy was ordained as the first Bishop of Ephesus. The office was different and of higher rank than that of pastor.


(and we need to thank Gazelle for the information on "Chrislam"...)

 

[Webb]

Handy by using only what the NT uses we can agree in and have unity. Jesus prayed for unity. Its when we go beyond what is written we allow all sorts of scary things in the door. This is what creates division.

 

[Gazelle]

We do read of altars in Revelation
Seen in John's vision Rev 8:3; 9:13... on earth as is in Heaven????

 

[Acebopata]

First, the Alter is meant to be more or less of a symbol of the days of old, and as a place of prayer these days.

And second: The old testimate and the new testimate are both still relivent. The only thing Jesus did on the cross is:

1. Allow people be forgiven of their sins without burnt sacrifices
2. Eliminate the need for burnt sacrifices
3. Elminite the requirment for people to live a perfect life to get into heaven
4. Partition god directly through jesus without having to go through a preset

Matthew CHAPTER 5:17-20: Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.

This means that while we are forgiven of our sins, we must still try to follow the law. We don't have to be perfect, but we must show that we are sencere in our conversion to Christ and his word.

What I'm saying is that JESUS ONLY BECAME OUR PARTINIONER AND OUR BLESSED REDEEMER! He did not offer his body and his soul, and go through the pains of crusifixion and taking our sin debt for people who half-heartly say a few words and continue sinning and acting the way they did before they said those few words.

Instead, Jesus came for those who truly want to turn form their sins and try their very best to turn form them.

Matthew 7:21-23


“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ 23 Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’


I verified these passages form the NKJV, (New king james verson,) CEV (Comtempary english version) KJV (New King James Verson) and the TNIV.

 

[Former Christian]

Asyncritus

“Unless I am very mistaken, the whole of the Letter to the Hebrews is a VIOLENT CONTRAST to the Law of Moses. Every element Paul picks up is discarded one after the other.â€

Not a contrast, not discarded. Revealed as to its true understanding to the Jews of the day who only understood the Traditions of men. Revealed that the Tabernacle ritual has been fulfilled in Jesus Christ. That letter should be as important in Christianity today as it was in the first century. Because today, Christianity is the perpetuator of the Traditions of men. I should add in my opinion, since to Christians what I believe is just an opinion. But it is the opinion of one who believes that Christianity is just a man-made religion.

Paul said the Old Testament is profitable for doctrine. That includes the Law of Moses, as it is the center of the Old Testament. Only the Tabernacle ritual was fulfilled by Christ. If you want to understand what Jesus did on our behalf, you look to the Tabernacle ritual. The rest of the Law still has its original purpose and function. Including the moral, social, and dietary Laws.


“The altars were the shadows of the real thing - which is in heaven.â€

That is true. But that doesn’t imply that we should deny a symbol of that which in heaven on the earth to those who need it. God created the religion of the Old Testament. The Tabernacle ritual accurately portrays the reality in heaven. To use an alter, a candle, bread and wine, as symbols of that reality, as focal points toward that reality, is necessary for some.

I’m opposed to interpretation. I’m not opposed to symbols. Symbols are merely pictures of reality when used properly. When they truly represent a true aspect of reality. And a picture is worth a thousand words to those who need them. Some Protestants are against the use of the crucifix as a symbol of our baptism and the crucifixion of Christ. The only reason I’ve heard is that Jesus isn’t on the cross anymore. Which is irrelevant to the symbol. The Orthodox kiss the crucifix as part of their Liturgy, right after participating in the Lord’s Table. Symbolizing their love for Jesus Christ in what he has done for us. A meaningful gesture in my opinion. So long as it isn’t done rote.

The Catholic Church confuses symbolism with reality in its doctrine of Transubstantiation. We can learn from that mistake if we don’t forget the purpose of symbols.

Hebrews 4:16 Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need.

Hebrews 10:19 Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus

These verses can’t be fully understood without knowing something of the shadow Paul speaks of. He was speaking mainly to Jews, who should know. Some are incapable of visualization and imagination, and need to see something natural in order to understand the supernatural. The whole Bible, not the New Testament alone, is the written word of God. And the Tabernacle ritual is part of the Old Testament written specifically for our understanding.

Romans 15:4 For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope.

Paul certainly wasn’t referring to the New Testament.

Some use too much imagination and interpret the Bible to mean what it does not. In Christianity, some of these imaginations have come to have denominational authority. Nothing wrong with doctrines. It’s when true doctrines as taught by Jesus Christ are confused with the Traditions of men, that the problem arises.


“So why do it? Just look at Catholic, Anglican, Eastern Orthodox practice: don't you ever wonder how much connection with truth is being exhibited there?â€

Sometimes none at all. Sometimes more than you would think. An open mind is necessary to understand reality. That doesn’t imply that an open mind must be an undiscerning mind. I learned that the Lord’s Table is more than just symbolism (Protestantism) and more than a physical reality (Catholicism) through Eastern Orthodoxy. Anglicanism and Lutheranism have a practice that’s both an imitation of and a reaction to the Catholic idea of the Lord’s Table.


“And then there's the question of 'priests', 'bishops', 'archbishops' and I have no idea how many other ranks there are. I see no evidence in the NT of such, but I'm prepared to be shown.â€

The organizational schemas of the Christian denominations has no relation to reality whatsoever. Whether it be a special ordained Priesthood, authoritative Bishops, or authoritative Elders or Pastors. All who are in Christ are a kingdom of priests with Jesus Christ as King and High Priest. All who are in Christ are in the Body of Christ, the head of which is Jesus Christ.

The historic idea of a special ordained Priesthood is due to an interpretation. That Christ is on the alter in reality, being sacrificed and presented to God. It is considered a true sacrifice. It was never historically consider just a symbol. In imitation of the Tabernacle ritual given by God, the idea of the necessity of a special Priesthood developed related to the doctrine of a sacrifice being offered. It’s an interpretive idea that is in relation to John 6. The West, especially denies that what Jesus said in John 6:63 that plainly explains the meaning of what Jesus was saying. Protestants influenced by Calvinism go to the other extreme and deny that John 6 is referring to the Lord’s Table at all, and make the Lord’s Table a symbolic celebration instead of a Spiritual participation. Some Catholics think that Orthodoxy agrees with the idea of Transubstantiation. And apparently many in the West do. But it isn’t an Orthodox doctrine. Orthodoxy takes a more transcendental or Spiritual view of the Lord’s Table. I hold to a similar view. Without all the closed communion based on doctrinal unity added to it. Unfortunately, Orthodoxy is a very exclusive denomination.

There is no special Priesthood. There is only the Priesthood of all believers led by the one High Priest, Jesus Christ. The practical application of the matter is little understood in Christianity today. Due mainly to the practice of Biblical interpretation that changes the meaning in one way or another.


I want to add a little to what Handy said.

Before the destruction of Jerusalem, the believers met in houses AND in the Temple. They had no qualms about it apparently.

The Two Churches of Christ I attended had podiums for the purpose of teaching. A special table was set up to hold the bread and the wine for the Lord’s Table every Sunday. I didn’t have the impression that either was considered anything like an altar. Just a convenience for holding sermon notes and the elements of the Lord’s Table.

Eastern Orthodoxy uses a cappella music in their worship. And cantata (with instruments) music apparently wasn’t the practice in the West until around the seventeenth or eighteenth century. Consider Gregorian Chant. A very beautiful, though simple, form of Western a cappella worship music, in my opinion. And a fair number of Protestant denominations other than the Churches of Christ still practice a cappella music in their worship.

Here is something that I disagree with most Christians about. According to Peter, Elders were without authority. They weren’t to be Lords. As an Apostle, Peter had some authority in giving out what was given to him in regard to revelation. As an Elder, he had no authority at all. He was only to feed the Sheep. Lead them to pasture, not rule them. In the Body of Christ, there is only one Lord, Jesus Christ. Since we have direct access to Jesus Christ through the Holy Spirit, authoritative human leadership is unnecessary. With the possible exception of those who don’t walk by the Spirit, walking in an unruly or sinful manner. Then it’s the community that decides what to do in their regard, as in 1 Cor. And even though Paul had the authority, he only suggested out of all the problem people in that ekklesia that one should be given over to Satan. Not as a punishment, closed communion, or banishment kind of situation. But that the flesh might be destroyed so the spirit might be saved. Know any Christian Church that does that today?

FC

 

[Webb]

Gazelle, neither verses you cited mentioned an earthlly altar, in both passages the altrars are in heaven. The phrases "on earth as in heaven" is from the prayer Jesus taught His disciples to pray.

 

[Former Christian]

Gazelle

In heaven is the reality. At most all we can have on earth are symbols. Do we have to bow to Jesus Christ? In those Churches that have some form of representation of his person? Not really. But it is symbolic of our subjection to his Lordship. Not only that, it is symbolic of our respect. If we put our hand to our heart when we bow, it’s a symbol of our love. Why do so many close their eyes when they pray? It’s a form of centering our thoughts toward God. We don’t have to, but most do.

FC

 

[Asyncritus]

"Chrislim" is a new religion being formed by Rick Warren and Dr Robert Schueller (yes, of the Crystal Cathedral.)

The organization already has "churches" in 46 States. It's goal is to bring Christians and Muslims together on the things that the two religions agree upon, in the interest of--? tolerance and joint worship?

The urban dictionary defines it:

My apologies to the misspelling, as I heard of it before it went "public" ... it is calling itself CHRISLAM and here is a website: http://www.chrislam.org/

http://www.nowtheendbegins.com/blog/?p=5441
American Churches to embrace Chrislam...

This is not a conspiracy, it's real. Some of the suggestions (and you will see this if you watch many of the megachurches on TV, that they have done most of these steps, some of those locally in FL have also recently changed their names)
ELIMINATE HYMN BOOKS AND THE CHURCH CHOIR.

CHANGE MUSIC TO CONTEMPORARY ROCK.

ELIMINATE WEDNESDAY PRAYER MEETINGS AND SUNDAY EVENING SERVICE.

REMOVE THE NAME CHURCH AND CALL IT A CAMPUS.

ELIMINATE THE WORDS, UNSAVED, LOST, HELL, HEAVEN.

REMOVE THE CROSS AND CHRISTIAN SYMBOLS.

Just what are these people playing at?

Next we'll have a Koble or a Bibran.

Then what? A co-priesthood of Christ and Mohammed?

It's incredible.

Mind you, I gather things like this must have happened in the time of Constantine who amalgamated Christianity with I don't know how many idolatrous religions.

"There is no other name under heaven whereby men might be saved".

I wonder which one these guys subscribe to?

 

[tessiewebb]

"Chrislim" is a new religion being formed by Rick Warren and Dr Robert Schueller (yes, of the Crystal Cathedral.)

The organization already has "churches" in 46 States. It's goal is to bring Christians and Muslims together on the things that the two religions agree upon, in the interest of--? tolerance and joint worship?

The urban dictionary defines it:

My apologies to the misspelling, as I heard of it before it went "public" ... it is calling itself CHRISLAM and here is a website: http://www.chrislam.org/

http://www.nowtheendbegins.com/blog/?p=5441
American Churches to embrace Chrislam...

This is not a conspiracy, it's real. Some of the suggestions (and you will see this if you watch many of the megachurches on TV, that they have done most of these steps, some of those locally in FL have also recently changed their names)
ELIMINATE HYMN BOOKS AND THE CHURCH CHOIR.

CHANGE MUSIC TO CONTEMPORARY ROCK.

ELIMINATE WEDNESDAY PRAYER MEETINGS AND SUNDAY EVENING SERVICE.

REMOVE THE NAME CHURCH AND CALL IT A CAMPUS.

ELIMINATE THE WORDS, UNSAVED, LOST, HELL, HEAVEN.

REMOVE THE CROSS AND CHRISTIAN SYMBOLS.

Thank you for this post. I just found it and can't find a date on it to tell when you posted it. I posted almost identical info on another forum. I'll send you a pm on it so you can read what was posted there, got some flak but I'm hoping you will address the issue there too.

 

[handy]

Regarding associating Rick Warren with Chrislam, here are Pastor Warren's own words, written in response to a blog perpetuating the rumor:

Several of the above comments are completely incorrect, based on believing 2nd hand false rumors instead of finding out the facts before speaking up. "Only a fool believes all he hears" Proverbs 14:15
The so-called "Chrislam" rumor is 100% false. If the guy who started this libelous myth, or anyone else who passed it on, had obeyed our Lord's command (Matt. 18:18-20) to come directly to me, and then asked what I actually believed – they would have been embarrassed to learn that I believe the exact opposite. As a 4th generation Christian pastor, my life & ministry is built on the truth that Jesus is the only way, and our inerrant Bible is our only true authority.
As an evangelist, I spend much of my time speaking to non-Christian groups. You cannot win your enemies to Christ; only your friends, so we must build bridges of friendship and love to those who believe differently so Jesus can walk across that bridge into their hearts. Besides, it is not a sin, but rather COMMANDED by Jesus that we love our enemies. In the past 10 years, Saddleback Church has baptized over 22,000 new adult believers – simply because we express love to those who don’t know Christ yet.
It is nonsense to believe that you must compromise your beliefs, or water down your convictions in order to love someone, or even just treat them with dignity.
Jesus was called "the friend of sinners" by the legalistic Pharisees because he hung out with (and clearly loved) unbelievers. I HOPE YOU will 1) Always believe that EVERYONE needs Jesus as their Lord & Savior. 2) Have the courage to associate with nonbelievers in order to love them and bring them to the Savior. 3) Consider being called "a friend of sinners" a Christ-like compliment. 4) Refuse to pass on rumors until you've checked for the truth with the person accused. The false statements above should be removed.
God bless you.
Rick Warren

Apparently the rumor that Warren is promoting "Chrislam" arose when Warren addressed an Isalmic Convention...for reasons which he shares in the above quote.

I couldn't find any ties between Schuller and Chrislam, other than the oft repeated joining of his name to Warren's in the charge that he is promoting it. If he is promoting it, he is doing so very, very quietly and isn't leaving much of a trail, which isn't Schuller's style at all. If anyone has some first-source material of Schuller actually promoting Chrislam (blog based accusations not acceptable) I'd be most willing to see it.

I've never been a big fan of either Warren or Schuller...but at the same time we need to be very careful about not passing on unsubstantiated rumors.

 

[stovebolts]

I don't know if Church of Christ have altars...where's Jeff (StoveBolts) when we need him?

Hi Dora :waving

Nope, we don't have alters or crosses or incense or robes or anything else.. Nothing special about our building at all matter of fact.

But we do have a Table that says, "This, do in remembrance of me"

Ohh, and as far as Churches of Christ and "Chrislam".... well, they would need to be baptized of course