'Altars' in 'Christian' churches

[Webb]

I take it that whereever the Corinthians were meeting for worship they were making the mistake of misusing and desecrating the Lords supper which was at their particular local of meeting for worship. "Houses to eat in" I understand would be their homes or any public eating place. However we look at it I see 2 kinds of houses and this particular congregation had access to both.

 

[handy]

By their works ye shall know them.

Works like homeless shelters, soup kitchens, orphanages, hospitals, schools, pre-schools, daycares, adult care centers...one charity that my family personally has benefited from is low cost bed and breakfast for those with family members in the hospital. When my father-in-law had a surgery with a long recovery time, my m-i-l was able to stay at the Bishop's house (RCC charity, just as the hospital is an RCC hospital) for just $10 a day. The $10 was a donation and if even that had been too cost prohibitive for her, she would not have had to pay for it. If that hadn't been available, she would have had to stay at a motel nearby, which has "hospital rate" but at $35 per night, non-negotiable. She wound up staying at the Bishop's House for 5 nights, which would have been $175 at the motel, plus no breakfast. McDonald's has a similar house, but it's only for parents of children in the hospital. My m-i-l would not have been able to stay there. Of course, if we want McDonald's to provide better care for families in need, rather than it being done in the name of Jesus Christ...OK.

Given all that, why are these places built and maintained? God is not in them - He says so. So, why go to them, and why build them?

Why? So we don't get wet if it's raining on a Sunday...

And God is in them....when His people gather, because the temple of the Lord is within His people. Where ever two or three are gathered in My Name...

Nobody thinks that God actually "dwells" in the buildings...not sure why you think anyone does.

Mt 23.9 And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.

What is the meaning of the word 'pope'? Here's wiki:

The Pope (from Latin: papa; from Greek: πάππας (pappas),[1] a child's word for father)[2] is the Bishop of Rome, a position that makes him the leader of the worldwide Catholic Church

I agree with you on this...I'm uncomfortable with calling anyone "Father" as well. But, the title does indeed have a Biblical foundation. Paul was the one who started the trend:

I do not write these things to shame you, but to admonish you as my beloved children. For if you were to have countless tutors in Christ, yet you would not have many fathers, for in Christ Jesus I became your father through the gospel. 1 Corinthians 4:14-15

Joe could probably give a much more well defined answer than I, as he is a Catholic and one who knows his church history, but that's the "short" answer.

That's not all, of course - but we are discussing the accumulation, in gigantic amounts, of worldly wealth. I'm not even going to ask exactly how those gains were obtained.

Naturally, over the scope of 2000 years there have been many who have sinned along the way, as well as wolves in sheep's clothing, false teachers, and even anti-Christs...Jesus said all this would happen. It happened in the Catholic Church, the Orthodox, the Lutheran, the Baptists, the Assemblies of God and even in many, many "home" churches...do you realize that the "spiritual" Aryans who follow Richard Butler's hateful brand of "Christianity" (yes, he preached from the Bible) meet mainly in home churches.

The Church (the Body of Christ) has had to deal with this all along. The answer isn't to attack those in the body who are sincerely following Christ, but to weed out the bad. One issue that arises when an organization becomes so ingrained is that the "weeding" process can get bogged down and flagrant sins can flourish. I believe that this was the case when Martin Luther started protesting.

But, we also need to remember that Jesus taught us about the tares and the wheat (Matthew 13) and the lesson was to leave it all and let the separation take place at the "harvest" or in other words, let Him separate it all out on Judgment Day. He's a far better judge than we are to decide who is being sinful and who is being sincere.

But doesn't it strike you as a terrible thing that the sale of the Sistine chapel paintings alone, or half the treasures in Lambeth Palace, would feed the whole of Calcutta for a year at the Savoy in London?

Yes, and after one year, the poor of Calcutta would be hungry once more and the world would have lost some of our greatest works of art as well as the invaluable library at Lambeth. I think it would be a far more terrible thing to do that. The Church is doing a lot within Calcutta to help the poor and has been for a lot more than 1 year.


As I read through the rest of your post...I get your point...the early church was poor, the church today not. But times have changed. The church is no longer underground, and, at least in the West, no longer subject to persecution (that might change soon). We build buildings so that we don't get wet when worshiping on a rainy day. That some buildings have come down as some of the most beautiful architecture in the world, or they contain some of the greatest works of art because the Church during the medieval and Renaissance times was a great patron of the arts...not only paintings and sculptures but also music...doesn't bother me all that much.

Bothers you, but not me. This means that we are making subjective arguments here. We can make subjective arguments all day long. You think I'm defending the indefensible. I think you are being accusatory and judgmental. He said, she said.

What does the Bible say in all this? What does the Bible tell us what is and is not OK for an established church to own or not own.

It doesn't. Nowhere does the Bible speak to what an established church can own by way of assets. When the Bible was written the church was several hundreds of years away from being able to openly own anything. There are no commandments that the church cannot own buildings or furniture or art...nor are there commandments that she is to do so. The Bible is silent on the issue.

 

[handy]

I take it that whereever the Corinthians were meeting for worship they were making the mistake of misusing and desecrating the Lords supper which was at their particular local of meeting for worship. "Houses to eat in" I understand would be their homes or any public eating place. However we look at it I see 2 kinds of houses and this particular congregation had access to both.

I also have had the impression that the church in Corinth had a building to worship in. I guess I get that from 1 Corinthians 14 where it speaks of ungifted men and unbelievers entering into the worship service...for some reason that just suggests to me that they had a separate building for worship.

 

[Webb]

The Hebrew writer commands us to assemble. That this is the Lord's day worship may be concluded from the context ( chapter 10 ). The command is to assemble. The inspired example of such assembly is the first day of the week, I Cor.16:1,2; Acts 20:7. The Bible teaches by direct command (assemble). The Bible teaches by approved example (meeting on the 1st day). The Bible teaches by necessary inference, by implication, The command to assemble implies a place to assemble. The Bible is silent on the local of the assembly. It may be in the open, in a cow pasture etc. our a building, but we must assemble. If a building the Bible is silent on the style, size, color etc. of the building. The Bible is silent on whether the congregation is to own or rent such building if any. We have the specific command, the opinion of how to carry out the command when the Bible is silent on the matter is left to us. Apply these principles to any Bible subject and be surprised as to how much unity we can acheive, AND YES, UNITY IS POSSIBLE AND IMPORTANT, JESUS WOULD NOT HAVE PRAYED IN THE SHADOW OF THE CROSS FOR ANYTHING NOT DEAR TO HIS PRECIOUS HEART!

 

[francisdesales]

It doesn't. Nowhere does the Bible speak to what an established church can own by way of assets. When the Bible was written the church was several hundreds of years away from being able to openly own anything. There are no commandments that the church cannot own buildings or furniture or art...nor are there commandments that she is to do so. The Bible is silent on the issue.

It seems that the Church did own assets, since the Bible tells us that people who could gave to the common fund. Who held responsibility of those funds? No doubt, some Church treasurer. Doubtless, this was controlled not by public vote or the former owner, but by those in authority. They (apostles) decided who would get what. And we do have the incident of the Greek widows complaining that they weren't getting what they thought was fair, so there is some expectation of payment and security from some members of the Church, which implies a security fund.

Considering that the first Christians mimiced the Jews in terms of organization and administration, it should be no surprise that eventually, the Church would own buildings (which were often confiscated by the Roman Empire during times of persecution) and sacred instruments.

Regards

 

[Asyncritus]

Asyncritus

I sure hope the Church you meet with are meeting in homes and has no church buildings. Or you've shown yourself to be one heck of a hypocrite.

FC

We meet in a rented school room, and at people's homes for midweek Bible Classes.

Hope that delivers me from the condemnation?

 

[Asyncritus]

Webb

That's an interesting point. But it could just as well be referring to other houses, other than the one they were meeting in.

FC

The church in Corinth met in people's houses:
Acts 18. 1 ¶ After these things he departed from Athens, and came to Corinth.

[...]

7 ¶ And he departed thence, and went into the house of a certain man named Titus Justus, one that worshipped God, whose house joined hard to the synagogue.

 

[Asyncritus]

Works like homeless shelters, soup kitchens, orphanages, hospitals, schools, pre-schools, daycares, adult care centers...

Handy, I'm not for a moment knocking the good works that are being done. We do them too, as far as is possible amongst us who are in general not particularly well off.

If you think I'm doing so, knocking I mean, then I have expressed myself badly, and misled you and maybe others. My apologies if that is the case.

My objection is to the grotesque state of affairs where organisations with zillions of pounds worth of gold, precious stones, metals, land, paintings etc etc sit there on those hoards. Money which could so easily be intelligently spent in bettering the conditions of the world's dreadfully poor.

After all, which would be money better spent? Money spent on gilding an altar or a statue in 24-carat gold? Or giving some poor wretches about to die of starvation, a few meals?

It's the principle of the thing that matters. 'Do good unto all men...' is the principle, not to the places where you worship.

Why? So we don't get wet if it's raining on a Sunday...

And God is in them....when His people gather, because the temple of the Lord is within His people. Where ever two or three are gathered in My Name...

Well, you're entitled to question Stephen and Isaiah. It's your prerogative, but I prefer to go with what they so obviously mean.

Nobody thinks that God actually "dwells" in the buildings...not sure why you think anyone does.

It's obvious that both Isaiah and Stephen thought that people actually did think so - or they would not have said what they did, would they?

I agree with you on this...I'm uncomfortable with calling anyone "Father" as well. But, the title does indeed have a Biblical foundation. Paul was the one who started the trend:

I do not write these things to shame you, but to admonish you as my beloved children. For if you were to have countless tutors in Christ, yet you would not have many fathers, for in Christ Jesus I became your father through the gospel. 1 Corinthians 4:14-15

It's difficult to maintain that position, in the face of such passages as 1 Cor 8:

"6 yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.

Mal 2:10 Have we not all one father? hath not one God created us? why do we deal treacherously every man against his brother, by profaning the covenant of our fathers?

Jesus: 'Our Father, which art in heaven...

Even the Jews would disagree:

Joh 8:41 Ye do the deeds of your father. Then said they to him, We be not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God.

Naturally, over the scope of 2000 years there have been many who have sinned along the way [...]

The Church (the Body of Christ) has had to deal with this all along. The answer isn't to attack those in the body who are sincerely following Christ, but to weed out the bad.

Mt 13.27 So the servants of the householder came and said unto him, Sir, didst not thou sow good seed in thy field? from whence then hath it tares?
28 He said unto them, An enemy hath done this. The servants said unto him, Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up?
29 But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them.
30 Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn.

As I said, this is not a matter that can easily be justified, and it can't easily be corrected either. The Lord will have to sort it out when He comes again.

In the meantime, we would all do well to

a. recognise the problem and

b. stay away from such situations.

But, we also need to remember that Jesus taught us about the tares and the wheat (Matthew 13) and the lesson was to leave it all and let the separation take place at the "harvest" or in other words, let Him separate it all out on Judgment Day. He's a far better judge than we are to decide who is being sinful and who is being sincere.

See the above paragraph.

But again, I underline the point that I am not discussing individual actions. I may not judge another man's servant.

But I can and do recognise the grotesque when I see it, and that is what I am raising my voice against.

Why don't you guys who can see the force of this argument, and belong to such organisations, raise the questions with your church authorities? See how long you'll last therein.

Yes, and after one year, the poor of Calcutta would be hungry once more and the world would have lost some of our greatest works of art as well as the invaluable library at Lambeth. I think it would be a far more terrible thing to do that. The Church is doing a lot within Calcutta to help the poor and has been for a lot more than 1 year.

I can't believe you're saying this. The art and llibrary will merely have changed hands, not got lost.

And as a Calcuttan, I'd rather live for one more year if someone sold the damned paintings, than die of starvation while they clutched them to their bosoms. Wouldn't you?

It's the principle again: 'Do good unto all MEN...'

As I read through the rest of your post...I get your point...the early church was poor, the church today not.

Shouldn't it still be? Has He changed? Hath not God chosen the poor of this world rich in faith...Jas 2.5

We build buildings so that we don't get wet when worshiping on a rainy day.

I can go with that.

That some buildings have come down as some of the most beautiful architecture in the world, or they contain some of the greatest works of art because the Church during the medieval and Renaissance times was a great patron of the arts...not only paintings and sculptures but also music...doesn't bother me all that much.

They shouldn't have been built in the first place.

As I read it, the poverty in Europe in the Middle Ages wasn't too far behind what it is today in the third world. Their little money and labour was screwed out of the poor and used to build these fabulous buildings, monasteries, palaces and all the other grotesquely expensive accoutrements of the 'church' hierarchy - the priests, bishops, archbishops, cardinals and not least, popes.

I'm getting very mixed messages from you Handy. Why are you defending the grotesque?

What does the Bible say in all this? What does the Bible tell us what is and is not OK for an established church to own or not own.

It doesn't. Nowhere does the Bible speak to what an established church can own by way of assets. When the Bible was written the church was several hundreds of years away from being able to openly own anything. There are no commandments that the church cannot own buildings or furniture or art...nor are there commandments that she is to do so. The Bible is silent on the issue.

I agree, it doesn't say clearly.

But the Bible doesn't really speak of an 'established church'. Is it trying to tell us that we shouldn't have such things?

And sometimes when it does say something about this point, it isn't good:

Rev 3.17 Because thou sayest, I am rich, and have gotten riches, and have need of nothing; [sound familiar?] and knowest not that thou art the wretched one and miserable and poor and blind and naked:
18 I counsel thee to buy of me gold refined by fire, that thou mayest become rich; and white garments, that thou mayest clothe thyself, and that the shame of thy nakedness be not made manifest; and eyesalve to anoint thine eyes, that thou mayest see.

Frightening - and I'm so scared, I will not let myself get into such a church.

 

[handy]

The church in Corinth met in people's houses:
Acts 18. 1 ¶ After these things he departed from Athens, and came to Corinth.

[...]

7 ¶ And he departed thence, and went into the house of a certain man named Titus Justus, one that worshipped God, whose house joined hard to the synagogue.

Actually, the passage you share here is one of the stronger passages for worship in synagogues, you just stopped a little too soon with the text...

Then he left there and went to the house of a man named Titius Justus, a worshiper of God, whose house was next to the synagogue. Crispus, the leader of the synagogue, believed in the Lord with all his household, and many of the Corinthians when they heard were believing and being baptized. And the Lord said to Paul in the night by a vision, “Do not be afraid any longer, but go on speaking and do not be silent; for I am with you, and no man will attack you in order to harm you, for I have many people in this city.†And he settled there a year and six months, teaching the word of God among them. Acts 18:7:11

Crispus was the leader of the synagogue that was next door to Titius' house...later we see another leader of either that same synagogue or another in Cornith, Sosthenes, being beaten in front of Gallio, the Roman proconsul. Sosthenes was a partner in ministry with Paul to the church in Corinth. (1 Corinthians 1:1)

This was what I was referring to earlier in this thread about the fact that many of those in synagogues, when hearing the gospel, turned their hearts to God and the synagogue went from being a meeting place for Jews to being a meeting place for Christians.

 

[Asyncritus]

Actually, the passage you share here is one of the stronger passages for worship in synagogues, you just stopped a little too soon with the text...

Then he left there and went to the house of a man named Titius Justus, a worshiper of God, whose house was next to the synagogue. Crispus, the leader of the synagogue, believed in the Lord with all his household, and many of the Corinthians when they heard were believing and being baptized. And the Lord said to Paul in the night by a vision, “Do not be afraid any longer, but go on speaking and do not be silent; for I am with you, and no man will attack you in order to harm you, for I have many people in this city.” And he settled there a year and six months, teaching the word of God among them. Acts 18:7:11

I'm not sure how you make that out. Paul preached in the synagogue first as was his habit, got thrown out along with the other new converts, and went next door into Titus Justus' house.

Crispus was the leader of the synagogue that was next door to Titius' house...later we see another leader of either that same synagogue or another in Cornith, Sosthenes, being beaten in front of Gallio, the Roman proconsul. Sosthenes was a partner in ministry with Paul to the church in Corinth. (1 Corinthians 1:1)

This was what I was referring to earlier in this thread about the fact that many of those in synagogues, when hearing the gospel, turned their hearts to God and the synagogue went from being a meeting place for Jews to being a meeting place for Christians.

Many of the Jews, who turned to Christ, went next door too - I really can't see the Jews permitting them to carry on worshipping in their nice synagogue, can you? The breaking of bread ceremony alone would have had them expelled from the synagogue.

If Sosthenes was with Paul when he wrote 1 Corinthians from wherever, it's pretty certain that he too was thrown out as Crispus was.

Interestingly, Crispus and all his household believed: ie his family and his servants. So maybe the meeting was held there too, in his house.

That fact explains a lot. The slaves were the ones in ! Cor 11 who were watching on while the masters ate and drank themselves drunk.

They could not be doing this in a synagogue, but in somebody's house - whether Crispus' or Titus' own - or somebody else's.

Thinking about it a bit more, if I went into the sikh gurdwara, was allowed to speak for a while, converted some of them to Christianity, do you think we would be allowed to remain there? Breaking bread and drinking wine in remembrance of him? Not much chance of that, I'm afraid.

 

[handy]

Handy, I'm not for a moment knocking the good works that are being done. We do them too, as far as is possible amongst us who are in general not particularly well off.

If you think I'm doing so, knocking I mean, then I have expressed myself badly, and misled you and maybe others. My apologies if that is the case.

My objection is to the grotesque state of affairs where organisations with zillions of pounds worth of gold, precious stones, metals, land, paintings etc etc sit there on those hoards. Money which could so easily be intelligently spent in bettering the conditions of the world's dreadfully poor.

After all, which would be money better spent? Money spent on gilding an altar or a statue in 24-carat gold? Or giving some poor wretches about to die of starvation, a few meals?

It's the principle of the thing that matters. 'Do good unto all men...' is the principle, not to the places where you worship.

You have come off as "knocking" the Catholics, Anglicans, Orthodox and I'll throw in Lutherans as our churches and divine services are almost identical to that of the RCC. I'm glad you've clarified that you're not trying to knock us but are rather just pointing something out about the state of finances in said churches.

As far as those finances...again, I think it's best to leave the matter up to God.

You seem to have set up a false dichotomy in which either an altar gets guilded as some poor schmuck starves to death, or the altar gets sold and all the poor live happily ever after.

The truth is, the altar can get gilded and the poor guy can get fed. Maybe the poor guy gets a job thereby being able to then support his family...perhaps a job gilding an altar?

Doing good to all men? We've already gone over this...many of these churches that you are so denigrating have done good, are doing good and will continue to do good to all men throughout the world.

Do you honestly believe that if the Catholic Church, Anglican Church, Orthodox Church and all other churches that have...lets say over $1,000,000 of net worth sold off everything, all assets and gave everything to the poor that then poverty would forever vanish from the face of the earth?

I believe what would happen is that these churches that have done so much for the poor for the past 2000 years would no longer be able to do the good works...and the poor would soon be far worse off than they were before.

Well, you're entitled to question Stephen and Isaiah. It's your prerogative, but I prefer to go with what they so obviously mean.

It's obvious that both Isaiah and Stephen thought that people actually did think so - or they would not have said what they did, would they?

Perhaps the Jews did, as that was the situation for them. I don't know of many Christians past the age of about 5 or 6 who do. I'm not for a moment questioning Stephen and Isaiah...I'm agreeing with them.

It's difficult to maintain that position, in the face of such passages as 1 Cor 8:

"6 yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.

Mal 2:10 Have we not all one father? hath not one God created us? why do we deal treacherously every man against his brother, by profaning the covenant of our fathers?

Even the Jews would disagree:

Joh 8:41 Ye do the deeds of your father. Then said they to him, We be not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God.

A good discussion to have with a Catholic or Anglican. I tend to agree with you. However, the text I quoted as well as a few others show that, while we can disagree with our brothers and sisters in these churches about the terms "Father" or even "Very Most Reverend"...the practice started based upon Scriptures showing that Paul thought of himself as a "father" to those in the church. I think we are looking at this from our comfortable seat here in the 21st Century. Back in the day of the early church, having one's church leaders think of themselves as loving fathers as opposed to heavy handed taskmasters, such as the Pharisees, would have been an example of the sort of love that existed among the brethren.

Mt 13.27 So the servants of the householder came and said unto him, Sir, didst not thou sow good seed in thy field? from whence then hath it tares?
28 He said unto them, An enemy hath done this. The servants said unto him, Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up?
29 But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them.
30 Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn.

As I said, this is not a matter that can easily be justified, and it can't easily be corrected either. The Lord will have to sort it out when He comes again.

In the meantime, we would all do well to

a. recognise the problem and

b. stay away from such situations.

Again, I agree with much of what you're saying here. Except for the "stay away from such situations" if by that you mean that you shrink away from your brothers and sisters in Christ because you are judging them to be tares. The Lord is more than capable of determining who are tares and who are wheat...and I think you will agree with me that the tares will be found in far more than just those who worship in churches with altars...and that there will be more wheat than tares to be found within those churches as well.

But again, I underline the point that I am not discussing individual actions. I may not judge another man's servant.

But I can and do recognise the grotesque when I see it, and that is what I am raising my voice against.

Why don't you guys who can see the force of this argument, and belong to such organisations, raise the questions with your church authorities? See how long you'll last therein.

You use the word grotesque to describe what you have deemed to be a sinful amount of wealth held by certain churches. However, if you're not a member of any of these churches, it's really not up to you to determine if the held wealth is sinful, or is being used for God's service. What you are describing as "grotesque" might be being used mightily by God in that it gives a base of financial stability so that the churches in question can reach out throughout the world doing God's work to help the poor.

I can't believe you're saying this. The art and llibrary will merely have changed hands, not got lost.

And as a Calcuttan, I'd rather live for one more year if someone sold the damned paintings, than die of starvation while they clutched them to their bosoms. Wouldn't you?

It's the principle again: 'Do good unto all MEN...'
Shouldn't it still be? Has He changed? Hath not God chosen the poor of this world rich in faith...Jas 2.5

Again, you're acting as if it's an either or situation. Either the churches have to impoverish themselves to help one city for one year...and then join the poor and be unable to help any longer, or ignore the needs of the poor altogether. What is reality is that these churches whose wealth you call "grotesque" have been reaching out to millions of poor for generations and generations.

I can go with that.

Good we can agree on something! ;)

They shouldn't have been built in the first place.

As I read it, the poverty in Europe in the Middle Ages wasn't too far behind what it is today in the third world. Their little money and labour was screwed out of the poor and used to build these fabulous buildings, monasteries, palaces and all the other grotesquely expensive accoutrements of the 'church' hierarchy - the priests, bishops, archbishops, cardinals and not least, popes.

I'm getting very mixed messages from you Handy. Why are you defending the grotesque?

I don't find the buildings grotesque. That is a subjective term you are using. What you find grotesque, many find beautiful.

As for how they were built...you seem to be of the same mind as the folks who are protesting Wall Street...thinking that somehow the evil corporations are employing slave labor or something...actually corporations can also be called "employers"...millions of people get gainful employment, make living wages and even cull some benefits working for them. Same as with the great cathedrals. As far as I know, the Church didn't use slave labor. Here is a quote from a Medieval History site here on the Web...I use this site because my daughter's teacher wanted her to use it for a unit on Medieval History:

Medieval builders had to create buildings on a huge scale without access to labor-saving devices such as cranes and hoists. Building skills were highly valued and trade secrets were often only available to building guild members or were passed from father to son.
A medieval building site could employ hundreds of workers and people would travel from miles around to take part in cathedral building. The medieval building site employed dozens of different groups of workers and at the various stages of building, different craftsmen were required. The largest group of people on the site were the general laborers. These men mostly lived near the site of the cathedral and received cash in hand at the end of each working day.

Read more at Suite101: Building a Medieval Cathedral: Construction of Places of Worship in the Middle Ages | Suite101.com http://rachel-bellerby.suite101.com/building-a-medieval-cathedral-a44972#ixzz1afHHcoho
​

The great cathedrals employed hundreds of men, craftsmen, artisans, etc. I bet if you could take a trip in the way-back machine and talk to these men who were getting gainful employment, they would have a different attitude about building the cathedrals than you seem to have.

Was the social structure of medieval times a fair and just one? Not to my modern democratic way of thinking no. Do I think that abuses took place and the poor were exploited by the Church at times? Absolutely! Do I think that some of those "tares" within the Church face harsh judgment? Yes. But, at the same time, I'm not going to throw the baby out with the bathwater. God used the Church for His purposes then as He does now. That there was a need for great correction is obvious and when the time came, the correction came as well.

I agree, it doesn't say clearly.

But the Bible doesn't really speak of an 'established church'. Is it trying to tell us that we shouldn't have such things?

No. When the Bible "tries" to tell us that we shouldn't have something, it tends to say (and look it up, you can quite often find it saying) "Thou shalt not have"...or "Do not be doing this..."

The Holy Spirit inspired the Bible to be used for reproof, correction and training in righteousness. We don't have to worry about what He might have been "trying" to say when He was silent on the issue. Just go with what is written...there are plenty of "do's" and plenty of "don'ts" in the Scriptures to be following. We need not be setting oneself up as a judge regarding things that aren't stated outright.

And sometimes when it does say something about this point, it isn't good:

Rev 3.17 Because thou sayest, I am rich, and have gotten riches, and have need of nothing; [sound familiar?] and knowest not that thou art the wretched one and miserable and poor and blind and naked:
18 I counsel thee to buy of me gold refined by fire, that thou mayest become rich; and white garments, that thou mayest clothe thyself, and that the shame of thy nakedness be not made manifest; and eyesalve to anoint thine eyes, that thou mayest see.

Frightening - and I'm so scared, I will not let myself get into such a church.

Well this fear seems to me to be a bit irrational. I mean honestly, do you think that Jesus will be so angered in His overwhelming wrath at the "tares" that He might inadvertently damn you to everlasting hellfire just because you happen to be standing around? Really, what are you afraid of?

Again, I think you stop quoting the text a bit too soon:

Those whom I love, I reprove and discipline; therefore be zealous and repent. Revelation 3:19

Jesus happens to love the Church...there will be discipline, yes, and there is always a need to repent. But, if you should happen to be in a church that has an altar, I don't think you need to worry about hellfire raining down on you.

 

[handy]

I'm not sure how you make that out. Paul preached in the synagogue first as was his habit, got thrown out along with the other new converts, and went next door into Titus Justus' house.

Many of the Jews, who turned to Christ, went next door too - I really can't see the Jews permitting them to carry on worshipping in their nice synagogue, can you? The breaking of bread ceremony alone would have had them expelled from the synagogue.

If Sosthenes was with Paul when he wrote 1 Corinthians from wherever, it's pretty certain that he too was thrown out as Crispus was.

Interestingly, Crispus and all his household believed: ie his family and his servants. So maybe the meeting was held there too, in his house.

That fact explains a lot. The slaves were the ones in ! Cor 11 who were watching on while the masters ate and drank themselves drunk.

They could not be doing this in a synagogue, but in somebody's house - whether Crispus' or Titus' own - or somebody else's.

Thinking about it a bit more, if I went into the sikh gurdwara, was allowed to speak for a while, converted some of them to Christianity, do you think we would be allowed to remain there? Breaking bread and drinking wine in remembrance of him? Not much chance of that, I'm afraid.

Show me the verses where it states that Paul, Sosthenes and Crispus were thrown out of the synagogues...especially Sosthenes and Crispus who were the synagogue leaders. I didn't read anything in that passage that showed that they were thrown out of the synagogue. Jews did eventually bring charges against them, hauling them before Gallio, who rejected their charges. The texts don't even state that the Jews who brought them before Gallio were from Corinth...Gallio was proconsul of Achaia, the territory that Corinth was in...it doesn't state where the "judgment seat" of Gallio was located. The principle cities of Achaia were Athens, Sparta and Corinth...Athens was only about 44 miles from Corinth. However, as the text doesn't state that they traveled to either Athens, the "judgment seat" could very well have been set up in Corinth.

As far as Sosthenes must having been "thrown out" of the synagogue, just because he ministered with Paul...that assuming a lot there. Sosthenes could have joined Paul on a journey, or more simply that Sosthenes was the leader of the church at Corinth (the same way Timothy was the leader of the church at Ephesus) and Paul and he co-authored the letter to the church. We don't know whether Sosthenes ever left Corinth or not.

 

[Webb]

No indication at all that my brethren of the 1st century attended the synagogue for worship but to teach unbelieving, Christ denying Jews the gospel as they had opportunity. Give me that same opportunity and I'll be there in the nearest synagogue this Saturday, not to worship and fellowship but to preach the gospel to those who deny it. Besides, methinks no one would be in a synagogue on the 1st day.

 

[Asyncritus]

As far as those finances...again, I think it's best to leave the matter up to God.

You seem to have set up a false dichotomy in which either an altar gets guilded as some poor schmuck starves to death, or the altar gets sold and all the poor live happily ever after.

It IS a dichotomy. but it isn't false.

Sell the thing and do good to all men - that's the NT principle.

Doing good to all men? We've already gone over this...many of these churches that you are so denigrating have done good, are doing good and will continue to do good to all men throughout the world.

Well good for them. Now, do they have a conscience, or not? Honestly, Handy, you cannot defend the indefensible.

Remember the rich man and Lazarus? There was he, having a great time eating and drinking, while lazarus was dumped outside, begging for crumbs.

So here's this great church, gilded altars and all, in the middle of some slum, full of the deprived - some sick, starving, dying... Isn't that the picture you see?

Let's lump all these churches together in a great lump for the sake of the argument. These churches - like the rich man in the parable - are flinging crumbs to the poor, while the vast bulk of their fortune is safely stashed away.

I can see no justification for it. Just WHAT are they doing with those material possessions? WHY do they have them? Of what use are they before God and unto the poor of this world?

Tell me. I'd like to know.

Do you honestly believe that if the Catholic Church, Anglican Church, Orthodox Church and all other churches that have...lets say over $1,000,000 of net worth sold off everything, all assets and gave everything to the poor that then poverty would forever vanish from the face of the earth?

I said nothing of the sort. Jesus said: 'The poor you have always with you'. That won't change till the kingdom comes.

But His disciples are commanded not to build bigger barns (churches?), and to lay up treasures IN HEAVEN, not the Banco Vaticanus or whatever.

Aren't they?

I believe what would happen is that these churches that have done so much for the poor for the past 2000 years would no longer be able to do the good works...and the poor would soon be far worse off than they were before.

That is completely untrue. The disciples are commanded AS INDIVIDUALS to do good to all men. Individuals will never vanish from the face of the earth. And therefore, the doing of good need never vanish either.

A good discussion to have with a Catholic or Anglican. I tend to agree with you. However, the text I quoted as well as a few others show that, while we can disagree with our brothers and sisters in these churches about the terms "Father" or even "Very Most Reverend"...the practice started based upon Scriptures showing that Paul thought of himself as a "father" to those in the church. ...

I'm sure that you can see all those fancy titles are totally unscriptural structures. They are used to obtain privileges of one sort or another - honorably or otherwise.

But what is VERY plain, is that the NT has no such things, and they are later accretions and excrescences.

It's the old 'let's add, add, add ....' till the structure is scripturally unrecognisable, as are the altars with which this discussion started.

Again, I agree with much of what you're saying here. Except for the "stay away from such situations" if by that you mean that you shrink away from your brothers and sisters in Christ because you are judging them to be tares. The Lord is more than capable of determining who are tares and who are wheat...and I think you will agree with me that the tares will be found in far more than just those who worship in churches with altars...and that there will be more wheat than tares to be found within those churches as well.

I meant, I will have nothing to do with such churches, any more than I would have anything to do with gurdwaras, mandirs, temples - the lot.

I don't know if you would - you sound as if you do. But I do not like it.

You use the word grotesque to describe what you have deemed to be a sinful amount of wealth held by certain churches. However, if you're not a member of any of these churches, it's really not up to you to determine if the held wealth is sinful, or is being used for God's service. What you are describing as "grotesque" might be being used mightily by God in that it gives a base of financial stability so that the churches in question can reach out throughout the world doing God's work to help the poor.

Or not.

'Sell all that thou hast and give to the poor."

'Lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth not rust doth corrupt, and thieves do not break through and steal.'

'You cannot serve God and mammon'.

And he said, This will I do: I will pull down my barns, and build greater; and there will I bestow all my fruits and my goods... So is he that layeth up treasure for himself, and is not rich toward God.

If all this is for us as individuals, how much more does it apply to a 'church'!

Again, you're acting as if it's an either or situation. Either the churches have to impoverish themselves to help one city for one year...and then join the poor and be unable to help any longer, or ignore the needs of the poor altogether. What is reality is that these churches whose wealth you call "grotesque" have been reaching out to millions of poor for generations and generations.

Just think how many more millions could have been reached if they'd sold the lot! And those who were helped would have increased themselves and their children - and so a mighty tidal wave would have formed, easing the paths of so many millions of people.

It cannot happen while they sit on their wealth.

More later.

 

[Free]

Or not.

'Sell all that thou hast and give to the poor."

'Lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth not rust doth corrupt, and thieves do not break through and steal.'

'You cannot serve God and mammon'.

And he said, This will I do: I will pull down my barns, and build greater; and there will I bestow all my fruits and my goods... So is he that layeth up treasure for himself, and is not rich toward God.

If all this is for us as individuals, how much more does it apply to a 'church'!

Let's be careful how we use Scripture. Some of these passages are not saying nearly as much as you are making them say. I'll have to explain later.

 

[Barbarian]

"Ad deum qui laetificat juventutem meam."

"I go to the altar of God, who gives joy to my youth."

 

[Former Christian]

Asyncritus

"We meet in a rented school room, and at people's homes for midweek Bible Classes.
Hope that delivers me from the condemnation?"


Well, I guess that absolves you from being a hypocrite. Perhaps we are closer than I thought on what we think on this issue. Can’t say I agree with you about the money issue you brought up. It’s up to God to judge them on what they’ve been given, not us. Doesn’t have any bearing on their altars. Catholics and Orthodox I know believe that the ornateness of their Churches are intended to express the idea of another world. And they do succeed in that. The old style buildings are intended to point one toward heaven, and thus toward God. I think they succeed in that to some degree. How we may think about how they spend their money, and God has allowed them to have it to spend however they choose, as with us all, well, what more can we do but complain in our disagreement? It isn’t going to stop them from doing what they think is right. Any more than our complaints will have any influence on how our respective nations spend their money.

I’m not against symbolism. But that doesn’t mean that I agree with the use of altars of sacrifice in Christianity. On the other hand, there is the need for the physical or Jesus wouldn’t have given us the physical. Water in Baptism as a physical representation of Spirit Baptism, for example. The loss of the altar of incense in Christianity, as a physical representation of our prayers reaching up to the heavens, is a great loss in Christianity. The little incense bauble used in Eastern Orthodoxy, and rarely in Catholicism, is the only thing left of that altar in Christianity. And it’s one of the first things people mention when they go to an Orthodox Church for the first time. I’ve never seen incense used in a Protestant Church, which doesn’t mean there aren't some who do.

In the Tabernacle ritual, there are two altars. One for incense that is related to the prayers of the people. The other is for sacrifice that is related to the sins of the people. Both were more than just symbolic, but less than the reality behind the ritual. In order for the ritual to have meaning, the faith of the people was required. Just like their father Abraham. Without that faith, there was no reality in the ritual itself. The Psalms show how works show faith and when faith turns from God to themselves or another religion, the ritual loses its efficaciousness.

Historic Christianity inherited much of its ritual from the Jews. That is seen in Eastern Orthodoxy and Catholicism. And it seems that some Protestants inherited their ritual from the Catholics.

Altars were a part of the only true religion, a religion created by God and described in the Old Testament. This religion was created with a definite purpose in mind. To reveal what God has in mind in relation to the salvation of mankind. A salvation promised in Genesis and revealed in the Tabernacle ritual, a part of which is the Law. We can only understand our own salvation insofar as we understand the Tabernacle ritual. Something we grow into after just initially knowing only that we are saved in Jesus Christ.

The Tabernacle ritual is no longer in effect being as the purpose for it has passed. Christ has come fulfilling the ritual and a new covenant is now in effect. The Old Covenant has faded away. Modern Judaism is just a man-made religion, as is Christianity. The ritual is no longer in effect. But the Law, as in the moral, social, and dietary Law is still in effect. We are to keep the commandments of God not only because it is commanded by God, if we love God we will keep his commandments. They are for our own good.

Under the New Covenant, we have a table, not an altar. The Lord's Table. The sacrifice of Christ is once for all. But we still need to experience that sacrifice. Through our participation in the Lord's Table, we experience the once for all sacrifice of Jesus Christ on our behalf. And according to John 6 it is as necessary an experience as is Baptism, water and Spirit. But not a physical experience requiring an altar. Rather a Spiritual experience through the Spirit of God (John 6:63). The only physical aspect of the New Covenant experience is the bread and the wine. The ritual is more than symbolic as many Protestants believe. It is a window for our faith in God and our experience of the sacrifice of Christ.

The intention is that all who are in Christ experience this Table together as one. I’m not referring to together physically in one place as if we are all to gather in one large meeting hall in a central location, as the Jews did when they gathered in Jerusalem at specified times to worship in the Tabernacle/Temple. I’m referring to the oneness in the Spirit of God as explained by Paul in Eph 4.

Unfortunately, due to the influence of a man-made religion on those who are in Christ, the unity is not what it’s supposed to be. Not that the unity described by Paul in 1 Corinthians 10 is impossible, because of their adherence to a Christian denomination. Unity is intended to be Spiritual. While a right understanding of the teaching of Christ is the goal, it was never intended to be emphasized over the Spiritual unity of all who are in Christ, as it is in Christianity. Certainly not equated one with the other as it is in some denominations. Especially since doctrinal unity in Christianity is unity in denominational interpretations that imposes closed communion on those who disagree with the unity of the denomination.

FC

 

[Free]

Or not.

'Sell all that thou hast and give to the poor."

'Lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth not rust doth corrupt, and thieves do not break through and steal.'

'You cannot serve God and mammon'.

And he said, This will I do: I will pull down my barns, and build greater; and there will I bestow all my fruits and my goods... So is he that layeth up treasure for himself, and is not rich toward God.

If all this is for us as individuals, how much more does it apply to a 'church'!

Let's be careful how we use Scripture. Some of these passages are not saying nearly as much as you are making them say. I'll have to explain later.

Mat 19:20 The young man said to Him, "All these things I have kept from my youth. What do I still lack?"
Mat 19:21 Jesus said to him, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell what you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me."
Mat 19:22 But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful, for he had great possessions. (NKJV)

This was a specific command to an individual to reveal where is heart was truly at. Is there truth we can glean from it? Yes, of course. But this is not a command to all believers to "sell what [we] have and give to the poor."


Mat 6:19 "Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy and where thieves break in and steal;
Mat 6:20 but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys and where thieves do not break in and steal.
Mat 6:21 For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also. (NKJV)

Again, this is not about not having wealth but having a right attitude of the heart.


Mat 6:24 "No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will be loyal to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon. (NKJV)

And again, this is not about not having wealth but having a right attitude of the heart.


Luk 12:15 And He said to them, "Take heed and beware of covetousness, for one's life does not consist in the abundance of the things he possesses."
Luk 12:16 Then He spoke a parable to them, saying: "The ground of a certain rich man yielded plentifully.
Luk 12:17 And he thought within himself, saying, 'What shall I do, since I have no room to store my crops?'
Luk 12:18 So he said, 'I will do this: I will pull down my barns and build greater, and there I will store all my crops and my goods.
Luk 12:19 And I will say to my soul, "Soul, you have many goods laid up for many years; take your ease; eat, drink, and be merry." '
Luk 12:20 But God said to him, 'Fool! This night your soul will be required of you; then whose will those things be which you have provided?'
Luk 12:21 "So is he who lays up treasure for himself, and is not rich toward God." (NKJV)

I hate to sound redundant but is not against having wealth but having a right attitude of the heart. Certainly one could be wealthy and yet still be rich towards God.

Maybe you agree and you weren't making a case against having wealth, but just in case you were, none of the above would support such a position. However, there are things in them that we must understand and take to heart regarding wealth.

 

[handy]

Now, do they have a conscience, or not?

It seems as if you have gone from questioning the use of altars to questioning the Christianity of those who worship in churches with altars....

That's sad. It really is.

Naturally not all who worship in churches that have altars (gilded or otherwise) are sincere Christians. But then again, neither are all those who worship in rented Schools.

My husband, kids and I worshiped (briefly) with a church which met in a rented school building. However, we didn't stay with that church for long. During worship, people would get up and get coffee and cookies, kids would run in and out of the service, the pastor would be preaching and others would be chatting in the back. Every time we were on our way home, I'd ask the kids, "What did you learn" and they hadn't learned anything...they spent the time playing games.

This church I go to now...the horrible one with the evil altar...the worship there is wholly focused on God. It would be unthinkable to get up and grab a snack during it. The worship starts with a recognition of our sin and need for God's forgiveness; the Bible is read from, Old Testament, Epistle and Gospel and preached from in a mighty way by our pastor, a man whom, for as young as he is, is quite the gifted scholar; psalms, songs and hymns are sung; the Lord's Supper is served from the altar, bearing witness to our Lord's sacrifice. The kids are learning the truths of Scripture and the history of the church. My son has gone from being a goofy kid who only wanted to go to church to "hang" with his buddies and "have fun" to seriously considering becoming a pastor when he gets older. At age 11, he has serious conversations as to going into the military and possibly being a chaplain or going into the ministry and pastoring a church.

I'm sure, Asyncritus, that the church you go to, worship God in Spirit and in truth and that your congregation builds up and equips one another to love and good works. I don't have any prejudice about churches that meet in rented school buildings due to our one bad experience. I am bringing up that "bad experience" though to point out that just because a church meets in a rented school building doesn't mean that it won't have problems. But by the same token, just because a church meets in a building with an altar doesn't mean that it is worldly and without a conscience.

I meant, I will have nothing to do with such churches, any more than I would have anything to do with gurdwaras, mandirs, temples - the lot.

It's sort of ironic that in all your railings against those who worship in large church buildings with altars, that you seem to have forgotten that the Lord isn't in the building, but within the hearts of the people who use the building...people that you would refuse to worship with due to money and/or what they call the table they set communion on.

I really could care less how much money a congregation has or doesn't have. There are real differences within the Body of Christ, differences that cause disunity. I think it is pretty sad to add "money" to what should divide us.

If these "churches with altars" that you are so against did not support a wide range of charities...from education to hospitals to disaster relief programs...I would stand in agreement with you. But as it is, considering the fact that if one combined all the charitable contributions of all these "churches with altars", the monies would far outstrip any other amount given by any other entity, I'm not sure why the ire. You keep repeating "Do good to all men" as if these congregations haven't done so, when in fact, they have. You are accusing your brethren of not having a conscience and adding them to the ranks of unbelievers due to the fact that they haven't done as much as you seem to think that they should, but remember, they stand before Christ as their judge, not you.

The disciples are commanded AS INDIVIDUALS to do good to all men. Individuals will never vanish from the face of the earth. And therefore, the doing of good need never vanish either.

What is a church except the congregation of individuals who are pooling their resources? The churches you are railing against are not brick and stone...they are individuals, your brothers and sisters in Christ, who are indeed doing good, good works such as schools, adult education programs, hospitals, medical clinics, etc. etc. Good works that cost a lot of money...a lot. Where does that kind of money come from? If these congregations were to impoverish themselves in the manner which you seem to think they should, how then could they continue to support the very expensive good works that they do?

Last August, my husband spent 4 days in a local hospital. 4 days. I was dreading getting the bill, I mean 4 days in a hospital doesn't come cheap...especially if one is in the neurology ward. Plus, I stayed in the room with him during the duration. I had no idea if we were going to be charged for that as well. It was a private room as well. We do have insurance, but it only pays 60%. 40% of a 4 day hospital stay isn't cheap. I know when my friend spent 2 days in the hospital where she lives, in a room with two other patients, their portion of the bill came to almost $5000 and their insurance was your typical 80%/20%.

What I forgot is that the hospital my husband stayed in is part of the Episcopal Church charities and is a non-profit hospital. (I think I attributed the Bishop's house as an RCC charity in an earlier post, my mistake, it's Episcopalian, another church with altars) Our part of our bill came to just a little over $1400. Plus, they called us, discussed our ability to pay, and we worked together to set up a very easy payment schedule. This was the same hospital that simply wrote off an earlier bill of ours of $400.00. We had paid down a bill to that amount, but I needed to call them due to the fact that my husband's hours had been drastically cut for about a month and half. I explained the situation to them, and they simply forgave the last $400 of the bill. Several days later, we received a statement with a 0 balance due. My friend is getting dunning calls from her hospital.

We all know that health care doesn't come cheap...my husband and I are hit hard by medical bills due to his health issues. I don't know what we would have done if we lived where my friend does and had to use the hospital she does. I know that years ago, my sister had to use that same hospital (we all lived in that area back then)...and she and her husband wound up having to sell their house and extra car to pay them, due to the fact that they didn't have any insurance.

However, because the hospital that my hubby went to is part of the Episcopalian charities...we're good. We can pay our portion of the bill and be OK. That's where part of that wealth goes to. I'm not knocking your church, Asyncritus, but I doubt very seriously if they could support a ministry such as a top-notch hospital (national recognition for excellence), complete with neurology ward, children's hospital, and cancer institute, that collects fees based solely on the individual's ability to pay, and will care for all irregardless of ability to pay.

I hope you will think about that...the charities that the Catholics, Anglicans (Episcopalians here in the states), Orthodox and Lutheran churches are very, very expensive to maintain. Should these churches impoverish themselves, as you are saying they should, there would be no way to maintain them.

Having said that...as much as I appreciate and have benefited from the Episcopalian ministry at their hospital...I do indeed separate myself from worship with them...but because of their compromise with sin in the area of homosexuality, not because of their wealth and how they see fit to use it.

 

[reba]

In Bible days altars were akin to a barbeque. They were mostly stone designed to consume the sacrifices. I have not been in a church building with such an altar in all my years....

Good grief i wonder if some folks will decide in is not Christian to roast meat on a barbeque...