pagan christianity also known as churchianity

[Henry]

Most Christians are blind to the many things with in there own church that are pagan in nature, and more so they are blind to the practices in their own church that are also pagan in nature.

For example the building, the early church never thought of a building as the church it was not untill Constintine "legalized" the church where buildings taken into the picture, and those where remodeled pagan temples.

A house of God is pagan, the christian God has no need of a house, he is in the people. They are his building, his temple and his dwelling place. It is pagan to set a place aside and call it a holy place of God.

Another example is the serom, so coveted and central that Christians would be shocked to know it was a pagan practice to give a single man the job of "teaching" the group. In the early church every one took part , there was no such thing as a planned sermon.

But after the pagans took the church and put them into a temple and grouped them in large groups, the practice had to modified to fit. No longer would the church of God be able to do what they where taught to do.

Sad, so many of these things still stick today, and the church is for the most part totally blind to it all.

Another example, is the clergy and laity. Pagans set men aside as preist, not the early church, again a pagan practice was forced on the church and no one knows the better. Well some do....

Why?

For example the bible simply does not illustrate in any way, shape or form the institutional church of this day. For that matter and open mind and honest reading quickly shows that the bible actually teaches against the institutional church of this day.

Why? do we let it slip by, just becuase tradtions are hard to give up.

Don't GO to church again, be the church instead. And stay home with your family and friends and worship God as he said to to. As a family in your home.

 

[belovedwolfofgod]

honest question:
This post is kinda ridiculous. Is there any point in replying?

I think a common sense reply may work here.

Most Christians are blind to the many things with in there own church that are pagan in nature, and more so they are blind to the practices in their own church that are also pagan in nature.

What exactly is pagan in nature? Just because the idea didnt come from a christian, does it mean that its a bad idea? Ex. Meditation... a lot of christians connect to God like this. Just because its not in the Bible, does that make it invalid?

A house of God is pagan, the christian God has no need of a house, he is in the people. They are his building, his temple and his dwelling place. It is pagan to set a place aside and call it a holy place of God.

A house of God isnt pagan. Its common sense to have a central meeting place. Its convenient and effective. You ever try to have a large group of people meeting in a different place every week? Its hard! You have a central location, things get alot easier. The Jews had the synagogue and the Temple. Is that pagan? You seem to forget that God told David that Solomon would build a temple and He would dwell there. God dwelt in the Ark of the Covenant. I guess Yahweh was a pagan god, and the Jews were a pagan people.

But I do agree that God dwells in the people, and our bodies are temples to Him.

Another example is the serom, so coveted and central that Christians would be shocked to know it was a pagan practice to give a single man the job of "teaching" the group. In the early church every one took part , there was no such thing as a planned sermon.

One word... Rabbi.

The apostles taught people. They were the central people that taught back then. Before that, Rabbis would teach in the synagogue. Just because a sermon may have occured in a pagan ritual before the coming of Christ does not mean it is pagan. And where in the Bible did it speak of communal teaching?

Another example, is the clergy and laity. Pagans set men aside as preist, not the early church, again a pagan practice was forced on the church and no one knows the better. Well some do....

Two words.... Rabbi, Apostle.

Why? do we let it slip by, just becuase tradtions are hard to give up.

No... Common sense...

Don't GO to church again, be the church instead. And stay home with your family and friends and worship God as he said to to. As a family in your home.

This is what can happen to people who do that... (http://www.godhatesfags.com). Thats one reason why that is a bad idea. The next, Christianity is a communal experience, its individual, but its also very communal. I agree with be the Church. Be a member of the Body of Christ. But as a member, you are part of the body, not a body unto yourselves.

Thats my reply... Maybe someone will have something more intelligent to say.

 

[Khristeeanos]

What exactly is pagan in nature? Just because the idea didnt come from a christian, does it mean that its a bad idea? Ex. Meditation... a lot of christians connect to God like this. Just because its not in the Bible, does that make it invalid?

Psalm 1
1 Blessed is the man
who does not walk in the counsel of the wicked
or stand in the way of sinners
or sit in the seat of mockers.

2 But his delight is in the law of the LORD,
and on his law he meditates day and night.

 

[belovedwolfofgod]

okay kris, so i need to come up with a better example...

 

[BenJasher]

Let's be careful here, though. Biblical meditation is miles away from being the same as "New Age" or "esoteric" meditation, which are basically exercising a form of mental discipline. It is brain candy. Basically, just another way of getting high.

I used to practice this type of meditation. I got quite good at it for a while. And I know how frustrating it can be trying to achieve the mental state desired. "Here I am, wasn't I?" And anyone who has ever done it can tell you that if you were to set apart 5:00 in the afternoon (or anytime for that matter) to do your meditation, and stick to that schedule, after a while your body will tell you it is 5:00 if you happen to forget. It has it's own subtle form of addiction.

Biblical meditation is different. The word in the Hebrew means to "chew the cud." It is the practice of thinking something over in your mind, and feeding from it, putting it away for a while and then coming back to it later to think on it some more. It is much the same as a cow chewing a wad of grass for a while, swallowing it, then coughing it (the cud) up again later to chew on it some more. It is a type of feeding deeply on the word of God. It has nothing to do with altered states of consciousness. It isn't something New Age, or even esoteric. It is a scripturally valid, Godly manner in which we feed on the word of God. And quite beneficial as well.

 

[phatcatholic]

henry............that pagan influence fallacy is infectious, isn't it? in hopes of freeing you from it, here are some questions u can ask yourself:

1. is there really a parallel?
--often times there actually isn't. for example, many people say a trinity existed in egyptian religion (Osiris, Isis, and Horus) in order to refute the christian trinity. however, these 3 actually existed w/in a pantheon of 9 gods.

2. is the parallel dependent or independent?
--Even if there is a pagan parallel, that does not mean that there is a causal relationship involved. Two groups may develop similar beliefs and practices independently of each other.

3. is the parallel antecedent or consequent?
--Even if there is a pagan parallel that is causally related to a non-pagan counterpart, this does not establish which gave rise to the other. Frequently, the pagan sources we have are so late that they have been shaped in reaction to Jewish and Christian ideas. Sometimes it is possible to tell that pagans have been borrowing from non-pagans. Other times it cannot be discerned who is borrowing from whom (or, indeed, if anyone is borrowing at all).

4. is the parallel divine, natural, or evil in origin?
it is also possible, from a religious point of view, that the pagan element in the parallel might arise due to either divine or evil influence.

For example, it is demonstrable from Scripture that God chooses to bestow elements of his truth even on those in pagan religions (Ps. 19:1–4, John 1:9, Acts 17:22–29, Rom. 1:18–20). It is no surprise, then, that in the Old Testament we find non-Jewish priests and prophets of the true God, such as Melchizedek, Jethro, and Balaam (Gen. 14:18, Ex. 18:12, Num. 22:18). We find in the archaeological record that Canaanites worshiped El (J. Finnegan, Myth and Mystery) and that other peoples in the region may even have worshiped Yahweh (C. H. Gordon & G. A. Rendsburg, The Bible and the Ancient Near East), El and Yahweh being biblical names for God. Such “echoes of the truth†in pagan groups in no way stain the truth preserved in non-pagan groups.


surely you see now how utterly illogical your position is

pax christi,
phatcatholic

 

[Henry]

Interesting at the deffence of the modern churching system, but I am sure if I suggested that we should begin to offer up burnt sacrafices and carve images we would pray to I would get a much different resonce.

The facts are clear, like it or not.

The church building for example is not biblical, not in idea and not in practice, the wording the message and the example of the NT totally cout the whole building out.

So where did it come from then, that is easy the pagans worshiped in temples all over the place, we know that becuase they are still standing and in some places they are still doing it.

What is a pagan, well in this case anyone who is not a Christian.

So, what happened... well Constintine so called lagalized the church in Rome, actually what he did was institutionalize it. And being a pagan he thought it wise to gather up all the christians into temples, just as he had been taught was the way to do the God thing.

And what buildings? well the same pagan temples, only remodeled for a more Christian look. Poof the church building was bonr and the biblical way of "doing" church was taken underground.

Oh, from there is more and more influence that took the church farther and farther away from the way the NT church did things, but hey it worked right? So why change it?

Well the answer is why not? After the new way was not biblical way, and the new was prohibited the church from doing it the right way.

Oh and you catholics, do not try to argu with me you are saturated with unbiblical paganism. Certainly the rest are too, but shess you guys just swim in it.

The bottom line is that Jesus did not build buildings or institutions and he is not pleased with this man made mess we have created. He told us not to be like the pagans and we just took over and became more like them then they are.

The church is taken captive into pagan teachings, pagan trapping and unblical error that is doing nothing but killing the spirits of many and sadly most are blind.

What is idiotic is the deffence of something that the very word of God opposes.

 

[Vic C.]

Henry, I admire your convictions and rarely disagree with you. I do think however, that you may be taking this to the extreme. Jesus taught in Temples, His Desciples taught in Temples. Temples were and are buildings. As a matter of fact, Jesus called the Temple the House of God.

Mat 21:12 And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves,
Mat 21:13 And said unto them, It is written, My house shall be called the house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves.

I guess thay were all pagans. :-?

 

[thessalonian]

Henry,

Posting your beliefs on what the bible says on message boards on the internet is totally unbiblical! :-D The Bible speaks of reading the Word of God and preaching the Word of God but NEVER does it say "post it on a message board"! :o . ;-) In fact I do believe message boards are pagan. Didn't the Romans or greeks or somebody use message boards to let the people know that the king wanted them to worship Zues at noon. If they couldn't make it they were suppose to reply at the bottom. Yep, they're pagan all right. :roll:

 

[thessalonian]

I've been doing some more thinking henry and I really think your on to something here. As a matter of fact I see a problem with ALL modern day bibles. The Bible teaches that the Word of God is only on hearts, lips, minds, tablets, and scrolls. Scrolls back then were made out of sheep skin as I recall. Not pressed wood pulp like today. Therefore the Bibles we have are unbiblical. : And these online bibles, what an abomination. Nowhere does it say that the Word of God is to be written on magnetic media! :o

 

[Henry]

Vic

Jesus predicted the temple would be torn down.

These verses you posted are BEFORE his death, it was at his death when the temple became void, as we are taught in Hebrews, he was the final and last sacrifice which the ONLY reason for a temple in the first place.

And you will find him MORE OFTEN teaching in homes and other public places, it was not the norm that he went to the temple, but it was the norm that he taught at homes and in public places.

You see the book of Hebrews makes it very clear that the temple has run it's course and the NT letters teach that we are the temple of God, not bricks.

There is NEW temple and it is made of all the believers. That is why Jesus said the temple of brick would come down and the new one, which is his body, would be built.

Now, that is all that …

Never the less the fact is that the things we call “Churches†today have nothing at all do with the temple, they were IN FACT pagan temples that where decommission to be called Christians Churches.

The NT church never met in a building and that is because they where taught not to by the apostles.


Thessalonian

You are taking the argument way out of context; it is in fact very biblical to post my arguments here. There is more then enough proof in the NT that apostles spoke in public places, such the mars hill event (how cool that must have been) and this is such a place, an open public forum to talk about this and that.

You are missing the fact that is so clear to me I cannot imagine how any one cannot see it. It is not JUST that church buildings are not mentioned, but that what is talked about presents a principle and practice that is not possible in a church building. For example the early church ate a full meal together, actually that was why they met together. You cannot do that in large church building type of environment.

And for that matter Jesus used the EKKLESIA, which we say CHURCH and that word was simply in, no way connected with any kind of building.

And I could go on, but the fact is that this is not an augment of does the bible say we can or can not meet in a building, or have a pastor or what ever, but a look at what the bible does show and seeing if we can actually practice those things in this context and we can not.

Sorry, but in your defense of the system you have not understood the argument, or I have not stated it well enough.

Whatever the case you have completely missed my point.

Perhaps this can help http://www.ntrf.org

And listen, the sarcasms is not really neccary.

OK let me see if I can say this;

I am not talking about IMITATION I am talking about EMMULATION. Very different, and one more time public speaking and open forums very biblical they did it, but meeting in large numbers and naming some the pastor, not biblical they did not do it.

Interesting to me how people are so ready to deffend the traditions of men, reminds of what Jesus said when he said "You have made void the word of God, by your tradtions"

I tell you we would all be better off without church buildings pastors, or the tithe con game.

 

[Henry]

Matthew 12:5 Or haven't you read in the Law that on the Sabbath the priests in the temple desecrate the day and yet are innocent? 6 I tell you that one[a] greater than the temple is here. 7 If you had known what these words mean, 'I desire mercy, not sacrifice,' you would not have condemned the innocent


1 Corinthians 3:16 Don't you know that you yourselves are God's temple and that God's Spirit lives in you?

2 Corinthians 6:16 What agreement is there between the temple of God and idols? For we are the temple of the living God.…

Ephesians 2:22 And in him you too are being built together to become a dwelling in which God lives by his Spirit.

The YOU in each of these cases is NOT talking about an individual, but a entirety of the church. The YOU means ALL OF YOU TOGETHER.

It is wrong to say that MY body is THE Temple of the Spirit of God, but right to say that I am ONE of the living stones of the Temple of God, part of the body.

The early never built a Christian Temple, because they were taught that they were the temple and to build one would be wrong. BE not BUILD the church of God.

Hebrews 3:4 For every house is built by someone, but God is the builder of everything. 5 Moses was faithful as a servant in all God's house, testifying to what would be said in the future. 6 But Christ is faithful as a son over God's house. And we are his house, if we hold on to our courage and the hope of which we boast.

Again, the house of God is not a place but a people. This being written to temple worshipers. And lets not forget what Jesus told the lady at the well, that a time as coming when we would not worship here or there but in spirit and truth.

Now a closer look at this

Hebrews 9 Hebrews 9

Worship in the Earthly Tabernacle
1Now the first covenant had regulations for worship and also an earthly sanctuary. 2A tabernacle was set up. In its first room were the lampstand, the table and the consecrated bread; this was called the Holy Place. 3Behind the second curtain was a room called the Most Holy Place, 4which had the golden altar of incense and the gold-covered ark of the covenant. This ark contained the gold jar of manna, Aaron's staff that had budded, and the stone tablets of the covenant. 5Above the ark were the cherubim of the Glory, overshadowing the atonement cover.[a] But we cannot discuss these things in detail now.

6When everything had been arranged like this, the priests entered regularly into the outer room to carry on their ministry. 7But only the high priest entered the inner room, and that only once a year, and never without blood, which he offered for himself and for the sins the people had committed in ignorance. 8The Holy Spirit was showing by this that the way into the Most Holy Place had not yet been disclosed as long as the first tabernacle was still standing.9This is an illustration for the present time, indicating that the gifts and sacrifices being offered were not able to clear the conscience of the worshiper. 10They are only a matter of food and drink and various ceremonial washings-external regulations applying until the time of the new order.

Just showing the use of the temple above, basically it was a place to make the various offerings and such.

But….

11When Christ came as high priest of the good things that are already here, he went through the greater and more perfect tabernacle that is not man-made, that is to say, not a part of this creation. 12He did not enter by means of the blood of goats and calves; but he entered the Most Holy Place once for all by his own blood, having obtained eternal redemption. 13The blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer sprinkled on those who are ceremonially unclean sanctify them so that they are outwardly clean. 14How much more, then, will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from acts that lead to death,[c] so that we may serve the living God!

Once Jesus suffered and dies, and rose again he became the last offering to God. And the last and eternal high priest. As he said the Temple of bricks was torn down and the one of his body was built.

When people today liken the “Church building†to the old temple or call it the house of God they are not understanding the new covenant and needed to be taught.

Sadly that is most of the Christian body today.

24For Christ did not enter a man-made sanctuary that was only a copy of the true one; he entered heaven itself, now to appear for us in God's presence. 25Nor did he enter heaven to offer himself again and again, the way the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood that is not his own. 26Then Christ would have had to suffer many times since the creation of the world. But now he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself. 27Just as man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment, 28so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many people; and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him.

The buildings are a hinderance to the walk of a Christian not a help.

 

[Vic C.]

You make reasonable points Henry, but they are invalid in the eyes of God, He could care less if we met in houses or buildings. Comdemning corporate worship in buildings larger than one's house is not Biblical and it is legalistic. Teaching that meeting in "church" buildings is a stumbling block and causes division among the Body.

Thess is correct; by this logic, it is wrong for one to "meet", teach and fellowship right here, at this site, on the Net... after all, it's not in the "Book" and Jesus NEVER taught on the Web. :-?

All is ok if you feel convicted not to belong to a organized denomination, but all is NOT ok to rebuke those who are led otherwise. Let's turn our attention to things within denominations that are harmful to the Body; church buildings are at the bottom of the list and it's nitpicking... or should I say, it's gnat-straining.

Better yet, let's turn our attention toward the Lost, not the saved. :angel:

Mark 12:35

Mark 14:49 <--- Pay close attention to the word "daily" in this verse.

Luke 19:47 <-- again, the word "daily", Henry.

Luke 22:53

John 7:14

John 8:2 , John 8:20

John 18:20

Acts 2:46 , Acts 3:1-8

Acts 5:20

Acts 5:42 And daily in the temple, and in every house, they ceased not to teach and preach Jesus Christ.

Do I really need to keep going? :-?

 

[BradtheImpaler]

All is ok if you feel convicted not to belong to a organized denomination, but all is NOT ok to rebuke those who are led otherwise. Let's turn our attention to things within denominations that are harmful to the Body; church buildings are at the bottom of the list and it's nitpicking... or should I say, it's gnat-straining

I agree church building are not the big issue, but denominationalism is. No one can be led of God to join an organized denomination because a denomination is a sect and sectarianism is against the teaching of the apostles. They never would have stood for it.

Better yet, let's turn our attention toward the Lost, not the saved

That's backwards. The church (churches) are hindered in reaching the lost because the churches are sectarian. It's a bad "witness", it's hypocritical, and the people you are trying to reach realize that.

The bottom line is you and yours are not willing to forsake the comforts of the organized (therefore, DISorganized) church. You're not the real thing. You're "playing church", that's all.

 

[Henry]

Vic

The logic I am using is not what you guys seem to think it is, I am not talking about positive command or imitation. I am talking about the principle behind the practice, for example baptism. They did that in the river Jordan and as far as I know they baptized in rivers. Do we, well no…I mean we would if we could but we typically baptize in a swimming pool.

Why do we baptize at all, because that is a practice we find that has a principle that we need to follow. The same follows with the Lords Supper, why do we share in the Lords Supper? Do we lay around on pillows and eat sheep meat and bitter herbs as they did, no. But we do share a meal; the principle behind the practice is what matters.

The Internet is merely a public forum, and we find that Peter, Paul, Steven and Jesus as well and many others had no problem speaking in a public forum. What is the principle behind the practice, getting the word out.

This is the “logic†that I and many millions of others all over the world are using (you do know that house churches make the largest body of believers in the world right.) Is to emulate not imitate. This requires careful study of the practices and a gleaning of the principle behind the practice, and that is what we do.

Now you posted many verses, all of which are great and I certainly do not deny them. Never the less as the NT goes on we find them NOT going to the temple and it wasn't long after there wasn't a temple at all. It went from temple to house rather quickly actually and generally the temple activities were more evangelistic then anything else.

Most Churches today would be very surprised to know that the church when it met did not “preach the gospel†or have an “alter call†Martin Luther is the one to thank for this. They on he other hand did preach the gospel, in the temples, in the markets, in the squares and what ever else public place which afforded them the opportunity.

Reading past the gospels and the first couple of chapters of acts the temple disappears and we read only the church that met as so and so's house. Not only that but historically they kept meeting in houses and so we ask WHY? It is not that they met in houses that we do, but the WHY behind it.

The first thing we see is the idea of what the church was, and to them in that time it was NOT a building or any kind of institution. They where the church, the family of God and they saw it no other way.


Let me show you what I am talking here

1 cor 14:26 What then shall we say, brothers? When you come together, everyone has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation. All of these must be done for the strengthening of the church. 27 If anyone speaks in a tongue, two-or at the most three-should speak, one at a time, and someone must interpret. 28 If there is no interpreter, the speaker should keep quiet in the church and speak to himself and God.

** Everyone has a … and two or three… what is this if not an interactive meeting and I promise you can not find anywhere in the NT a man as the leader of a meeting. Rather all took an equal part, and all where expected to participate. Already we can see that the small group is by far the best way for this to be.


29 Two or three prophets should speak, and the others should weigh carefully what is said. 30And if a revelation comes to someone who is sitting down, the first speaker should stop. 31 For you can all prophesy in turn so that everyone may be instructed and encouraged. 32 The spirits of prophets are subject to the control of prophets. 33 For God is not a God of disorder but of peace.

*** Two or three again…everyone can be encouraged… it is a fact well known that the traditional lecture is the least effective way to teach, and that interactive teaching is the best. Yet we call men preachers and leave then charged with teaching us?

Interesting, isn't it that even then Paul says that we speak two or three at a time to encourage all? And so here is another practice and principle, the practice is two or three speakers and the principle is that all can be encouraged. Even Paul knew that a single man spouting out words did not encourage all, and that is certainly true. Statistically most people forget a sermon two hours after hearing it, and that I think is generous.

And of course my favorite, the part about the first stopping and letting another speak. A church building environment and a preacher would never allow for this practice. So the practice is to let another speak, the principle is to be interactive and that allows for better edification.

As in all the congregations of the saints, 34 women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. 35 If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.

Paul was consistant he always taught the same things in all churches. There are other places as well where he says this, and so we see that what was going on here was the same thing he was teaching all churches everywhere to do.



36 Did the word of God originate with you? Or are you the only people it has reached? 37 If anybody thinks he is a prophet or spiritually gifted, let him acknowledge that what I am writing to you is the Lord's command. 38 If he ignores this, he himself will be ignored.

Now here is the punch ! He says clearly that what he has been teaching is God's Command and not his own. So you say that God is not interested in how and where we meet, but Paul said other wise.

As for the lost, the last thing I would ever do is send one to a church building. I tell them forget that junk and just come to know Jesus, sooner or later they will find like minded people to gather with, but for your souls sake stay away from that IC mess. 9

 

[Soma-Sight]

Henry,

Good post!

I alluded to this in my old thread "Big Churches = Starving Children"

You are really digging deep for the Truth!

 

[Henry]

Soma

TY

Big Church = Starving Children AMEN! They say that becuase they are so big they can do more, but the truth is that they do less and less. And to those they do help there are so many hoops to jump through it is just belittling.

They are like the rulers that Jesus talked about who lord authority and call themsleves benefactors.

Henry

 

[Henry]

Soma

TY

Big Church = Starving Children AMEN! They say that becuase they are so big they can do more, but the truth is that they do less and less. And to those they do help there are so many hoops to jump through it is just belittling.

They are like the rulers that Jesus talked about who lord authority and call themsleves benefactors.

Henry

 

[BenJasher]

Henry,

I respect your viewpoint, but let me add here that the Temple that God showed Moses the pattern for, with its Outer Court, Holy Place, and the Most Holy Place is a near perfect carbon copy of the Temples that existed in Egypt at that time.

Now, should we throw out all the scriptures that refer to the Temple because of it's possible heathen origins? I don't think that would be wise. The fact that the Egyptians already possessed something that God later showed to Moses indicates that the Egyptians may have been on to something when they designed them. We do know that at one point in the distant past, the son of Noah, whose descendants became the nation of Egypt, was a godly man. That could well be the source of the design for these Egyptian temples.

We all know, or should know, that the Church is a body of people, not a building. That word, "Ekklisia" is also translated "Elect" as well as Church. It is only common, accepted usage that has given the name "Church" to the building we gather in on a regular basis. The real shame is that many are not taught the difference.

As far as what you said about the office of Pastor being unscriptural, you need to take another look at the scriptures:

And He gave some Apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers...

In the overall heirarchy of things, pastors are near the bottom of the list. We don't really see Apostles and prophets today as was intended at the beginning. Although, there are many who claim to be Apostles or Prophets, who are not. (That's a whole 'nother thread!) But these 5 offices, or positions are given to the body (Church) for the building up of the Saints to help them to mature into perfection.

But a Pastor is not Lord and Master over his congregation. (Or shouldn't be!) The word pastor means "shepherd". A Pastor should be who and where he is for the good of his flock. He should be their servant for the purpose of bringing them into maturity. That is an enormous responsibility for one of the lowest men on the list.

I personally think you are on to something. You may have gone too far with it. But that's alright for now. If you are being led into truth by the Holy Spirit in this matter, and you have gone to an extreme with it, He is capable of bringing you back into balance at a time of His choosing.

Blessings!

 

[Henry]

Oh it is not me who is on to something this is something that has been going on for a long time.

And I have not gone far enough.