quote:Originally posted by Laurie Ann: We've been looking at some historical figures who the church has kind of "written off" as non-churchgoers (therefore it is assumed, not believers), and wondered if they were not people who "got it" and refused to conform to cultural norms, and just went on their merry way making contributions to mankind and modeling servanthood.
For example, Ben Franklin and Albert Einstein come to mind.
We are rethinking so many things as we seek The Kingdom of God in this new way!
Since you did not define what is meant by "got it" and left it to the reader to interpret it I am doing so based on the context (RC Cafe), the little I know of what you have expressed here about your beliefs, and your coupling of the phrase "refused to conform".
If they (Einstein and Franklin) "got it" then what was it they got? As Deists they would have rejected Jesus and all that pertains to him as fables and dreams--though some held him as a great teacher. They derive their religious experiences and beliefs from human reasoning of tangible and provable governing natural laws rather than faith in Jesus.
Can we really say they "got it?" I guess that depends on what we are trying to get. Are we seeking to be non-conformists or Christians?
The gospel of Christ does not teach non-conformity to human culture and tradition, it teaches conformity to the character of Jesus. There is a difference in being unlike the world because the love of Jesus is in your heart and being unlike the world through watchful human effort. One profits little, the other gains all.
Matthew 16:24-26 "Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me. For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it. For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?"
I'm not sure that these two I mentioned "got it", I'm putting them forth as examples of god-fearers who might be worth re-examining in light of our belief that "going to a physical building for church is not necessary to being a Jesus-follower".
Can you point me to any writings on those two being "deists"? I know Thomas Jefferson is considered a Deist because, it is reported, he didn't believe in miracles (which would, of course, mean that he would be at home in most American churches today). But, did he trust Christ's redemption? Did he want to cut out the supernatural elements in the Bible because of disbelief in his heart, or because he was disgusted with the church's impotence? If it was the latter, I know how he felt -there are days when I could do a bit of ripping myself.
And yes, by "got it" I mean obedience to Christ in the spirit of the gospels and letter of James (True religion is to visit the orphans and widows and not participate in the wickedness of the world... Doers of the word and not pew-sitters).
I haven't done any research on this yet... I have read Robert E. Lee quite a bit and been amazed by the depth of his faith. He, however, did not ruffle feathers by refusing to go to church, so he is commonly accepted as a Jesus follower by authentic believers and by pew-sitters and by those who are both authentic and pew-sitters.
I realize that I am off topic but I think important to address when You wrote:
"The gospel of Christ does not teach non-conformity to human culture and tradition..."
Is there a possibility that you might have forgetten Paul's exortation in that regard, to the Romans:
"And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God." Rm12,2
Regarding human culture and tradition, Paul goes on to explain the same to the Colossians by saying:
"As you therefore have received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk in Him, rooted and built up in Him and established in the faith, as you have been taught, abounding in it with thanksgiving. Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ. For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily; and you are complete in Him, who is the head of all principality and power." Col 2,6-10
So back to the topic, I think we can safely include the apostles themselves as some of the historic figures who "got it" and who did practice the genuine "non-comformity".
-------------------- ...all blessings be with us all... Benoit Couture
A quick search of the web will give you cites dedicated to information about the lives of both gentlemen. While Albert was born a Jew and actually practiced Judaism (something his parents did not) he later embraced deism. I don't know how valuable the example of these two men will be in your re-examination since neither appear to follow Jesus. If you would like to study a better example then study the life of Enoch. He was translated without seeing death.
However, do you recall how in the past I remarked on some parallels between the SDA early church history and that of the HC? Well, I was reading the church manual and it stated something of this idea that a person's faithfulness cannot be determined by their church attendance. I was glad to read that since you hear so often that "it's not important what church you go to as long as you go to church." This idea seems to place too much emphasis on church attendance as a requirement of salvation--which of course takes the emphasis away from knowing the Truth, which is Jesus Christ. Subtle, but everything which is not centered on Jesus tends to be anti-Christ, does it not?
Benoit, the emphasis here should be on being transformed into the likeness of Jesus by the power of the Holy Spirit as opposed to conforming to the world. Not the other way around. Avoiding conformity to the world will not produce godliness unless the primary focus is Christ and we abstain from the things of the world to be closer to him and more like him.
(BTW, as a side thought. We are not to conform to the world in our eating, our drinking, our thoughts, our attitude, nor our desires. Scripture teaches these things. This would seem to include what we watch on TV, at the movies, or what we read. How many of us are strict in non-conformity in church attendance only to conform in other areas by going to the movies to watch what the world watches--which is anything but pure, lovely, kind, virtuous, or of good report? Have you ever considered placing your "non-conformity focus" on other areas of your life which may also lead you away from Christ? So much of what is done for the sake of entertainment is sinful--death, hatred, violence, greed, lust, etc. And, sin separates a person from God. Our God is an Everylasting Fire which consumes sin. Who will be able to stand when Jesus the Righteous comes in his glory? For the answer see Isaiah 33:14,15. We are preparing for a holy promised land where all is righteous. Our thoughts should be focused there in anticipation of inheriting that land. Shouldn't we be living in accordance with heavenly principles rather than being consumed with the world's entertainment? Would this also embrace adorning the body--what we wear, how we dress, our deportment, our hygiene, our jewelry?)
The focus you describe is why the verse I quoted from Paul gets to be preceeded with:
"I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that you present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable to God, which is your acceptable service of worship."
Non conformity to the world is impossible as long as the transformation by the renewing of the mind does not happen and this is impossible without the acceptable service of worship.
-------------------- ...all blessings be with us all... Benoit Couture
posted
The first that comes to my mind is Francis Shaeffer, regarded by some as the leading apologist of his generation. He had a "church in his house" for decades since the 1950's. He and Edith operated out of the Swiss Alps and offered an alternative to the devastating worldviews which students were being exposed to in the new pop cultures of Europe and the USA.
In one of his books he spoke very favorably of house churches yet, as far I know (which ain't very far some days), he didn't refer to his gatherings as "church." It seems that "study center" was the preferred term.
If you're into a full blown Christian view of all things, check out his books or his site: http://www.labri.org . He's now gone on to the other side but his ministry still has an impact. In the college I attended, his books were required reading for several courses.
Years ago, I found some letters in an old box which he had written to my dad. Both served together in WW2.
AW Pink was a popular Christian writer who lived prior to Shaeffer. He became so discouraged with the church that he dropped out. RJ Rushdoony, father of the modern Reconstructionist movement, also dropped out of the institutional church. I think he hosted house meetings but was not an aggressive house church proponent. I suppose he just felt displaced.
Another giant in his field was Michael Faraday who left the established churches and joined a small sect called the Sandamanians. More on him later.
May the Lord Jesus Christ be your joy and strength today!
Email this page to someone.
