An Open Letter to the members of
YOUR LOCAL COMMUNITY CHURCH
 

Would Jesus or the Apostle Paul be welcome at Your Local Community Church?  Yes and no.  Initially yes, but probably not for very long.  The reason is that neither the Lord Jesus nor Paul were very accepting of a " smorgasbord" approach to religion.  In fact by today's standards, they would be seen as narrow and intolerant!  Please take a little time to read further, as well as check out the links shown below on the Internet / World Wide Web if you or a friend have access.

Possibly Your Local Community Church has been under the oversight of a "Mission". These organizations seek to provide 'missionary ministers' to churches mostly in rural and suburban areas.  Their ministries claim to win and disciple people to Jesus through the proclamation and demonstration of the Gospel. Their objective is typically to "reach the entire community" and to create a "church program capable of involving the entire population."  To achieve their all-encompassing goal, discussions of "denominational issues are avoided."  But, denominational issues are doctrinal issues, and in genuine Christianity, truth is expressed in doctrine.

To the undiscerning, to those unfamiliar with the Bible, avoiding doctrinal or denominational issues sounds wonderful.  Who likes conflict?  However, did either the Lord Jesus or the Apostle Paul ever seek to avoid 'denominational' [doctrinal] issues or create programs for an entire population?  No!  Search your Bible, both Old and New Testament, you won't find it there.  Jesus challenged and clashed, sometimes bitterly, with the religionists who opposed His message.  He regularly found himself in the middle of the ' denominational' issues of his day.  Was Jesus intolerant?

The same was true for the Apostles.  Nearly all the books of the New Testament deal with doctrinal differences.  Paul instructs Timothy to protect the flock by following the pattern of: 1) teaching sound doctrine and 2) pointing out error (2 Timothy 1:13;1 Timothy 4:6).  Many denominational issues have to do with important topics of truth versus error.  Questions such as: Is the Bible God's Word? Is Jesus God?  What is sin?  How can we be saved? and What are God's plans for the various ages? are just a few examples of these types of issues.

To minimize or avoid some or all of these, is to create a religious and cultural climate where those individuals and groups who believe the least and avoid discussing religious differences are viewed as the most accepting, loving, and spiritual.  For example, one member at a church I visited enthusiastically remarked how wonderful it was to sit in the same pew with a Catholic on one side and a Mormon on the other!  In her mind, they were all 'Christian'.  While such oneness is ecumenical, it is not the product of the Holy Spirit.

Sadly, those in the community who don't accept this ecumenical standard are typically censured for not participating in Your Local Community's programs.  But is this according to the Bible?, Jesus?, or the Apostles?  Does this broad path represent a broad heart, or a broad conscience??  The Lord Jesus taught, "Enter through the narrow gate.  For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it.  But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it."

Non-denominationalism functions upon the principle of the least common denominator.  It strives to gather and maintain an adequate number of people to financially support a church building and full or part-time minister (1).  A written Statement of Faith may exist; however, it's typically brief, generic and avoids identifying doctrinal errors.  Often for these so-called Christian community churches, the common denominator is the Jewish Decalogue...the Ten Commandments.  When asked, the minister's goal may be to establish higher standards over time; but there exists an internal tension and strong temptation to maintain the low standard so as to maintain an adequate body count, Sunday offerings, and harmony within the local congregation.

It should be asked, "Which Gospel does the Mission and Your Local Community promote?"  Ever since the beginning of Christianity, many "gospels" have competed against the message that Paul proclaimed.  The Apostle Paul regularly contrasted the differences between those messages: e.g., Galatians 1:6.   Has anything changed?  No.  Men continue to create religious systems that co-mingle Law and Grace, and confuse Israel with the Church (2).

  • Since some denominations included water baptism in the Gospel (3) and others don't, must members avoid discussing whether water baptism is necessary for salvation?
  • Since some view faith as a meritorious work, must members avoid discussing the different meanings given to the terms "grace" and "faith" by various denominations and their followers? (4)

The non-denominational answer to these questions is YES.  Because non-denominationalism seeks to avoid dealing with doctrinal issues lest someone in attendance who holds these errors become offended, leave the church, and take their pocketbook with them.

For an excellent example of where this "positive-only" principle can lead, see, Dr. Donald Grey Barnhouse and Neo-Evangelicalism - - http://withchrist.org/neoevan1.htm and Promise Keepers Changes Doctrinal Statement To Appease Catholics - http://withchrist.org/pkcath.htm.

Many are unaware of the historical roots of this evangelistic method.  As a true born-again Christian, have you ever wondered why Catholics in the Third World can simultaneously practice voodoo or other animistic religions?  Larry Casso, an ex-Catholic, provides the answer:

"In 1540, during the great Reformation, The Society of Jesus (Jesuits) founded by Ignatius Loyola was given Papal sanction, and was to play a large part in the Catholic counter-reformation. Their motive was 'All for the glory of God' and meant to them the extension of God's kingdom on earth [a form of Amillennialism], which of course was the Roman Church represented by the Pope. Their methods were varied but their greatest success was in the field of educational propaganda. Remarkable results were attained, but only at the expense of unethical procedures. Jesuit casuistry stands in the forefront of their subtle approach. Their doctrine of 'Intentionalism' simply taught that the end justifies the means.

Regarding the Jesuit's missionary methods, Casso quotes from the book Sketch of Missions, written in 1819 by Miron Winslow:

"By the compromising plan which they adopted, it was easy to bring the heathen to embrace their doctrines. They made it an object to effect a coalition between the Catholic system and the schemes of paganism, by magnifying any apparent similarity between them, and by softening down the manifest points of difference."

In contrast to the Apostle Paul's standard in which converts "turn to God from idols" (see 1 Thessalonians 1:7-9), the Jesuits' method above did not require converts to reject error, only embrace Rome and Catholic dogma.  So it is today, many employ evangelistic methods which only require converts to embrace their "Gospel" without the convert understanding or rejecting errors held.  As with the Jesuits, it is erroneous to assume that in time the error will be rejected.

Most serious, the non-denominational approach opens the door of the church to the new phenomenon of postmodern relativism (5) and the growing inclusivist spirit here at the end of the age.   Non-denominational policies create and contribute to a vexing atmosphere both within churches and the community.  Their philosophy of infrequently or never pointing out doctrinal error sends a message to those in the pews that all denominations are either a) equally valid, or b) equally invalid, and to differ with others over articles of faith (doctrine) is offensive and intolerant.  Further, to state that the beliefs of certain denominations or religions are wrong while others are right is today viewed as arrogant.  These folks inconsistently maintain that we can know moral absolutes, but take the opposite position on matters of doctrine!   Further, the common psychological appeal of the non-denominational position is that it claims to be above (to transcend) religious disagreement and conflict--beautiful music in the ears of a feminist and postmodern society.  However, this opens the door of the church to yet another heresy...Gnosticism. (5) and the growing inclusivist spirit here at the end of the age.   Non-denominational policies create and contribute to a vexing atmosphere both within churches and the community.  Their philosophy of infrequently or never pointing out doctrinal error sends a message to those in the pews that all denominations are either a) equally valid, or b) equally invalid, and to differ with others over articles of faith (doctrine) is offensive and intolerant.  Further, to state that the beliefs of certain denominations or religions are wrong while others are right is today viewed as arrogant.  These folks inconsistently maintain that we can know moral absolutes, but take the opposite position on matters of doctrine!   Further, the common psychological appeal of the non-denominational position is that it claims to be above (to transcend) religious disagreement and conflict--beautiful music in the ears of a feminist and postmodern society.  However, this opens the door of the church to yet another heresy...Gnosticism.

Undeniably, gathering together with like-minded Christians is spiritually beneficial and a wonderful American freedom.  However, history has also proven that forcing this benefit on others under a single roof (either overtly or covertly) does not produce much of a blessing. Hopefully, genuine tolerance (6) can be shown and friendships maintained by members of Your Local Community toward those in the community who choose not to attend their church or participate in their programs.


  1. Promotional literature may contain something like the following statement, "We are a non-denominational church composed of people of many church backgrounds."   However, upon investigation, one typically finds that the "many" are overwhelmingly Arminian and non-dispensational.  Nearly always, the minister or pastor's theological beliefs will allow for cooperation with several questionable religious organizations and movements.  For example, see the following:

    Promise Keepers - http://withchrist.org/promises.htm

    Vineyard Churches - http://withchrist.org/vineyard.htm

    Campus Crusade for Christ - http://withchrist.org/CCC.htm

    Misplaced Faith - http://withchrist.org/misplace.htm

    The New Gnostics - http://www.netins.net/showcase/conscience/pk/pagan_3.htm

  2. Nearly all of Christendom suffers from the errors of the Reformation.  Theologian L. S. Chafer wrote: "The Reformers did not restore all features of doctrine, and along with justification by faith retained the Catholic notion that the Church is the Kingdom, fulfilling the Davidic Covenant, and appointed to conquer the world by bringing it under the authority of the Church. Israel has never been the Church, is not the Church, nor will she ever be the Church. Covenant Theology, in consistency with its man-made premise, asserts its inventions respecting an Old Testament Church, which, it is claimed, is an integral part of the New Testament Church and on the ground that, since God's grace is one unchanging attribute, its accomplishments must be the realization of one standard ideal.  The Covenant theory does retain Israel as such to the time of Christ's death.  The Church is thought to be a spiritual remnant within Israel to whom all Old Testament blessings are granted, and the nation as such is allowed to inherit the cursings.  Reformed theology, which has molded the major theological concepts for many generations, recognizes no distinction as to ages, therefore can allow for no distinctions between law and grace.  This dominating attitude of Covenantism must account for the utter neglect of life-truth in all their works of theology.  No more representative theological dictum from the Covenant viewpoint has been formed than the Westminster Confession of Faith, which valuable and important document recognizes life-truth only to the point of imposing the Ten Commandments on Christians as their sole obligation, this in spite of the teachings of the Pauline Church Epistles which assert that the law was never given to Gentiles or Christians, and that the latter has been saved and delivered from it--actually dead to it (Galatians 2:19)."  Further, see CHRISTIANITY in CONTRAST - Man-Centered vs. Moses-Centered vs. Christ-Centered Christianity. - http://withchrist.org/truth.htm.

  3. Some members of Your Local Community are likely to or have been affiliated with the Stone-Campbell Restoration Movement - http://withchrist.org/campbellites.htm,  (Church of Christ, Disciples of Christ, Christian Church).  These Arminian denominations teach a form of  baptismal remission or regeneration (a heretical error) and have been involved in ecumenicism for years -- e.g., Max Lucado.

  4. See THE UNHOLY ALLIANCE - http://withchrist.org/unholy.htm, for an in-depth review of this error.

  5. Most Christians are familiar with the terms "situational ethics" and "moral relativism." However, postmodern relativism is different from the terms above.   Christians are just beginning to understand this new cultural phenomenon.   Indications of its presence in the church was identified in a recent Gallup poll.   While 88 percent of evangelical believers believe that "the Bible is the written word of God, accurate in all it teaches," 53 percent of the same respondents believe "there is no such thing as absolute truth."  Christian philosophy professor Douglas Groothuis, in his book Truth Decay page 111, identifies postmodernist influence upon the church such that "Community should take precedence over doctrinal propositions."  Surprisingly, the concepts of objectivity and reason are being abandoned by so-called evangelical Christians.  What is postmodernism?  Read this short introductory article: Postmodernism: The 'Spirit of the Age' - http://www.xenos.org/essays/relrev2.htm by Jim Leffel.

  6. By way of contrast, take a look at so-called "tolerance" today, see The Redefining of Tolerance - http://withchrist.org/toleranc.htm


Religion in America - '90s Style

Religion in America has been going through some very unhealthy changes. The following are excerpts from the book, THE DEATH OF TRUTH - http://www.crossrds.org/dot.htm.

Not long ago, the Dear Abby column tackled the issue of family quarrels over religion. A reader told Abby,

Your answer to the woman who complained that her relatives were always arguing with her about religion was ridiculous. You advised her to simply declare the subject off-limits. Are you suggesting that people talk only about trivial, meaningless subjects so as to avoid a potential controversy?... It is arrogant to tell people there are subjects they may not mention in your presence. You could have suggested she learn enough about her relatives' cult to show them the error contained in its teachings.

In response, Abby wrote this:

In my view, the height of arrogance is to attempt to show people the "errors" in the religion of their choice.

Abby's reply captures a growing sentiment about spirituality today.  The grossest possible sins one could commit in the religious arena are showing intolerance by claiming objectivity.  Abby complains that the reader was arrogant to try to discuss errors in someone's religious beliefs. The point is clear: Offering objections to an article of faith is morally offensive.  To Abby and the majority of Americans below the age of fifty (and several older folks as well), questioning the truthfulness of another person's religious views is showing intolerance.

In the past, intolerance meant bigotry or prejudice -- that is, judging someone or excluding them because of the color of their skin or their country of origin, or because of a superficial understanding of what they believe.  But in postmodern usage (today), intolerance has come to mean simply disagreeing with anyone else's beliefs. It's off limits -- "arrogant," to use Abby's word.

Abby's judgment that her reader was arrogant turns out to be profoundly intolerant, even though asserted under the guise of hyper-tolerance.  Abby implies that because a person has chosen a religion, others should accept its validity without assessment.

Why is this? Because most Americans today, both religious and non-religious, believe "there is no such thing as absolute truth."


Permission is granted to print this article and use as deemed appropriate.

 

  Mail this page to a friend


SEATED
ASCENDED
RAISED
BURIED
CRUCIFIED

 

General & Special Revelation

 


 

Christian Agnosticism

 

 

Dispensational

Theologians

 


 

Dispensations
& Ages

 


 

THE

CROSS

 


 

 
Spiritual Growth
Author

 

Did
MJS Teach
"Exchanged Life"?

 

 

WITHCHRIST.ORG

Home  | FAQs | Search | About Us

Best viewed in Explorer, Firefox, Safari, Chrome, 1024x768 screen display, 16 bit color or higher, and JavaScript on

65MB (1,500+ pages)          Copyright © 1996-2013 WithChrist.org          Last updated:  July 04, 2013