In all things, there needs to be more charity given and more grace extended.

M.G.

You “suspect” that the individuals here would draw no lines in what kinds of groups they’d let in for use of the church, including anarchists and those who engage in euthanasia.

First, that’s a lie. I “suspect” that you know with 100% certainty that no one would justify letting criminals in the door, providing them sanctuary, and thereby committing a crime.

Second, what you wrote was the sickest, least charitable, and most dastardly thing I think I’ve seen written on these pages. Congrats, that’s saying something.

Some of the people who post here are either pretty wicked, or have such a loose handle on reality that they are in need of professional help.

What I’m not going to discuss, and what is really none of your business, is anything going on at a rather tiny church in the Michigan countryside., and which was dug up, not out of any Christian concern, but was simply a misguided attempt to dig up dirt on a writer here.

what a typically dismissive and horrible thing to say. When you don’t happen to like or agree with what someone says, you stick your tongue out like a kid and scream”go away” at the top of your lungs.

The reason I’m not engaging you on the issue is that it has already been beaten to death on this thread, this one and elsewhere. There is no edification or use in retreading the conversation, particularly when you’ve already indicated:

I’ve said what I believe is true and what I believe scripture supports. I’m not going to be talked out of it, your protestations notwithstanding.

Basically indicating that you’re not going to give up idolizing a building as if it were holy ground…

Why not go ahead and allow abortion support groups to use your facilities? Or anarchists? Or groups that advance and support homosexual causes? Or support groups which support euthanizing sick, old people?

Tim’s already made it clear that such groups would not be allowed.

Based on what you’ve attempted to support by bringing in anecdotal and questionable archeology (which, by the way, just so happens to support your position…how convenient. I wonder if you’d mention any of these “finds” if they supported the position Christ took?), is there ANY point at which you would draw the line and say no?

I’m not exactly sure what you’re referring to here, but when I read books/attend lectures on the early history of the church, I don’t look for things that ‘happen to support my position’. In the case of the use of the Temple and Jesus’ clearing of it, I have heard multiple interpretations, originally believing it was because there was buying and selling going on there. The expulsion of the Gentiles from the outer courts (documented in a number of contemporary sources), and the scriptural account of the cleansing, including Jesus’ words and the supporting OT passages, give this interpretation of motivation (did you read the link?) the greatest likelihood of being correct. Even so, the traditional interpretation regards the local synagogue (which was not exclusively used for worship/study) – and not the Temple – as congruent to a church building, which would make your comparison moot.

This is what we need in christianity today: More people who tell others to “butt out” whenever they don’t happen to like something someone says.

No, but it does need more people willing to stand up to gossipmongers and uninvolved busybodies who try to interfere with matters best left up to the local church (which is being discussed in this thread).

If you don’t like what I’m saying, how about having the courage to refute it (if you can) like an adult?

It’s already been done, multiple times in other threads, and there is no edification in continuing, no matter how many aspersions you wish to demean your brothers in Christ with…

The questions you asked seem valid on the surface, yet….

Would God ask a true prophet of God to marry a whore?

Would God ask a prophet to walk naked around a city for around a year?

Would God let His own Son be murdered? (Abortion after birth)

Does God allow the “unclean” to enter the Holy of Holies?

I think sometimes people miss that God often does what He ought not as far as our thoughts, yet He seems to have a plan and still be sovereign through the whole thing. Maybe we need trust in what God is telling Tim R. and see what He has planned?

Just a thought.

Be blessed,
iggy

I’ve said what I believe is true and what I believe scripture supports. I’m not going to be talked out of it, your protestations notwithstanding.

My question to you would be: Why stop at heavy metal bands? Why not go ahead and allow abortion support groups to use your facilities? Or anarchists? Or groups that advance and support homosexual causes? Or support groups which support euthanizing sick, old people? Based on what you’ve attempted to support by bringing in anecdotal and questionable archeology (which, by the way, just so happens to support your position…how convenient. I wonder if you’d mention any of these “finds” if they supported the position Christ took?), is there ANY point at which you would draw the line and say no?

I suspect not.

So be it ~ I think you’re wrong about it. In any case, given that there 3 dozen posts on this topic, I’d say there is sufficient doubt to warrant erring on the side of safety. Tim

I think the observation that Jesus cleared out a temple because it was being misused tells us the mind of God on this.

O Tim,

Probably the best interpretation on why Jesus cleared the Temple was because of the practice of the leaders in pushing the non-Jewish pilgrims out of the Gentile court to make room for (dishonest) buying and selling. Here is a more detailed explanation.

God pretty clearly means for His property to be set apart for His purposes.

All of the world is “God’s property” – a building rented, owned or used by a groups of believers is not ‘holy ground’. Rather, the Temple ceased being “God’s address” on the day of Pentecost when we, the believers, became the Temple.

I don’t recollect His endorsement of any entertainers in the pages between Malachi and Revelation, or His approval of the use of any temple properties for secular events. What is ambiguous or difficult to understand about that?

You might note that Jesus taught in the synagogues of Galilee, and that the early church also met in the synagogue as well – with archaeological evidence in several places throughout Asia Minor that this lasted into the late third century. Synagogues were used for worship and Torah study on Sabbath, for school during during parts of the week, and as community centers where any group could meet during the remainder of the week, including singing, debate and other common activities (including entertainment).

The Temple, as noted above, was treated differently, because it was (symbolically) where God dwelt on earth. On Pentecost, 33 A.D., that changed, and God’s address changed from a House of stone to one of flesh.

The need that many “leaders” in churches these days seem to have to “meet the world on the worlds’s terms” appears to me to be problematic on many levels. For one thing, it isn’t scriptural. Jesus NEVER did it, as far as I can tell.

Jesus was part and parcel a member of the culture he lived in, and there is a multitude of evidence that he used the context of that culture to teach and spread his message. We know that he engaged in the theological debates of his day (a primary activity of ‘rabbis’) in their fashion of debate. We have record of Jesus (in scripture) weighing in on each of the eight key debates listed by Josephus. We have his eating (the most intimate of non-sexual activity in his culture) with sinners, and traveling to places shunned by his culture (the Decapolis).

We have Paul, who was “all things to all men so that by all possible means [he] might save some.”

There are numerous examples.

Meeting God on Gods’ terms never meant inviting the world into the church so that the world might use church assets for wordly ends.

Again, you are missing both the concept that the building is not the church and that the early church HAD no ‘assets’.

The only reason the world was ever invited by Christ into a synagogue was that the world would be changed…a deadly spirit would be cast out or a withered hand would be made whole.

Actually, one of the first records we have where Jesus would have been in a synagogue was during the wedding feast where he turned water to wine.

Now, I would humbly suggest that if you are not part of Tim’s church, you have no business sticking your nose into this matter.