Are you not aware of the rampant poverty in this age? This remark may only be regarded as classist at best.
Problem with Teaching 'Religion' is Bad.
- Thread starter presidente
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
No. You call them Religions based on dead gods/saviors. Their religion is based on a long list of rules and such similar to the 1st Covenant was based on the Laws. The NEW COVENANT is based on faith/belief, of a Living Savior and a Living God. That is FAITH, not religion. Now, we are given a description of what "pure religion" is, and if we practice that definition of religion, we have done well.
James, Chapter 1:
26If any man among you seem to be religious, and bridleth not his tongue, but deceiveth his own heart, this man's religion is vain.
27Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.
(pure religion is way different from what other "religions" teach/practice)
No. Actually even the very poor Christians in India (for example) make sure they are dressed as well as possible when they attend worship services. And there is no rampant poverty in North America (for those who work and earn an honest living). People can purchase slacks for as low as $18 and blazers for as low as $25.
Are you are talking a thrift store? If not, where can I get the $25 new blazers, and do they look decent? Where are the $18 slacks, and are they new? Do they look like they cost $18.
The Bible does not teach a particular standard of dressing up for church. Jews weren't supposed to wear mixed fibers anywhere, and priests had specific outfits they were to wear when they were on duty.
New Testament commentary on dress in the assembly (or 'synagogue') is that if you tell the well-dressed man in a gold ring and fine apparel to sit in a good place and tell the poor man in vile raiment to 'stand thou there' or to sit under your footstool, haven't you become partial and judges with evil thoughts.
The focus we get when it comes to dress here is horizontal-- concern for others-- at least not judging them based on their clothing.
I went somewhere in another city wearing slacks, a dress shirt, and dress shoes. We did homeless outreach after that, and I got complaints from people about bathrooms being shut down due to Covid. That was awful for the homeless, but I think they complained to me because I looked like I might work for the city. Maybe I was dressed like 'the man'. I didn't notice them making the same complaints to those who dressed down a bit. I learned to put one some jeans and a lumberjack shirt or something like that, and not too expensive casual or work shoes if I did ministry to the homeless.
It might be appropriate to dress one way if you meet with the homeless in a downtown mission, and another in the suburbs.
i see nothing in scripture that indicates that suits and ties are more pleasing to God. If people go to church with an immodest intent to display their wealth, to show off gold, jewelry, fancy expensive clothes, etc. that could be displeasing to God.
@Nehemiah6
I went to church for a little while to a church in Indonesia, where some individuals IMO, overemphasized dress and in a wrong. The deacons even had matching clothing made out of the same cloth for taking up the diaconate offering once a month or however often it was. Those who played music on stage had to wear white, long-sleeved shirts or blouses, and if I recall black slacks or skirts. Preachers typically wore ties, jackets, etc., probably suits most of the time.
The church was in a network of churches that really trained the musicians well. A friend told me a story about a man who joined the music team. He pulled a cart around looking for garbage to collect. Pemulung do that, typically to sell the plastic for recycling. Someone had thrown out a trumpet or clarinet, and he had learned to play it well. He may have just become a Christian--- I don't recall-- put he went to church and wanted to join the music team. When he went to the meeting, he decided not to join because he could not afford to buy a white, long-sleeved shirt. Now the happy ending to the story was that the other team members found out and bought him the uniform he needed to perform.
But my thoughts on this was why have a requirement like that that would hinder the poor from ministering? I looked around and saw all kinds of poverty in that country. I spoke with a driver about how common a meal chicken was (it is in Indonesia) who said he couldn't afford to eat meat every day. Sometimes, his family would eat eggs. That's not starving, but it is different from the lifestyle I was used to in the US, and some people have it much worse than that.
I don't know where you can get new slacks in the US for $18. I suspect you cold get them for just under that in Indonesia, which does have a textile industry, and that Bangladesh, Indian, and Vietnamese (thinking of clothing export countries) would have similar prices. That is an awful lot of money for some people. Minimum wage in Indonesia the last I looked it up was somewhere around $200 a month, maybe less, and that may have been in the big city.
I think churches should avoid practices that weed out the poor and only attract the middle class or wealthier, especially if they are in a geographic area where there are a lot of poor. Part of that may include dressing down. A culture of allowing people to wear 'street clothes' to church is a good thing. In the 1930's, the US had a culture of dressing up with three-piece suits. Nowadays, a lot of high school and college students do not own a suit, and may not even own dress shoes.
I see nothing in scripture that indicates that God prefers suits to sweatshirts. Which is holier, a 100% cotton t-shirt, or a poly-cotton blend? Which would a Hebrew be allowed to wear in the Old Testament?
I went to church for a little while to a church in Indonesia, where some individuals IMO, overemphasized dress and in a wrong. The deacons even had matching clothing made out of the same cloth for taking up the diaconate offering once a month or however often it was. Those who played music on stage had to wear white, long-sleeved shirts or blouses, and if I recall black slacks or skirts. Preachers typically wore ties, jackets, etc., probably suits most of the time.
The church was in a network of churches that really trained the musicians well. A friend told me a story about a man who joined the music team. He pulled a cart around looking for garbage to collect. Pemulung do that, typically to sell the plastic for recycling. Someone had thrown out a trumpet or clarinet, and he had learned to play it well. He may have just become a Christian--- I don't recall-- put he went to church and wanted to join the music team. When he went to the meeting, he decided not to join because he could not afford to buy a white, long-sleeved shirt. Now the happy ending to the story was that the other team members found out and bought him the uniform he needed to perform.
But my thoughts on this was why have a requirement like that that would hinder the poor from ministering? I looked around and saw all kinds of poverty in that country. I spoke with a driver about how common a meal chicken was (it is in Indonesia) who said he couldn't afford to eat meat every day. Sometimes, his family would eat eggs. That's not starving, but it is different from the lifestyle I was used to in the US, and some people have it much worse than that.
I don't know where you can get new slacks in the US for $18. I suspect you cold get them for just under that in Indonesia, which does have a textile industry, and that Bangladesh, Indian, and Vietnamese (thinking of clothing export countries) would have similar prices. That is an awful lot of money for some people. Minimum wage in Indonesia the last I looked it up was somewhere around $200 a month, maybe less, and that may have been in the big city.
I think churches should avoid practices that weed out the poor and only attract the middle class or wealthier, especially if they are in a geographic area where there are a lot of poor. Part of that may include dressing down. A culture of allowing people to wear 'street clothes' to church is a good thing. In the 1930's, the US had a culture of dressing up with three-piece suits. Nowadays, a lot of high school and college students do not own a suit, and may not even own dress shoes.
I see nothing in scripture that indicates that God prefers suits to sweatshirts. Which is holier, a 100% cotton t-shirt, or a poly-cotton blend? Which would a Hebrew be allowed to wear in the Old Testament?
Actually it does. Believers are kings and priests in the sight of God. And God has a dress code for priests.
And for Aaron's sons thou shalt make coats, and thou shalt make for them girdles, and bonnets shalt thou make for them, for glory and for beauty. And thou shalt put them upon Aaron thy brother, and his sons with him; and shalt anoint them, and consecrate them, and sanctify them, that they may minister unto me in the priest's office. (Exod 28:40,41)
Are the children of God priests anointed with the Holy Spirit, consecrated for the service of God and Christ. and sanctified by the indwelling Spirit? Then why would they not have a dress code?
I suspect you do not really interpret scripture to way your post seems to imply you interpret it.
Even Christ is not a priest after the order of Aaron, but rather a priest after the order of Melchizedek. A white Gentile out in Alabama... or whevever... isn't a Levitical priest either.
I am curious if you go around wearing Old Testament priestly garb. Is it possible to attach a picture of your bonnet, or a link to it, so that we can see it?
When I was working for a ministry to the homeless, I dressed very casually because it put the homeless more at ease to hear the gospel. So much so that some Christians who volunteered from other churches thought I might be one of the homeless, lol! They actually looked down on me and wouldn't socialize with me.
But then one Christmas, we held a party for the homeless at my church. I dressed up and then everyone found out that I wasn't one of the homeless, but one of the workers. Well the opinion about me all changed in an instant! All the people that wouldn't talk to me all of a sudden got chummy. All I could do was smile, but inwardly I was rolling my eyes at their hypocrisy.
I can understand why God had made specific articles of clothes to be worn by the priests - they are a symbol for something that He wants us to learn and for modesty, but it was never for social status.
Having been born in the early 1940's, I am well aware of the poverty and suffering in and left over from the Great Depression.
Havening eyes I have seen the poverty on the increase again since the 1970[s when it was au courant to refer to the homelss as shopping baggers,,, men and women.
At that time there were the poor living under bridges and even in sewers. None of this truly abated, and now the poror are even considered illegal in some cities; I suppose this is to tout how well the particular city is doign.
Having ears they do not hear, having eyes they do not see.
I suppose the economy is doing better than ever.
This is just ne of the lies those who choose evil believe.
Fantastic...When I was working for a ministry to the homeless, I dressed very casually because it put the homeless more at ease to hear the gospel. So much so that some Christians who volunteered from other churches thought I might be one of the homeless, lol! They actually looked down on me and wouldn't socialize with me.
But then one Christmas, we held a party for the homeless at my church. I dressed up and then everyone found out that I wasn't one of the homeless, but one of the workers. Well the opinion about me all changed in an instant! All the people that wouldn't talk to me all of a sudden got chummy. All I could do was smile, but inwardly I was rolling my eyes at their hypocrisy.
I can understand why God had made specific articles of clothes to be worn by the priests - they are a symbol for something that He wants us to learn and for modesty, but it was never for social status.
There was no such thing as Judaism at the time of our King. He is the King of the Israel of God, Yahweh.
Judaism began with the separation of believers into the beginnings of apostasy creating varied denomination of Jews and Christians.
Jesus is the King of the Jew, Yes, but that wa a reference to His own Trib, Judah, first and second, most importantly, a reference to the true Jew by translation a praiser of Yah, God.
Leah started this in her naming of Judah.
Judaism began with the separation of believers into the beginnings of apostasy creating varied denomination of Jews and Christians.
Jesus is the King of the Jew, Yes, but that wa a reference to His own Trib, Judah, first and second, most importantly, a reference to the true Jew by translation a praiser of Yah, God.
Leah started this in her naming of Judah.
Why do you want to follow Jesus while not wanting to follow the religion that he practiced?We do not practice Judaism! .
Basically I have no problem with religion; like you said, religion itself isn't bad. There are those whose religion is vain, and they give religion a bad name. And, unfortunately, there are some who have weaponized the words "religion" or "religious" and use them against anyone and everyone who disagrees with their agenda.
@presidente
The spirit of your OP is genuine and true. I would like to add my thoughts:
The word "religion" in the James passage is the word thrēskeia in the Greek. It's a derivative of the word thrēskos. The root meaning of the word is "fearing or worshiping God" and also "to tremble".
This is consistent with the scriptures that say, "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom (and) knowledge".
Regarding the division between clergy and laity: that is a practice derived from the wisdom from below, it's not a Kingdom practice.
Clergy is derived from the Greek word klēroō found in Ephesians 1:11. It speaks of "portion" or "inheritance".
Paul wrote this about how someone obtains a "portion" from God:
"[God] having predestined us to adoption as sons by Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will..."
And this is the result:
"In Him also we have obtained an inheritance (that's klēroō), being predestined according to the purpose of Him who works all things according to the counsel of His will..."
"God's will" is woven in and through this teaching. His will is not merely a function of His desire like we think of desire. His will is binding and cannot be denied. So, this is a legal treatise that secures our 1) place as His children and 2) a portion of His kingdom (klēroō) to all who are in Him. In Him we are all priests (our function is to represent Him) and kings (the reality that we are of His royal lineage).
The religion we should all reject is any that create classes of His children and divide them into "clergy" or "laity": those who do not have a portion and those who do.
We all have a portion (klēroō) in Christ.
The spirit of your OP is genuine and true. I would like to add my thoughts:
The word "religion" in the James passage is the word thrēskeia in the Greek. It's a derivative of the word thrēskos. The root meaning of the word is "fearing or worshiping God" and also "to tremble".
This is consistent with the scriptures that say, "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom (and) knowledge".
Regarding the division between clergy and laity: that is a practice derived from the wisdom from below, it's not a Kingdom practice.
Clergy is derived from the Greek word klēroō found in Ephesians 1:11. It speaks of "portion" or "inheritance".
Paul wrote this about how someone obtains a "portion" from God:
"[God] having predestined us to adoption as sons by Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will..."
And this is the result:
"In Him also we have obtained an inheritance (that's klēroō), being predestined according to the purpose of Him who works all things according to the counsel of His will..."
"God's will" is woven in and through this teaching. His will is not merely a function of His desire like we think of desire. His will is binding and cannot be denied. So, this is a legal treatise that secures our 1) place as His children and 2) a portion of His kingdom (klēroō) to all who are in Him. In Him we are all priests (our function is to represent Him) and kings (the reality that we are of His royal lineage).
The religion we should all reject is any that create classes of His children and divide them into "clergy" or "laity": those who do not have a portion and those who do.
We all have a portion (klēroō) in Christ.
That's right. And because of this, the "priests" of the Catholic Church have been assigned powers which are totally unbiblical. In fact the whole clerical system of the RCC is totally without scriptural support. But then the Protestants failed to go right back the NT, and also created their own clergy.
What you wrote reminded me instantly of the words of James, Brother of Christ;When I was working for a ministry to the homeless, I dressed very casually because it put the homeless more at ease to hear the gospel. So much so that some Christians who volunteered from other churches thought I might be one of the homeless, lol! They actually looked down on me and wouldn't socialize with me.
But then one Christmas, we held a party for the homeless at my church. I dressed up and then everyone found out that I wasn't one of the homeless, but one of the workers. Well the opinion about me all changed in an instant! All the people that wouldn't talk to me all of a sudden got chummy. All I could do was smile, but inwardly I was rolling my eyes at their hypocrisy.
I can understand why God had made specific articles of clothes to be worn by the priests - they are a symbol for something that He wants us to learn and for modesty, but it was never for social status.
from James 2 ;
Jas 2:1 My brothers, as you hold out your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ, do not show favoritism.
Jas 2:2 Suppose a man comes into your meeting wearing a gold ring and fine clothes, and a poor man in shabby clothes also comes in.
Jas 2:3 If you lavish attention on the man in fine clothes and say, “Here is a seat of honor,” but say to the poor man, “You must stand” or “Sit at my feet,”
Jas 2:4 have you not discriminated among yourselves and become judges with evil thoughts?
Jas 2:5 Listen, my beloved brothers: Has not God chosen the poor of this world to be rich in faith and to inherit the kingdom He promised those who love Him?
Jas 2:6 But you have dishonored the poor. Is it not the rich who oppress you and drag you into court?
Jas 2:7 Are they not the ones who blaspheme the noble name by which you have been called?
Jas 2:8 If you really fulfill the royal law stated in Scripture, “Love your neighbor as yourself,” you are doing well.
Jas 2:9 But if you show favoritism, you sin and are convicted by the law as transgressors.
Jas 2:10 Whoever keeps the whole law but stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it.
Jas 2:11 For He who said, “Do not commit adultery,” also said, “Do not murder.” If you do not commit adultery, but do commit murder, you have become a lawbreaker.
Jas 2:12 Speak and act as those who are going to be judged by the law that gives freedom.
Jas 2:13 For judgment without mercy will be shown to anyone who has not been merciful. Mercy triumphs over judgment.
Maby Blessings!