Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

I guess I have a different defination of what a "progressive" is when it comes to religion.

Yesterday here at work we were talking about church "stuff" yet again, and I allowed myself to get sucked in, yet again.

One lady was talking about how progressive and modern her church is. Women were "allowed" to touch the offering plate when it was being passed, and recently they had even been "allowed" to read scripture as part of the Sunday morning service.

She really didn't know what to say when I told her that basic civil/equal rights had pretty much been a societal norm for about 60 years.

Guess the term progressive means something different when you use pre-history as your baseline.

What religion was this church?

That's amazing to me.

danefan wrote:What religion was this church?

That's amazing to me.

I get them mixed up, and realize that they are completely different animals, but she goes to either a Church of God or a Church of Christ.

OSBF wrote:

danefan wrote:What religion was this church?

That's amazing to me.

I get them mixed up, and realize that they are completely different animals, but she goes to either a Church of God or a Church of Christ.

Gotcha.

one of the catholic hating christian offshoots.

danefan wrote:

OSBF wrote:
I get them mixed up, and realize that they are completely different animals, but she goes to either a Church of God or a Church of Christ.

Gotcha.

one of the catholic hating christian offshoots.

I would describe them more as Evangelicals.

OSBF wrote:

danefan wrote:
Gotcha.

one of the catholic hating christian offshoots.

I would describe them more as Evangelicals.

Interesting. I just googled Church of God. Looks like your right.

These type of Christian churches aren't too common in the Northeast.

Couldn't read scripture? Couldn't touch the offering plate? WTF is an offering plate and why could women touch it?

andy7171 wrote:Couldn't read scripture? Couldn't touch the offering plate? WTF is an offering plate and why could women touch it?

At most churches here in the midwest the collection plate is passed through the congregation as a normal part of the service. That way, you can put your tithes and offerings into it in a very public manner so as to attract as much attention to yourself as possible for being a generous donor, and to inflict as much shame as possible on those that don't give what they "should".

Some very conservative churches still teach that men are the king of the castle, are responsible for all financial matters of the household, therefore women folk have no business even coming into contact with the offering plate, even to just hand to the next worthy male.

OSBF wrote:

danefan wrote:
Gotcha.

one of the catholic hating christian offshoots.

I would describe them more as Evangelicals.

You would love some of the churches I have attended then! People praising Gods name out loud, arms raised, singing, fainting (slaying of Spirit), speaking in tongues, etc.

Doesn't bother me, except when it interrupts the message. I also realize that sort of church is one you most likely don't want to bring someone new to. Way over the top for them. As for me, I won't hold any disregard for someone who is so excited in worshiping the Lord.

To DaneFan: In all the different full gospel, Evangelical churches I have been to, I have never heard a disparaging word used against Catholics.

SeattleGriz wrote:

OSBF wrote:
I would describe them more as Evangelicals.

You would love some of the churches I have attended then! People praising Gods name out loud, arms raised, singing, fainting (slaying of Spirit), speaking in tongues, etc.

Doesn't bother me, except when it interrupts the message. I also realize that sort of church is one you most likely don't want to bring someone new to. Way over the top for them. As for me, I won't hold any disregard for someone who is so excited in worshiping the Lord.

To DaneFan: In all the different full gospel, Evangelical churches I have been to, I have never heard a disparaging word used against Catholics.

I'm more than OK with everything you mention.

Where I draw the line is with blatent civil rights/equal rights violations.

Any time a group is dis respected or denied oportunity open to others just because of something such as gender, I got a big problem with dat.

OSBF wrote:

SeattleGriz wrote:
You would love some of the churches I have attended then! People praising Gods name out loud, arms raised, singing, fainting (slaying of Spirit), speaking in tongues, etc.

Doesn't bother me, except when it interrupts the message. I also realize that sort of church is one you most likely don't want to bring someone new to. Way over the top for them. As for me, I won't hold any disregard for someone who is so excited in worshiping the Lord.

To DaneFan: In all the different full gospel, Evangelical churches I have been to, I have never heard a disparaging word used against Catholics.

I'm more than OK with everything you mention.

Where I draw the line is with blatent civil rights/equal rights violations.

Any time a group is dis respected or denied oportunity open to others just because of something such as gender, I got a big problem with dat.

I think your statements above are the core of some churches opposition to various civil changes...

For example, does civil law that mandates equal rights for women mandate that a church must ordain women as ministers/priests, even if their teachings are contrary to the civil law???

OSBF wrote:

andy7171 wrote:Couldn't read scripture? Couldn't touch the offering plate? WTF is an offering plate and why could women touch it?

At most churches here in the midwest the collection plate is passed through the congregation as a normal part of the service. That way, you can put your tithes and offerings into it in a very public manner so as to attract as much attention to yourself as possible for being a generous donor, and to inflict as much shame as possible on those that don't give what they "should".

Some very conservative churches still teach that men are the king of the castle, are responsible for all financial matters of the household, therefore women folk have no business even coming into contact with the offering plate, even to just hand to the next worthy male.

OK, thanks. That is what I thought it was, but I never heard it called a plate before.

OSBF wrote:

SeattleGriz wrote:
You would love some of the churches I have attended then! People praising Gods name out loud, arms raised, singing, fainting (slaying of Spirit), speaking in tongues, etc.

Doesn't bother me, except when it interrupts the message. I also realize that sort of church is one you most likely don't want to bring someone new to. Way over the top for them. As for me, I won't hold any disregard for someone who is so excited in worshiping the Lord.

To DaneFan: In all the different full gospel, Evangelical churches I have been to, I have never heard a disparaging word used against Catholics.

I'm more than OK with everything you mention.

Where I draw the line is with blatent civil rights/equal rights violations.

Any time a group is dis respected or denied oportunity open to others just because of something such as gender, I got a big problem with dat.

Begs the question, why the women allow themselves to be treated as such? The equal right, I would think, is the choice to be involved with that kind of church or not to be.

andy7171 wrote:

OSBF wrote:
At most churches here in the midwest the collection plate is passed through the congregation as a normal part of the service. That way, you can put your tithes and offerings into it in a very public manner so as to attract as much attention to yourself as possible for being a generous donor, and to inflict as much shame as possible on those that don't give what they "should".

Some very conservative churches still teach that men are the king of the castle, are responsible for all financial matters of the household, therefore women folk have no business even coming into contact with the offering plate, even to just hand to the next worthy male.

OK, thanks. That is what I thought it was, but I never heard it called a plate before.

The Catholic church would never use a plate. A plate looks full pretty quickly. The Catholic church needs to make you feel guilty with a cavernous basket!

Got 'em all in my neck of the woods. Various "churches" of all kinds can be found in temple like settings all the way to somebody's garage. More churches here than there are bars, and there is something fundamentally wrong with that. Great thing is, you can choose what ever form of "religion" you want around here, so there should be no fighting about equal opportunity.

Me and spouse are the only regular attending and paying members of the local arm of the Wedgebuster Faith Church.

Happily, I will send you a SASE, or E-Mail you my paypal account if'n you would like to join.

danefan wrote:

andy7171 wrote: OK, thanks. That is what I thought it was, but I never heard it called a plate before.

The Catholic church would never use a plate. A plate looks full pretty quickly. The Catholic church needs to make you feel guilty with a cavernous basket!

Yeah. Ours is a nice polished metal one. But the envelope reduces some of the shame.

These days, pretty much any "mainline Protestant" church -- most Presbyterians, Lutherans, United Methodists, Episcopalians -- qualifies as "progressive" if measured by the politics of the clerics and leading lay members who attend most church conventions. The so-called "leaders" seem more concerned about political "hot buttons" like abortion rights, migrant labor and gay marriage than about improving the spiritual lives of their congregations. Small wonder that most of those denominations are hemorrhaging members. And don't even get me started on the National Council of Churches.

Col Hogan wrote:

OSBF wrote:
I'm more than OK with everything you mention.

Where I draw the line is with blatent civil rights/equal rights violations.

Any time a group is dis respected or denied oportunity open to others just because of something such as gender, I got a big problem with dat.

I think your statements above are the core of some churches opposition to various civil changes...

For example, does civil law that mandates equal rights for women mandate that a church must ordain women as ministers/priests, even if their teachings are contrary to the civil law???

There is nothing that would suggest that, unless a so-called ERA would specifically repeal portions of the First Amendment, which would never pass.

These are scare tactics to keep change from happening.

The only thing I could ever see happening is what has happened to some "churches" that are white-only, etc - you can worship how you want, you just can't be tax-exempt.

dbackjon wrote:

Col Hogan wrote:
I think your statements above are the core of some churches opposition to various civil changes...

For example, does civil law that mandates equal rights for women mandate that a church must ordain women as ministers/priests, even if their teachings are contrary to the civil law???

There is nothing that would suggest that, unless a so-called ERA would specifically repeal portions of the First Amendment, which would never pass.

These are scare tactics to keep change from happening.

The only thing I could ever see happening is what has happened to some "churches" that are white-only, etc - you can worship how you want, you just can't be tax-exempt.

Southern Methodists had this issue.

Progressive---wonder what they would do if they had a person of another race in their pulpit, on the pew next to them, or in their "athletic" cathedrals?

dbackjon wrote:The only thing I could ever see happening is what has happened to some "churches" that are white-only, etc - you can worship how you want, you just can't be tax-exempt.

What if the church is open to all races, but only white people can be ordained as clergy, or handle the offering plate, or some such stipulation? That would be a closer analogy to the gender-restrictions that some churches have.

Wedgebuster wrote: More churches here than there are bars, and there is something fundamentally wrong with that.

Take heed of the Blueballs axiom as it pertains to churches:

If the biggest church in a town or city is bigger than the biggest bank you're in trouble.

ASUMountaineer wrote:

OSBF wrote:
I'm more than OK with everything you mention.

Where I draw the line is with blatent civil rights/equal rights violations.

Any time a group is dis respected or denied oportunity open to others just because of something such as gender, I got a big problem with dat.

Begs the question, why the women allow themselves to be treated as such? The equal right, I would think, is the choice to be involved with that kind of church or not to be.

Because it is the just and moral thing to do, you know, treat people fairly no matter who or what they are.

I thought Christians understood the being moral thing?

Episcopalians ftw!

OSBF wrote:

ASUMountaineer wrote:
Begs the question, why the women allow themselves to be treated as such? The equal right, I would think, is the choice to be involved with that kind of church or not to be.

Because it is the just and moral thing to do, you know, treat people fairly no matter who or what they are.

I thought Christians understood the being moral thing?

Well, trying to get a jab in at Christians aside, religion is tricky. Sometimes society's morals and a religion's morals don't line up. I think you know that. Some denominations believe that women should be precluded from being ministers, deacons, etc. and some do not.

The way I see it, a church has the ability to decide that for themselves. However, that doesn't preclude a woman from being a preacher, except at that church (that's not violating her civil rights, she's not forced to be a member of that church--she can leave at any time). That's not an "equal rights" issue as we understand it when it comes to government policies. Just like females are precluded from joining the Boy Scouts, they can be precluded from being ministers at some churches. That doesn't prevent her from being a minister if she chooses to be.

If a woman decides to go to a church that places limitations on what she can do within the church, who are any of us to tell her she can't attend said church?