m_huber
Muse
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2007
- Messages
- 828
I went to church this weekend, at a place called the Church in Baton Rouge. Apparently, this is the "real" church. It was a group of ~40 people altogether. I have reproduced the experience here.
I apologize for the length of this post, but I feel that this is instructive in the fact that the beliefs that were shared with me are reflective of most mainstream evangelical groups. These people were a bit more overt than most, but I don't think they were "wrong" in their doctrine. I do feel, however, that there are cult-like brainwashing tactics at work in this particular group, which is different than most evangelicals.
The "Lunch" section is almost purely doctrine without narrative, so it may provide a partial synopsis if you don't want to read the whole thing.
I must say that, while these are terribly deluded people, they are amongst the friendliest people that I have met in recent months. I would have no problem visiting any of them for any reason, and I feel that if I had a need in my life, I could ask these people, and they would help me.
Worship Service
I walked into the service just as it was starting. The building was a house, not a church building, that had chairs in a main room arranged in concentric squares, with the center open. There was no leader standing in the middle, though there were 5-6 men who were clearly the leaders of the group. Everyone was sitting and singing. I sat in a corner of the outside square, and a man immediately came over to sit next to me and talk to me. After introductions, the first thing he said was, “God doesn’t always answer prayers, but he always hears our praises. One day, he’s going to get the praise he deserves”
We sang numerous songs for about an hour, all a cappella (though they were not opposed to instruments, as they did play them later on in the meeting. Not using them allowed more flexibility in song selection). Aside from being a slate of hymns I have never heard before in my life, despite being a faithful churchgoer for years, the thing that really set this service apart from any other I have been to is what happened after the song was over. We would sing a song, then sing the chorus/last verse again. Then, someone would call out a line, such as “Jesus meets all our needs,” or “He was made the punishment for us,” or some other line taken from the song. In response to this, various people in the room would call out, “Amen!” or “Thank you!” or “Hallelujah!” This would go on for several minutes, until someone called out the next song to sing. Anybody could make the suggestion, and it would be sung. However, after one particularly moving song, the entire room chanted a particular line together about Jesus paying the penalty for our sins. Various other comments were offered in the meantime, as well, such as the man who talked about Jesus, the spring of life, never wearing out like his trampoline springs did. Another offered that Jesus is both his prison and palace. Another focused on the song lyric, “All this wealth, He wants me to enjoy.”
When this was over, we went to another room and had cake together. The people were very friendly, and many of them walked up to me to introduce themselves or to talk to me. I had meaningful conversation with at least 4 people in the 20 minute interlude. I must mention that there were people there of many different varieties. There were Africans, Asians, Hispanics, old and young, dressed up and dressed down. They were very open.
Study time
At the end of this interlude, we went back into the same room and divided into groups. We numbered off to determine who would be in groups 1-6. The number 6 was arrived at because of the study material, which was designed for a one-week study from Monday to Saturday. So, each group took one day from the book and was assigned to discuss it and then report back to the larger group.
The study book was written by “Witness Lee” and published by Living Stream Ministry (www.lsm.org). They used the “Recovery” version of the Bible, which I had previously not heard of. My group was looking at the verses 1 John 3:7, Philippians 3:9, and 2 Corinthians 5:21. These verses have, as common ground, the concept of the 2 levels of salvation. I will use terminology as I was instructed. There is the objective and subjective salvation. Objective salvation is what happens when Jesus gives you a new outer robe, like the father in the story of the Prodigal Son. Subjective salvation is best thought of as a wedding garment -- It is a change on the inside.
We can look at Matthew 22:11-12 to see how this works: a man was brought to a wedding feast, but he did not wear the proper garment, so he was cast out of the feast. This represents the man who has objective salvation, but not subjective salvation. I asked at this point about the next verse, where it states that he will be cast to where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth; how is that different than hell? I was told that the difference is that the lake of fire is eternal punishment, but that the gnashing of teeth is caused because of the separation from God. So I then asked if there were 3 possible destinations, but I was told that that is not the case. So another person offered a footnote from his Bible in another passage, where it says that the only ones who go to the gnashing place are the Jews who don’t accept Christ. I had to conclude that there is Heaven, Hell, and Anti-Semitic Hell.
I also questioned the terminology. “Subjective,” in any other context, means “subject to personal feelings or tastes,” and “objective” means “not subject to personal feelings or tastes.” What does it mean in this context? I was told that I did not know the meaning of the words. To illustrate this, the leader of our subgroup told me about a camera analogy. If you are looking at an image, he said, it is objective, but if you take a camera and make a picture of it, then the image passes through the lens and is imprinted on the film, where it becomes subjective (no, I did not make a mistake in reproducing this). He gave this illustration, then made the statement, “Objective reality is not what God wants.” Instead, he wants us to live our lives for the righteousness of Christ.
I should explain some of the mechanics of the subgroup meeting. There were 6 of us, four in the 20’s range and 2 in the 40+ range. One of them, the group leader, was a balding overweight man with thick glasses and a lisp (if you’re picturing a stereotypical pedophile, then you have the right image). He was sitting next to me, and he was easily the most enthusiastic person in the room with regards to the holy word. The other older person was a woman, who was wearing a hand-made dress, a shawl, and a woven covering for her head, giving her a Pentecostal look.
The book was arranged by scriptures on one side and meaning on the other, so the older man asked us all to read the scriptures together. He shared his book with me as the other 5 read the words together. I did not participate. After reading each verse, the man and woman would say “Praise Him,” or “Thank you, Jesus!” They both chose to talk to us in the same tone of voice that is usually reserved for teaching lower elementary children. After reading the scriptures altogether, this man having been disturbed by my unwillingness to comply changed the method for reading the paragraphs that followed. Each of us read a paragraph out loud, continuing around the circle until we had read the whole thing. I had less of an objection to this, and that seemed to make the man happier. However, when I read my paragraph, I failed to provide time between my sentences for them to say “Praise Jesus!”
The man in charge asked yes/no questions, and he was very uncomfortable at the questions I asked. He seemed ill-equipped to handle any questions not sufficiently answered by God, Spirit, or Jesus. I cannot say that he represented the entire group’s knowledge base, but it was disturbing to me that he was allowed such prominence in the group if he was unable to answer simple doctrinal questions.
I should add that the tone of voice used for all of these statements of praise was entirely unique. I don’t have anything to compare it to. The best way to describe it, I think, would be as a monotone, high-pitched nasal sound. Perhaps it would be similar to the “ET phone home” voice, except without mentioning ET and saying “Praise Him” instead of “phone home.” Hard to describe, but this voice was used for every statement made about God. Everyone in the room used that same tonality, probably because they so often said things in unison. The words “groupthink” and “brainwashing” come to mind. There was a chant at one point where everyone was saying “Based on faith,” and another where everyone said, “Did not know sin.”
Anyway, after the small group session, we rejoined the larger group. The same man who led our group made a long rant about God, but the only quote I recorded from it was, “God expressed in man is the masterpiece of the universe.” Everyone in the room was expected to share something, so I said that it was revealed to me how much power Jesus has in our lives and in our minds.
Without going into detail about what each person said, allow me to offer some quotes from this session: “[when we receive the spirit of Jesus] there is a spontaneous righteous aura about us.” “If we experience such an inward transformation, spontaneously we shall have righteousnsses as our outward appearance.” “Christ allows us to be in organic union with God, and we can express God though his image.” “Even if a man were able to be perfect without God, he still couldn’t be righteous because he doesn’t express God; Christians still sin, but we don’t practice sin.” “We must call on the Lord to exercise our Spirit.” “If you’re not sinking into God, you’re not living righteousness.” “God’s eternal economy is to make man the same as he is in loving others, but not to make us part of the triune Godhead; this is expressed in human virtues.” “What we need to do [as christians] is absolutely nothing -- it is not in the doing [that we attain salvation] but in the receiving.”
And my personal favorite, the conclusion to the conundrum about the difference between a man who is not a Christian doing good works and a Christian doing good works: “What’s the difference between what they do and what we do? We are experiencing the Spirit: That is righteousness!”
I will add that there were some words that came up alot: Spontaneous, righteousness(es), objective/subjective, believers, spirit, bride, wedding, mysterious, the abiding essence, and the evil “rules” (which are part of the old covenant, not the new plan).
Lunch
After the service, I was invited to lunch. The house of the woman who was the host was small, but well-kept. She had a table set already when I arrived, but she was still working on lunch, and I helped her prepare some things. During the preparation time, in the next room the father and his daughter played on the guitar and piano respectively and sang a variety of songs, from worship songs to American Pie to a selection from Phantom of the Opera. Everyone milled about quite happily; there was no confrontation of any kind. It was a very pleasant place.
I looked at the bookshelves in the house, and not surprisingly, they were dominated by books on Christianity. An oddity, however, was that the majority of the books were by the same author, who happened to be the same author that wrote the study materials at the church: Witness Lee.
Once lunch was served, I asked about Witness Lee. I was told that he (and Watchman Nee, if you look at the website) was a missionary in China and Asia. He had worked there until persecution of Christians began, and then he went to other parts of the world where the gospel was more acceptable. He published prolific works throughout his lifetime, but because he was Chinese, there were some words that he had interpreted differently than standard sources, for example, “economy” means “plan.”
I started asking questions. I did not want to attack my hosts, nor did I want to play my hand at that point, so the questions I asked were all based on the assumption that the spirits mentioned in the Bible are accurately represented, and that the Bible is basically true. The question I asked, and had a hard time communicating, was: If two people, one a believer and one not, both do the same things, why would an impartial person choose to believe in God rather than to not?
To answer requires some explanation. Man is made of the body, soul, and spirit. These are concentric spheres of existence. When Jesus comes into your life, your spirit is instantly changed. The rest of your life is spent making your soul better. The body is evil and will perish because of original sin.
Good and evil are different than life and not life. In my example, I am talking about a person who does good things; this is in fact identical to the Christian doing good things, because these things can be done from the flesh alone. I was given the example of the difference between a child not trying to imitate his father, and not being able not to, and a person who wants to emulate the father having a very difficult time doing so. In other words, a person who has the spirit will be able to do good things from their very nature, where an outsider has to try to imitate the good words. This is not the same as life, though. Life can only come from God’s spirit living inside of you. So, a person who sees these two individuals doing the same good thing will be drawn by God through the life in the Christian, but that will not be present in the non-believer.
I then posited the question about God calling people and choosing who gets into heaven. I was told that every person has free will to decide. God calls everyone, but we get to choose whether or not to respond. No one is without excuse.
I also asked about if God knew that Adam was going to fall. The answer: Yes! God knew that Adam would fall, but he already had the plan to send his son to die for our sins. The whole idea is, that after God cast Satan out of heaven, he wanted to kill him, so he made man knowing that Satan, the other great power in the universe, would come to tempt man. Then, man would fall, apparently allowing Satan to win, except that soon Jesus would come and defeat Satan through a human form, and soon, at the end of time, Satan will be thrown into the lake of fire and destroyed forever.
Another thing that I was told in the course of this discussion was that the best way to show God’s love to people who don’t believe that Jesus is the Messiah (which is different than not knowing Jesus is the Messiah, perhaps the difference between a Jehovah’s witness and an Atheist) is to not speak to them. I was told of an excellent example of faith of a man who, when Jehovah’s Witnesses came to his door, told them “I believe Jesus was the son of God, you don’t, we have nothing further to discuss,” and closed the door.
Unfortunately, I can only reproduce what I can remember. I left my apartment at 9:30 and did not return until almost 4:00. There was constant discussion the whole time; I think that I remember the significant points. Let me reiterate: these are incredibly friendly people. I have no ill will towards them; I just wish they would grow up.
I apologize for the length of this post, but I feel that this is instructive in the fact that the beliefs that were shared with me are reflective of most mainstream evangelical groups. These people were a bit more overt than most, but I don't think they were "wrong" in their doctrine. I do feel, however, that there are cult-like brainwashing tactics at work in this particular group, which is different than most evangelicals.
The "Lunch" section is almost purely doctrine without narrative, so it may provide a partial synopsis if you don't want to read the whole thing.
I must say that, while these are terribly deluded people, they are amongst the friendliest people that I have met in recent months. I would have no problem visiting any of them for any reason, and I feel that if I had a need in my life, I could ask these people, and they would help me.
Worship Service
I walked into the service just as it was starting. The building was a house, not a church building, that had chairs in a main room arranged in concentric squares, with the center open. There was no leader standing in the middle, though there were 5-6 men who were clearly the leaders of the group. Everyone was sitting and singing. I sat in a corner of the outside square, and a man immediately came over to sit next to me and talk to me. After introductions, the first thing he said was, “God doesn’t always answer prayers, but he always hears our praises. One day, he’s going to get the praise he deserves”
We sang numerous songs for about an hour, all a cappella (though they were not opposed to instruments, as they did play them later on in the meeting. Not using them allowed more flexibility in song selection). Aside from being a slate of hymns I have never heard before in my life, despite being a faithful churchgoer for years, the thing that really set this service apart from any other I have been to is what happened after the song was over. We would sing a song, then sing the chorus/last verse again. Then, someone would call out a line, such as “Jesus meets all our needs,” or “He was made the punishment for us,” or some other line taken from the song. In response to this, various people in the room would call out, “Amen!” or “Thank you!” or “Hallelujah!” This would go on for several minutes, until someone called out the next song to sing. Anybody could make the suggestion, and it would be sung. However, after one particularly moving song, the entire room chanted a particular line together about Jesus paying the penalty for our sins. Various other comments were offered in the meantime, as well, such as the man who talked about Jesus, the spring of life, never wearing out like his trampoline springs did. Another offered that Jesus is both his prison and palace. Another focused on the song lyric, “All this wealth, He wants me to enjoy.”
When this was over, we went to another room and had cake together. The people were very friendly, and many of them walked up to me to introduce themselves or to talk to me. I had meaningful conversation with at least 4 people in the 20 minute interlude. I must mention that there were people there of many different varieties. There were Africans, Asians, Hispanics, old and young, dressed up and dressed down. They were very open.
Study time
At the end of this interlude, we went back into the same room and divided into groups. We numbered off to determine who would be in groups 1-6. The number 6 was arrived at because of the study material, which was designed for a one-week study from Monday to Saturday. So, each group took one day from the book and was assigned to discuss it and then report back to the larger group.
The study book was written by “Witness Lee” and published by Living Stream Ministry (www.lsm.org). They used the “Recovery” version of the Bible, which I had previously not heard of. My group was looking at the verses 1 John 3:7, Philippians 3:9, and 2 Corinthians 5:21. These verses have, as common ground, the concept of the 2 levels of salvation. I will use terminology as I was instructed. There is the objective and subjective salvation. Objective salvation is what happens when Jesus gives you a new outer robe, like the father in the story of the Prodigal Son. Subjective salvation is best thought of as a wedding garment -- It is a change on the inside.
We can look at Matthew 22:11-12 to see how this works: a man was brought to a wedding feast, but he did not wear the proper garment, so he was cast out of the feast. This represents the man who has objective salvation, but not subjective salvation. I asked at this point about the next verse, where it states that he will be cast to where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth; how is that different than hell? I was told that the difference is that the lake of fire is eternal punishment, but that the gnashing of teeth is caused because of the separation from God. So I then asked if there were 3 possible destinations, but I was told that that is not the case. So another person offered a footnote from his Bible in another passage, where it says that the only ones who go to the gnashing place are the Jews who don’t accept Christ. I had to conclude that there is Heaven, Hell, and Anti-Semitic Hell.
I also questioned the terminology. “Subjective,” in any other context, means “subject to personal feelings or tastes,” and “objective” means “not subject to personal feelings or tastes.” What does it mean in this context? I was told that I did not know the meaning of the words. To illustrate this, the leader of our subgroup told me about a camera analogy. If you are looking at an image, he said, it is objective, but if you take a camera and make a picture of it, then the image passes through the lens and is imprinted on the film, where it becomes subjective (no, I did not make a mistake in reproducing this). He gave this illustration, then made the statement, “Objective reality is not what God wants.” Instead, he wants us to live our lives for the righteousness of Christ.
I should explain some of the mechanics of the subgroup meeting. There were 6 of us, four in the 20’s range and 2 in the 40+ range. One of them, the group leader, was a balding overweight man with thick glasses and a lisp (if you’re picturing a stereotypical pedophile, then you have the right image). He was sitting next to me, and he was easily the most enthusiastic person in the room with regards to the holy word. The other older person was a woman, who was wearing a hand-made dress, a shawl, and a woven covering for her head, giving her a Pentecostal look.
The book was arranged by scriptures on one side and meaning on the other, so the older man asked us all to read the scriptures together. He shared his book with me as the other 5 read the words together. I did not participate. After reading each verse, the man and woman would say “Praise Him,” or “Thank you, Jesus!” They both chose to talk to us in the same tone of voice that is usually reserved for teaching lower elementary children. After reading the scriptures altogether, this man having been disturbed by my unwillingness to comply changed the method for reading the paragraphs that followed. Each of us read a paragraph out loud, continuing around the circle until we had read the whole thing. I had less of an objection to this, and that seemed to make the man happier. However, when I read my paragraph, I failed to provide time between my sentences for them to say “Praise Jesus!”
The man in charge asked yes/no questions, and he was very uncomfortable at the questions I asked. He seemed ill-equipped to handle any questions not sufficiently answered by God, Spirit, or Jesus. I cannot say that he represented the entire group’s knowledge base, but it was disturbing to me that he was allowed such prominence in the group if he was unable to answer simple doctrinal questions.
I should add that the tone of voice used for all of these statements of praise was entirely unique. I don’t have anything to compare it to. The best way to describe it, I think, would be as a monotone, high-pitched nasal sound. Perhaps it would be similar to the “ET phone home” voice, except without mentioning ET and saying “Praise Him” instead of “phone home.” Hard to describe, but this voice was used for every statement made about God. Everyone in the room used that same tonality, probably because they so often said things in unison. The words “groupthink” and “brainwashing” come to mind. There was a chant at one point where everyone was saying “Based on faith,” and another where everyone said, “Did not know sin.”
Anyway, after the small group session, we rejoined the larger group. The same man who led our group made a long rant about God, but the only quote I recorded from it was, “God expressed in man is the masterpiece of the universe.” Everyone in the room was expected to share something, so I said that it was revealed to me how much power Jesus has in our lives and in our minds.
Without going into detail about what each person said, allow me to offer some quotes from this session: “[when we receive the spirit of Jesus] there is a spontaneous righteous aura about us.” “If we experience such an inward transformation, spontaneously we shall have righteousnsses as our outward appearance.” “Christ allows us to be in organic union with God, and we can express God though his image.” “Even if a man were able to be perfect without God, he still couldn’t be righteous because he doesn’t express God; Christians still sin, but we don’t practice sin.” “We must call on the Lord to exercise our Spirit.” “If you’re not sinking into God, you’re not living righteousness.” “God’s eternal economy is to make man the same as he is in loving others, but not to make us part of the triune Godhead; this is expressed in human virtues.” “What we need to do [as christians] is absolutely nothing -- it is not in the doing [that we attain salvation] but in the receiving.”
And my personal favorite, the conclusion to the conundrum about the difference between a man who is not a Christian doing good works and a Christian doing good works: “What’s the difference between what they do and what we do? We are experiencing the Spirit: That is righteousness!”
I will add that there were some words that came up alot: Spontaneous, righteousness(es), objective/subjective, believers, spirit, bride, wedding, mysterious, the abiding essence, and the evil “rules” (which are part of the old covenant, not the new plan).
Lunch
After the service, I was invited to lunch. The house of the woman who was the host was small, but well-kept. She had a table set already when I arrived, but she was still working on lunch, and I helped her prepare some things. During the preparation time, in the next room the father and his daughter played on the guitar and piano respectively and sang a variety of songs, from worship songs to American Pie to a selection from Phantom of the Opera. Everyone milled about quite happily; there was no confrontation of any kind. It was a very pleasant place.
I looked at the bookshelves in the house, and not surprisingly, they were dominated by books on Christianity. An oddity, however, was that the majority of the books were by the same author, who happened to be the same author that wrote the study materials at the church: Witness Lee.
Once lunch was served, I asked about Witness Lee. I was told that he (and Watchman Nee, if you look at the website) was a missionary in China and Asia. He had worked there until persecution of Christians began, and then he went to other parts of the world where the gospel was more acceptable. He published prolific works throughout his lifetime, but because he was Chinese, there were some words that he had interpreted differently than standard sources, for example, “economy” means “plan.”
I started asking questions. I did not want to attack my hosts, nor did I want to play my hand at that point, so the questions I asked were all based on the assumption that the spirits mentioned in the Bible are accurately represented, and that the Bible is basically true. The question I asked, and had a hard time communicating, was: If two people, one a believer and one not, both do the same things, why would an impartial person choose to believe in God rather than to not?
To answer requires some explanation. Man is made of the body, soul, and spirit. These are concentric spheres of existence. When Jesus comes into your life, your spirit is instantly changed. The rest of your life is spent making your soul better. The body is evil and will perish because of original sin.
Good and evil are different than life and not life. In my example, I am talking about a person who does good things; this is in fact identical to the Christian doing good things, because these things can be done from the flesh alone. I was given the example of the difference between a child not trying to imitate his father, and not being able not to, and a person who wants to emulate the father having a very difficult time doing so. In other words, a person who has the spirit will be able to do good things from their very nature, where an outsider has to try to imitate the good words. This is not the same as life, though. Life can only come from God’s spirit living inside of you. So, a person who sees these two individuals doing the same good thing will be drawn by God through the life in the Christian, but that will not be present in the non-believer.
I then posited the question about God calling people and choosing who gets into heaven. I was told that every person has free will to decide. God calls everyone, but we get to choose whether or not to respond. No one is without excuse.
I also asked about if God knew that Adam was going to fall. The answer: Yes! God knew that Adam would fall, but he already had the plan to send his son to die for our sins. The whole idea is, that after God cast Satan out of heaven, he wanted to kill him, so he made man knowing that Satan, the other great power in the universe, would come to tempt man. Then, man would fall, apparently allowing Satan to win, except that soon Jesus would come and defeat Satan through a human form, and soon, at the end of time, Satan will be thrown into the lake of fire and destroyed forever.
Another thing that I was told in the course of this discussion was that the best way to show God’s love to people who don’t believe that Jesus is the Messiah (which is different than not knowing Jesus is the Messiah, perhaps the difference between a Jehovah’s witness and an Atheist) is to not speak to them. I was told of an excellent example of faith of a man who, when Jehovah’s Witnesses came to his door, told them “I believe Jesus was the son of God, you don’t, we have nothing further to discuss,” and closed the door.
Unfortunately, I can only reproduce what I can remember. I left my apartment at 9:30 and did not return until almost 4:00. There was constant discussion the whole time; I think that I remember the significant points. Let me reiterate: these are incredibly friendly people. I have no ill will towards them; I just wish they would grow up.
