The Evangelical Universalist Forum

What is a 'Friends' church?

I’m glad you’re sorry to say that, MM, because your statement is absolutely false, and so you should be sorry. That church was the best church of which I have ever been a part. It is true that they distinguished Christian brethren from non-Christians. Is there anything wrong with that?

Do you think they should have pretended that the non-Christians who entered their doors were Christians, and to have them share in all the privileges of Christians?

What they did do is have special ministry meetings to which non-believers were invited. They were also invited to share in the excellent meals that the church provided during those meetings, with no suggestion that anyone contribute toward the cost of those meals. Indeed, they would NOT accept money from Non-Christians. That’s the kind of “exclusivism” that is truly Godly!

1 Like

I see what you both are saying. The red flag for me would be the statement “true” Christian. We cannot even agree on the forum what a ‘true’ Christian is.
Do you know what questions were used, Don? I’m not criticizing, I’m just curious.

1 Like

I’m not Don and this isn’t a definitive answer to a curious mind, but I may be able to help, falling back on my lengthy experience and accumulation of wisdom.

In 1956, I attended a Free Evangelical church which, for some reason called itself a Baptist Church. Strange, because it eschewed the position of the Baptist Union of those days. It was a very loving, outgoing fellowship and I learned a lot as a young believer (I was 16 something at the time). Anyway, the day came when I decided to formally become a member. Two elders were assigned to question me about what I believed and how I lived my young(ish) life. I remember the interview as if it was yesterday and I kid you not.

Do you drink? No, I said, assuming they meant alcohol.
Do you smoke? No, I said, quite truthfully.
Do you chase after girls? I knew what they really meant (do you go out with wild women?) so I answered that I did not, despite having quite a few friends of the female gender.

That was it. Interview over. I passed the exam.

About 25 years later I became a member of a vastly different form of church - a Reformed one. Joining required a passing knowledge of the church’s creeds, viz. the Three Forms of Unity, held to be (almost) equivalent to Scripture itself. It didn’t seem to matter whether or not I smoked or drank, presumably because most of those who were already members already did those things anyway.

To be fair, some Reformed churches have rules about who can partake of communion because by having them they can protect non-believers from “eating and drinking damnation unto themselves”. More could be said about this, but I’ll refrain. Ill just leave you with a quote from the Sermon on the Mount.

Matt 7:16 You can detect them by the way they act, just as you can identify a tree by its fruit. You need never confuse grapevines with thorn bushes or figs with thistles. 17 Different kinds of fruit trees can quickly be identified by examining their fruit. 18 A variety that produces delicious fruit never produces an inedible kind. And a tree producing an inedible kind can’t produce what is good. 19 So the trees having the inedible fruit are chopped down and thrown on the fire. 20 Yes, the way to identify a tree or a person is by the kind of fruit produced.

1 Like

Dave, I should be able to remember how they determined that I was a Christian, but I don’t. What I do remember is that I just walked in (for the first time) to a morning meeting for Christians in order to break bread with them. And I remember that they accepted me immediately and encouraged me to fully participate in the meeting— the same as everyone else.

Thanks Don. I actually think something of that sort can be a good thing. The way some local Pastors handle the issue - the issue being an unbeliever taking communion - is to announce that communion will be taken, the only requirement being that you confess Christ as Lord of your life, with some going further and adding “and a member of and under the discipline of a Christ-worshiping church”, and some adding “and an official member of this church”. Most pastors seem to allow one’s personal conscience to be the guide, after the pastor says a few words about the meaning of communion.

I am aware of that practice. I experienced it in Baptist churches and others which I attended. But if we really want to limit the eucharist (thanksgiving) or communion to Christians, that won’t cut it. I encountered one man in Winnipeg who identified himself as a non-Christian who boasted that he could walk into any church in Winnipeg and take communion. I am certain he couldn’t have succeeded if he had tried it in a Christian assembly of the nature I described.

Yep!

That is Dinosaur thinking Don…

Your belief is exclusive. Jesus was not exclusive, and if you are going to tout a bunch of verses having to do with Jesus’ dealing with the Israelite’s there and then as having something to do with us, you are sorely mistaken in my estimation. Something for the folks reading this to ponder.:wink:

But i do understand and realize you are what you is, as as the immortal Frank Zappa said.

Good luck Brother… Or maybe I can’t be called your brother cause I don’t think like you.?

Anyway, Love Ya!

In other words, no matter what words of Jesus I quote to show that He was exclusive, you reject as not applying to us. That being the case, how do you know that Jesus was not exclusive? No use quoting His words; according to you they don’t apply to us anyway. Your position allows you to do what you want and think what you want, since no one can prove otherwise. There just ain’t no authority in your life.

In a sense as you see it yes, but in a sense as I see it God is the ultimate authority in my and everyone’s life.

You don’t like the way I look at it and that is fine. Yes I look at it and think about it IN MY OWN WAY. And you see fault it that YOU JUDGE ME AS WRONG.

Why can’t I see it different than you? Why can’t I see God and Christ in a different way? Who are you to be the truth bearer of all eternity? By gosh man, have some understanding that we are all different and see thing differently.

I do have to admit, you are amazing.:thinking:

Maintenanceman to Paidion.

Come to think of it…I’ll probably be saying the same thing…to the zombies of Z-Hell ( 1, 2, 3)

I believe they will usher in a revival…of the good, old TV Western days - of guns and horses

Well that should go both ways, don’t you think? You were quick to judge me as being exclusive, whereas “Jesus was not exclusive.” I know you think Jesus’ sacrifice covers everyone whether they lovingly provide for the needy, or whether they rape and torture children to death. In other words, everyone is acceptable to God. Yet you say Paul’s teaching applied only to the people to whom he was writing and not to us. So how do you know that Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross (of which Paul spoke) didn’t apply only to those to whom he was writing and not to us?

Jesus Himself taught that the time is coming “when all who are in the tombs will hear his voice and come out, those who have done good to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil to the resurrection of judgment.” (John 5:28,29)

That time is yet to come. With these words Jesus clearly indicated that life the consequence for those who do good, whereas judgment is the consequence for those who do evil.

That hurt :worried:

Actually, that is the point I have made the whole time. Thanks Don for clarifying my position. :grinning:

Not the savior of the world, then. Billions will be disappointed :slight_smile:

So what the hell are you getting at…

Just yankin’ your chain, I know exactly where you stand on this, and God bless ya Chad!

:slightly_smiling_face:

Chad, that response isn’t consistent with the position you have expressed “the whole time.” You have indicated that everyone, good or bad, will be accepted by God because of Christ’s sacrifice—have you not? If this is NOT your position, what is going to happen to you and me in the afterlife? Or do you think there is no afterlife for people who live in our day?—that we simply die like a dog or a cow, and that is the end of us?

Obviously I have hit a nerve here. And that was not my contention. But for the furtherance of the forum, I’ll post a few opinions.

Yes sir. And we have debated ferociously about it.