What do the occupy Wall St. people and the modern church have in common?

768 reads

There are 2 Comments

Sean Fericks's picture

Caveat: I know that I am generalizing, and my comments cannot be applied to each individual since I don't know what is going on in their lives. I am not judging the motive. But I am observing the facts on the ground.

In my small town of Elko / Spring Creek, Nevada, we have at least 7 churches that preach the gospel. The services range from traditional to contemporary, and all the views on Calvinism, spiritual gifts, etc., are available. Recently, we have had another church plant (of the Mars Hill / Acts 29 variety) open up. Several of our members left to join the new work. Whatever happened to "the church in Jerusalem", "the church in Antioch", and "the church in Rome"? Where is the "church in Elko"? Why can't our younger, more progressive members submit some of their tastes and ideas to elders who have come up before them? Why can't our elders allow a bit more freedom when our young people come up with new ideas like community groups and new music? My understanding is that the young men are to submit to the mentoring of their elders and that the elders are to encourage and guide the young men in their enthusiasm for the gospel (Titus 2, II Tim 2, etc.). Unity is out the window as the American church splits into its various demographic groups. We do not submit to each other in love. Rather, we divide our assets (the wisdom of the elder/ the enthusiasm of the young men) and fellowship only with those who are like us.

In the early church, slaves attended with their masters. Today, we have a hard time keeping our own children.

The church is not only for me. The church is "we" for God.

Aaron Blumer's picture


I think it's great that people have choices in what church to attend.
It's a bummer so many don't make better ones, though.