I overextended my office hours tonight, so the finale of the Vox Day posts will have to wait.
I’m responding to the following prompt. Some identifying details are redacted.
Aeoli: find or compile me a list of questions to use for evaluating the pozzedness of a church and their doctrine. There are 5 local churches and I need to know how to discriminate between them.
tl;dr- Honestly, you are already better equipped to discriminate between pozzed and non-pozzed churches than 99% of Christians. Watch Steven Anderson videos (sanderson1611 | https://www.youtube.com/user/sanderson1611) and read Dalrock and Vox Day until you get a feel for what real Christianity is like. Unlike my posts on other subjects I can recommend my own Christianity posts without qualification, although there aren’t many of them. For detailed stuff read carm.org articles starting here: Answers for Seekers | Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry | https://carm.org/answers-for-seekers. They are an excellent resource and I agree with them 99% of the time.
The best answer is to judge the people in the church harshly, according to how the measure up with this passage (emphasis mine):
Qualifications for Overseers and Deacons
3 Here is a trustworthy saying: Whoever aspires to be an overseer desires a noble task. 2 Now the overseer is to be above reproach, faithful to his wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, 3 not given to drunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. 4 He must manage his own family well and see that his children obey him, and he must do so in a manner worthy of full[a] respect. 5 (If anyone does not know how to manage his own family, how can he take care of God’s church?) 6 He must not be a recent convert, or he may become conceited and fall under the same judgment as the devil. 7 He must also have a good reputation with outsiders, so that he will not fall into disgrace and into the devil’s trap.
8 In the same way, deacons[b] are to be worthy of respect, sincere, not indulging in much wine, and not pursuing dishonest gain. 9 They must keep hold of the deep truths of the faith with a clear conscience. 10 They must first be tested; and then if there is nothing against them, let them serve as deacons.
11 In the same way, the women[c] are to be worthy of respect, not malicious talkers but temperate and trustworthy in everything.
12 A deacon must be faithful to his wife and must manage his children and his household well. 13 Those who have served well gain an excellent standing and great assurance in their faith in Christ Jesus.
I would prefer to discriminate between them for you on a Skype call, possibly as a joint call with Koanic (he’s too harsh, I’m too forgiving), but I understand that you’d probably prefer to understand and then rely on your own judgment. The most obvious starting place is to consider that you’re in *a lefty-infested hellhole*, and it’s probable that none of the churches you’re considering are suitable. The question at that point is whether misrepresentation is better than no representation. I don’t know the answer to that question and I suspect it’s case-by-case. In my own case it’s possible to thrive in a church with medium levels of pozz because the sense of community is often real, I can get doctrine from books, and bad corporate worship music is still better than no corporate worship music. If I don’t find the sermon interesting then I’ll let my mind wander on other things and organize these thoughts in my notebook (looks like you’re taking notes on the sermon). If it’s outright offensive and disgusting, this is often good writing fodder but I have left a church over that because there’s no rest or rejuvenation possible, which is the most important purpose of church attendance.
Now that the context is clear, I’ll proceed to some questions. The main purpose of these questions is A) to weed out nonChristian churches (both secular social clubs and hostile pretenders) and B) to weed out churches that are organized and ruled over by women. These are the two primary problems with churches today.
1. Do they preach the gospel?
This ought to go without saying but I’ve seen a “pastor” go 45 minutes on the subject of self-improvement and then shoehorn a quote by Jesus in at the very end to give his speech some divine credence. This question will rule out entire sects like the Unitarians.
2. Do they talk about sin, guilt, exclusion, and Hell?
Modern people refuse to address such things, and secularists refuse to believe they are possible. When women control a church they will only talk about feelz, striving to do better, “reaching out”, and other herding/compassion type stuff.
3. Is the preacher talking the way a dude gives a speech to other dudes or is he talking the way a woman talks to children?
Even if a male priest/pastor is leading the service, he may be unconsciously courting the young women. This will show in his vocal tone as softness, condescension, and sanctimony. If it appears he’s uncomfortable with conflicts and differences of opinion, that’s bad.
4. How much do women speak in the church, and how prominently are they featured in services?
There’s an infamous bit in the Bible that says women shouldn’t talk in church (Do women have to remain silent in church? | https://www.gotquestions.org/women-silent-church.html). You aren’t going to find a Western church that follows this direction perfectly because retardation, mostly. But you can judge them on an axis from better to worse. If the preacher is a woman, get out. If a woman is doing announcements for activities, that’s a red flag but not a deal breaker. If a woman is directing the choir, that’s probably okay.
5. How are the women dressed? Particularly, how are the young women dressed?
Female dress doesn’t need to be ugly but it does need to be conservative to the point that it’s a bit jarring. I’m not talking white sharia ninja garb (yet), but floor-length dresses and skirts with layered, concealing tops are ideal. Bonus points if they wear their hair up (the Bible says they’re supposed to cover it but nobody does that). If the old women are dressed conservatively but the young women are dressed in modern, provocative clothes that’s a bad sign because it means their fathers are weak men.
6. What are the age demographics? Racial demographics?
If there are a lot of very old people and few young people or none at all, then you can trust that it’s traditionalist but also full of weak men whose sons are nice liberals and whose granddaughters are whoring themselves out for weed and goodfeelz at university.
If there’s a reasonable number of young people (20-35), how many are married or engaged? Are they having children? If there’s a reasonable number of teenagers, how many are planning to go to a university vs. entering a trade, helping with a family business, or working at a local factor? If there’s a reasonable number of children, how many of them are well-behaved or appear to have Asperger’s?
If there’s a reasonable number of racial minorities, are they white-presenting? Do they dress like Europeans and appear to be trying to assimilate?