So whats the perfect church?
I reckon it would be the Salvation Army, with its heart for the poor and pensioner, and once again on-fire with the Gifts of the Holy Spirit.
Once the Salvos were more on fire and helpful to the street folks than todays pentecostals.

R0bert,

I can understand you're feelings for the AOG church. I spent over 10 years away from this group because I was sick and tired of the scandals you mention and well as making claims of miracles that could not be substantiated. My decision to return to the church was not one I took lightly, but as I recently moved, I needed to find a new church and the local AOG was the best group available. We are not hyper like many Pentecostal Churches. Our pastor has been in the ministry for over 20 years and is a man with maturity and doesn't accept a lot of the rot that goes on in other Pentecostal groups. Unfortunately, even within my own congregation there is some arrogance among members.

Gibo, I believe the Salvation Army means very well, and I have a great respect for their members, however I no longer support this group financially as I have seen the type of people they are supporting. I used to live in a suburb with a lot of people living on welfare. The Salvation Army would deliver food hampers to families already receiving plenty of welfare, and these families would enjoy their Christmas eating the food provided by the Salvo's while drinking the grog they bought out of their welfare payments.

What Christians can do Gibo, if they have financial means to do so, is take a Pensioner couple or single out to a nice cafe or restaurant for lunch. Make friends with underprivilaged families, and buying small gifts for their children at Christmas, Easter & birthdays. I have friends in these categories, and I get blessed simply by having the friendship.

Gibo,

You are not being very responsive to my actual comments. They relate strongly to your “anyway”. I think Robert addressed your "anyway" post quite nicely. I just hope you understand his point.

“Theres not much ceremony…”

So my experience suggesting it would be more correct to say “not as much ceremony as the Catholic Church” would be wrong? You don’t start off with a period of praise and worship (songs) for about the same time every week and then announcements, tithes and offerings, sermon, then alter call or prayer? Personally I consider that much ceremony to develop in one century (since it commenced in 1906). In the Catholic Church there is more but it took 9 centuries to develop (although admittedly a significant portion of the most ceremonial aspects developed earlier such as Nicene Creed in 325 and Lord’s prayer even earlier), language standardized in the middle ages, and then both language and ceremony changed again in about the 1960s.

A procession to the front with the Word of God held up and placed on a lecturn, a standard greeting, prayer, singing and scriptural readings. The priest introduces the gospel reading with “A reading from the Holy Gospel according to” and everyone else says “Glory to you Lord”. At the end of the gospel reading the priest says “This is the Gospel of the Lord” and everyone else says “Praise to you Lord Jesus Christ”, there is a sermon, passing round the plate, The Nicene Creed is recited, more prayers, a standard interaction “The Lord Be With You” “And also with you” etc., then “Holy Holy Holy Lord…”, more prayer including the Lord’s prayer, and taking communion. That’s about it.

“no Mother Mary worship”
prohibited by Catholicism.

“worship of so-called saints”
prohibited by Catholicism

“worship of idols”
If I read that as idolatry it depends on how broadly you interpret that:
http://www.christianitytoday.com/cl/2008/002/25.15.html
If you consider it as broadly as in the above article then it is probably a universal challenge.

Gibo, you have suprised me with that response. An interesting question and perhaps a good one for a new thread. We are obviously well off topic on this one.

I'm thinking about my response so what follows is just musings.

Given that I think the foundation of the christain church is false it's hard for me to answer directly.

Hypothetically if your god existed and the basic core teachings were true then one where believers actually lived as though they believed in eternity both joyful and terrible. A preacher with private jet's, expensive toilet fittings, BMW's etc does not really believe that they will live forever nor do they really believe that others will spend an eternity in hell.

The christian co-worker in the workplace obsessed with the latest christain band at their church does not really believe in those things either. The christain who lies or deceives to promote their faith does not really believe in an all knowing god who is truth.

A catholic monk or nun devoting their lives to the poor may do so (or it may be something else). Somehow I doubt that those who rise to power in a church where the leaders live in palaces, dress in ornate robes and have people kiss their rings much believe in those things either.

R0bert

Oliver,

The general situation was that the priest had made advances to alter boys and had tried to rape Mr Jones during a visit at the priest’s home where Goodall tried to rape him in bed after he didn’t ‘come across’ earlier in the evening when being fondled in the pool. Pell apparently wrote him two letters. The first one is contentious.

Funny how the human memory operates. I was listening to the stories on the ABC yesterday and the way I recalled it Mr Jones was 28 when Goodall tried to rape him rather than 29 and instead of Pell writing “no other victims had come forward” it was more like words to the effect “no one else has accused him of rape”. On the ABC the contentious issue appeared to be Pell’s using the term "sexual assault" for rape which reporters considered indefensible and unintelligible to anyone but lawyers. Funny because since high school I have always understood sexual assault to mean rape. If the Bishops shared my experience it wouldn’t be as clear cut as you suggest.