Quote:
Originally Posted by Igzy
John,
Thanks for posting. You might have saved yourself some typing by asking me to clarify myself. We tend to write in shorthand around here and I assumed readers would know the context of my statement.
The "healthy and biblical way" I was referring to was how generally evangelical churches relate to Christians teachers who do not regularly meet with the church, but may be invited to speak or teach, as opposed to how the LC does it.
In the LC, extra-church teachers--those associated with the Living Stream ministry and part of the so-called "work"--are afforded an overarching authority, though often unspoken, yet still quite powerful. By and large, LC local leaders feel compelled to receive these teachers if they say they are passing through, give them a platform, and obey them. In short, there is little filtering of what guest LSM teachers say and little freedom to question it.
In the case of non-LC evangelical churches, the local leaders have full say of whether any teacher is invited, and there is little thought that obedience to whatever the teacher says is expected. Audiences listen and evaluate for themselves. In the LC, basically you are expected to submit and obey.
I feel the latter is more biblical. If we can try apostles (Rev 2:2), we can certainly try the teachings of latter day teachers.
So, yes, my statement had a definite context. I wasn't meant to be universal. When I said most biblical, I meant in comparison to the way the LC does it. It's one of those things where if you experienced the abuse of extra-local authority in the LC you would more easily know what I meant.
BTW, my reference to submitting to one another was from Ephesians 5:21, not 1 Cor 14.
|
Igzy,
Here is another post that is somewhat lengthy. Please do not be concerned about my typing. I don’t mind it if it means that I might be able to get my point across.
I do not want to appear overly pedantic with this further response, but it appears to me that you have missed my main points. I am simply seeking the truth, which is why I’m evaluating the biblical support you offered. I am asking you to evaluate the statements about leaders and members that you made while you were comparing “Christianity” to the Local Church; I am
not asking about whether or not “Christianity” or the Local Church was better at inviting teachers to speak to churches and the expectations that accompanied those teachers and teachings. The statements I am questioning may not have been your main point, but I would like to have you take a look at the statements in the light of the verses you gave to support them.
Let me direct you to what I had hoped to be taken as the substance of my response to your post #64, which you did not fully address in your reply in post #74. To bring it into focus, here is what you wrote in post #64:
These churches are led by leaders who have the right and obligation to vet ministries for the sake of those they lead (Heb 13:17; Rev 2:2). Although members are charged to obey and submit to leaders, this charge is not absolute (Acts 5:29).
Here is my analysis of these statements along with questions to foster any clarification, comment, or retraction you might wish to make:
- Heb 13:17 does not give church leaders such a right and obligation. True or false?
- Rev 2:2 does not give only church leaders such a responsibility; the whole body has the responsibility. True or false?
- Acts 5:29 does not really address the matter of church members obeying and submitting to church leaders, does it?
It is somewhat of a stretch in my mind to use Acts 5:29, where the apostles did not submit to Jewish leaders in the Council (those in a different religion, if you will) to apply to Christian church leaders not having absolute sway over the members in their churches.
In your #74, you added this clarification:
BTW, my reference to submitting to one another was from Ephesians 5:21, not 1 Cor 14.
Would you refer me to where you referenced submitting to one another in your previous post, because I can’t find it? The way I read your #64, you stated that leaders had the right to vet and then followed that with members being “charged to obey and submit to leaders” (strong words), as if submission by church leaders to other members was not a possibility. Rather than support those statements, or retract or alter them with an explanatin, you simply replied that Ephesians 5:21 was your reference for submitting to one another, which I did not understand to be your original claim. Using this verse does not support your original presentation that featured a one-sided obedience and submission. By referencing this verse, are you letting me know that all church members are to maintain a state of being in which all in the church are subject to one another? Where do you stand in relation to your original presentation (or did I misunderstand your shorthand and context)?
Ephesians 5:21 is a great verse, and I think that it is important to use it appropriately because it introduces Paul’s discussion about the marriage relationship. This verse is often overlooked by husbands when they want to require obedience from their wives by quoting Ephesians 5:22 in isolation. Actually, Ephesians 5:21, in context, speaks of an attitude of submission by all parties rather than one person having a necessity to obey another:
And be not drunk with wine, in which is profligacy, but be filled full with spirit, speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and playing music in your hearts to the Lord, giving thanks always for all things, in the name of our Lord, Jesus Christ, to our God and Father, being subject to one another in the fear of Christ. (18–21, Concordant Literal)
I hope that we can agree that husbands should not be bullying their wives, demanding obedience, determining what they can read, vetting whom they can listen to, insisting on being the only one who gets to talk, etc. The marriage is to be a partnership, if you will. In the same way, if someone in a church actually does have the gift of leading, they should lead according to this portion in Ephesians, in an attitude of submission to all the members of the church—in the fear of Christ.
Because of the emphasis in your presentation (possibly unintended?), I brought up 1 Corinthians 14 because that passage depicts a meeting in which those who will, so to speak, can participate rather than a meeting in which a leader controls who gets to speak. This chapter stands in contrast to the way in which meetings are generally done in much of Christianity. I am happy that you brought up Ephesians 5:21, since it supports my view of how brothers and sisters in the church should relate to one another. This verse does not support, however, what is often the case in much of Christianity and is, I think, most noticeable in Christian meetings: an expected and accepted one-way obedience to leaders.
Can I get an amen to my comments (a retraction?) or some further clarification from you with appropriate verses if you still think that your presentation of leaders vetting who can speak and members being charged to obey those leaders (as long as it doesn’t offend their consciences) has biblical support? In my mind, you made statements in #64, claiming that they were biblical, and then used verses as references that don’t really support those statements. What do you think?