Quote:
Originally Posted by Terry
Awareness, my point is this all it would take is for Mel to be offended by Gene and that would equate to offending the body.
Hypothetically, suppose this locality had 200 attending on any given Lords Day. It doesn't matter that 199 had no offense with Gene.
Now why would it be a big mistake for Mel to have gone after Gene? Did that stir up some saints?
|
"Going after" someone is a big mistake. Period. End of discussion.
The very nature of the thing being discussed is outside the realm of acceptable Christian behavior. Not saying that it is outside the realm of human behavior, and that we, even as Christians, sometimes exhibit behavior that is truly human and not acceptably Christian.
But there is a process provided for this kind of disciplining. It starts with direct contact, not with "telling it to the church." Now it may be true that the church actually had no idea what they had just been told. But it was still an end-run around the process. It got the whole stirred-up in a way that would generate the desired result if and when there actually was something brought in front of them. They were now like tracking dogs waiting for that item of clothing to be brought to them so they could run out to corner the miscreant in a tree. awareness has the humility to accept that he might have been worthy of being tracked-down. But not Gene.
As for your definition of "offending the body," I must disagree. If the 199 are not offended, the body is not suddenly deemed offended just because one is offended. That is a misapplication of some kind of "unity of the body" theory or teaching. And maybe it was not your definition, but simply a description of what you thought Mel might have been thinking. But even if the one out of 200 is an elder, that does not automatically constitute "offending the body."