Quote:
Originally Posted by Nell
Point taken. Differing opinions will always be a factor, so it depends on which opinions and how extreme.
The "board of trustees," for example, amends the church bylaws to deny future membership to unmarried couples living together. However, any unmarried couple living together who are already members retain their membership as being "grandfathered in". This is a real life example. To make matters worse, said bylaws were amended behind closed doors without publishing the changes to the church. If you didn't read the bylaws after every trustee meeting, you would never know about such changes.
Many such blatant examples can be sited where the "bylaws" take precedence over the Bible.
One person who DID confront the "untrustees" were told to basically "sit down and shut up." That has a familiar ring, doesn't it?
So where does this leave the unbelievers who come to hear the gospel being preached? Is this the gospel of Jesus Christ who came to save his people from their sins, or another gospel?
The next stage is "Oh well. Nobody's perfect. We just do what we can to work around the spots and wrinkles." It seems that this is the compromised condition of the church (composit 2 churches) today. In today's political climate there would be war against Christians who stand as the church for the truth of the Bible. This war would be worse than it already is today.
How do you dig out of this mess? Leave? Stay, stand and speak the truth? The Bible hasn't changed. You have to start somewhere. Who is going to start? The leadership has failed the members and try to hide their failures. The leaders failed to obey God's word. Members who stand up and speak are shut down. Doesn't say much for Christian leaders does it? But we knew that.
Nell
|
I understand your frustration with how churches (assemblies) carry out their function as the body of Christ.
You example of an unmarried couple living together is a classic example. And one that is probably never simply allowed (at least "grandfathered" as you mention) but is not as simple as "just exclude." For example, if we are talking about a couple that is openly living together but wanting to be fully accepted into the fellowship, my understanding would be that there is a sound basis for some kind of action like Paul did with respect to the man in 1 Corinthians. Yet at the same time, it was noted in that case that his sin was not only contrary to the norms of the correct spiritual understanding of God's righteousness, but also even not acceptable among pagan or heathen culture.
That adds some mud to the analysis. Does that mean that it is the fact that even the heathen consider it not acceptable, therefore the outward testimony of the church is damaged, whereas, other than among church members or different assemblies, they might disagree, but the average unbeliever in the city would think it quite OK. Does that make a difference?
I am not trying to say one way or another. I am just pointing out the questions that an assembly must answer for itself since it is not simply answered for them in black and white.
And there will be assemblies that are more on the side of accepting believers in more cases despite "certain" sins than other assemblies. I mean, we know who it is that tears out of the church parking lot each week at 2 times the speed limit, yet ignore that it is a sin against the laws of the land, and therefore problematic with respect to God's righteousness. But we don't excommunicate him/her. Or take them aside to give them a stern talking to. Or . . . . But we are quick to take the couple living together aside. Or excommunicate them. Or . . . . Where is the line between accepting that we are none of us free of sin. Even sin that we know we have before we commit it again. Where is the line for exclusion?
Please note that I am attending, and happily so, an assembly that would not accept an unmarried couple living together as a member, or would probably take action if it was simply open knowledge with no signs of acting to stop. But not all will take that approach.
I know of a conservative local assembly that does some couples counseling for those seeking to be married at that church. They insist that the couples not be living together, though they do not take any effort to prove to themselves that they are not. If I understand their stance correctly, they would not perform the ceremony or allow it to occur in their church if they are living together. On one hand I somewhat applaud them for having some standards. But on the other hand, I would think that helping them take steps to be married if they are actually living together is also a spiritually positive position that they do not take.
In other words, the whole question of how to include or exclude is not as simple as defining a line on the sin bar. (sort of like the "line on the color bar" in the song "That's Just the Way it Is")
And so the question seems to be what is the purpose of the church? If it is just for the attendance and worship activities of the redeemed who are currently abiding by all the rules that we can lay down with some certainty from the Bible, then it is easy. If the idea is to be a place for the advancement from barely saved to fully sanctified, then there has to be some level of acceptance of sin in the people as long as it is not sin in the church. (And just because they are in the church is not "sin in the church" as I am intending it. More like a full acceptance of something that is fully unacceptable. Like some of the poorly-defined things that that woman, Jezebel, had brought into one of the churches in Revelation.)
So your question about when to leave is probably answered (by me or in my opinion) when the sin is not just failing to live up to God's righteousness, but when the sin is either what society also would abhor, or is against God — like true idolatry or blasphemy. Now I probably actually stand closer to "just failing to live up to God's righteousness" than the other as a position on this, but I think I see reason to be less critical of those who allow for more as long as they do not arrive at acts orchestrated by a Jezebel.
And you need to live according to what you believe Christ is requiring of you. If you feel compelled to worship where there is less likelihood of certain kinds of sins being present among the congregation, then you probably should take steps in that direction.
This may be at least partly like Paul's discussion about those with stronger or weaker faith. His point there was not so much to encourage everyone to be stronger in faith, but rather to allow for those whose faith is not the same as ours in particular things, whether we think of ourselves as the stronger or weaker in the circumstances.
And while I talk a good talk for those that would argue to have "stronger faith," I am not sure that I am there. Just able to allow for them better than I used to be.