Quote:
Originally Posted by OBW
I separate this from the other because it would be entirely too long with it (as if it wasn't anyway).
I think that this still falls within the mud that is the assembly as opposed to the spiritual pure "body of Christ."
It is probably poor that the decisions were in closed session. I can agree with it being a mostly closed discussion to a point. But it eventually needs to be aired before it arrives at the spiritual equivalent of "it seems good to the Holy Spirit and to us . . ." and is codified. That does not mean that everyone will be on board if it is done right. But just because everyone is not on board is not proof that the decision is wrong. And if someone wants to make a stink about it, Paul was firm in a few cases to simply tell someone to get with the program (Peter, for one). Alternately they are free to attend somewhere else. It is part of the elders' job to maintain peace in the assembly. Someone who wants to make a stink is not making peace. If they will not cease, then the alternative is not to coddle them.
|
There was a challenge, but it was private meet with the "trustees", a request for information, and an attempt to communicate their concerns. No demands have been made. The meet was followed up in writing with scriptural support and concerns for the consequences of disobedience to God's word. Nothing public. The trustees reacted poorly to the one who told them the truth, so the stink is on them. Today, maybe 95% of the members have no idea what the trustees did. And it's not like the unmarried couple/s, living together are hiding. It's open, common knowledge... unmarried couple/s sitting together on the front row, taking communion. All in all, it seems that it's being handled in a more dignified manner by the membership than by the leadership.
Leaving the assembly is always an option, and they know this. No one is asking to be coddled. Several who meet there, not as members, are hesitant to join themselves to such a church. So at this point, things are outwardly pretty quiet. However, "quiet" is not the standard.
Quote:
Of course, it is impossible to layer what I just said over the example you just gave. Insufficient details. And I would admit that the front end was probably a little too secretive. But that does not mean their conclusion and position was simply wrong or to be argued about . . . or told off about it.
Complicated. And that is the reason that the church is not simply one big happy assembly. And it could be that God is very happy for the ability that the weak/strong in faith have to meet regularly where they are not distracted by problems that the other side would make for them.
Sure it would be best if there was a perfect way to define acceptable v unacceptable, meat v no meat; etc., but it is not there. And it would be ideal if we could all agree enough to meet together in one assembly no matter what we think about any of it. But as it is obvious that there are people who think differently about it, then if we are forced to have only one version, then what do we do about those who think so differently that they feel as if they don't belong. That feel like they have a need to leave and meet elsewhere? Then we have defined the LRC-equivalent of "nowhere else to go on with the Lord."
|
Some things are defined. It's not a matter of what we think, but what God thinks and has written in his Word. We're not talking about the eating of meat. Rather, sin in the camp.
Today's "church" is full of sin. Whereas, God is Holy. God is clean. God is righteous. The church leadership
isn't preaching God's Holiness, His Righteousness. The gospel of salvation, yes...maybe. But Jesus came to save his people from their sins and on this, the church is virtually silent. Today's church leaders are more concerned about numbers, financial contributions, and staying off the front page of the newspaper.
If the church was preaching what I'll call the "full gospel" it would be different. Regardless of all the good works, good sermons, etc., ultimately
what good is it?
The more important question to me is "How do we get from today's church to the Bride of Christ, who is without spot or wrinkle or any such thing...the church to which Jesus will return and claim as his Bride?" How? I just don't see it. What would have to happen? Has today's church gone so far down this path that...what...how does this work?
Nell