Quote:
Originally Posted by OBW
Nell,
If the person who "spoke up," even in private, laid out their scriptures, complete with scriptural warnings (according to their understanding) and consider it to be "the truth," as it appears that you do, then there does not appear to be a desire to discover truth, but to force their understanding upon others whose understanding is different.
Not a whole lot different than simply declaring that two or three descriptions concerning the segment of the universal church being named by the city in which it is found to be a rule concerning the name and nature of separate assemblies, or the fact that words have been translated in a certain way to be proof that women should or should not be second-class "citizens" of the church.
And you know exactly how a church should respond with respect to the particular issue why? Because you have more theological training than those that concluded differently?
What was the position towards an unmarried, cohabitating couple in general? Can't attend? Or just can't become official members. From a group of people who too often think of "official" membership as being a man-made construct.
Besides, what did Paul say about individual purity for singles? He wasn't mamby-pamby, but he didn't lay down a law like what he did concerning that one in Corinth. It was a more pastoral discussion. Just said they should marry. Didn't state it as three options: 1) avoid each other like the plague, 2) marry, or 3) get tossed from the church.
My point is not that the leaders of that church were clearly right. Rather that they are in a territory full of apparently contradictory positions. That the path forward is not simply remain with the dogmas of the past because they have been held for centuries. That is how we ended up with the patriarchal positions that are claimed to be so "right" because they have been held for centuries.
And when you come to the leadership with a well- rehearsed statement of position that is wrapped in allegedly biblical edicts about what will happen to you if you do not capitulate, then you have not attempted to seek truth or understand how they came to the opposite position. You are demanding retraction. It is an attempt at a coup.
Asking them to either cease that kind of discussion or go elsewhere is probably the right thing for the elders to do.
|
"IF" that's what happened...it didn't. As I said, no demands, no hostility, no coup, no "biblical edicts", no demands for capitulation ON EITHER SIDE. As I said, it was an attempt to communicate. The worst case scenario you described leaves no way for communication to occur between leadership and membership, short of hostility. I don't know how to solve every problem, but I do know where to start. Communication. God's Word, and a desire by all concerned to "hear" one another. Documentation is for the purpose of establishing every word as to accuracy because memories fade. The world revolves around documentation to clarify what was said. Is that a problem?
What you describe may have happened somewhere, but not in my example.
My point is: When Christians meet as the church the words of the Bible should mean something. Members of the Body of Christ should know that standard by hearing from a preacher and/or their own personal study. There is a biblical standard for resolving conflicts in the church. This should be followed but rarely is.
Quoting the Bible is like a lawyer citing case law or statutory law. The words aren't those of the lawyer, but the law. Don't shoot the lawyer.
And don't shoot the Christian who quotes the Bible.
This discussion has gone off topic.
Nell