Women's Role

[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.

[Nell]

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

[OBW]

Sorry if it misunderstood. But when it comes to determining what the Bible says and what it means, it should be obvious that it is not always a simple thing. "In the day you eat thereof" they did not surely die. We had to think about that for a while and understand that instead the process of dying began. Or it was spiritually that we died.

And are we sure that it was a correct assumption that Adam and Eve would otherwise live forever, or just a vey long time?

You get the point. When you make statements like "The trustees reacted poorly to the one who told them the truth" it appears that the interpretation of the ones making the case is presumed correct. But is it really the truth? Are we sure? Just because we have read it that way for years, even centuries?

For example, who is Paul taking about when he comments on someone building with gold, sliver, precious stones, wood, hay, and stubble?

I had more, but I will leave it at that for now. I may have misunderstood what you meant, but you must admit that it was not entirely ridiculous to presume otherwise.

I would suggest that the church was much more tolerant in the beginning that it became over the centuries. That does not mean that the apparent softening in this day is consistent with where the church was at the beginning. But should we simply stick with the addendums of rules that we have added over the years? Should we be in the business of punishing and scolding, or in the business of beckoning and encouraging? Should we be busy trying to get it all right and forcing it on everyone else, or busy trying to live righteously. Both in personal righteousness and in the "love one another" acts of justice.

[Nell]

Originally Posted by OBW

Sorry if it misunderstood. But when it comes to determining what the Bible says and what it means, it should be obvious that it is not always a simple thing. "In the day you eat thereof" they did not surely die. We had to think about that for a while and understand that instead the process of dying began. Or it was spiritually that we died.

And are we sure that it was a correct assumption that Adam and Eve would otherwise live forever, or just a vey long time?

You get the point. When you make statements like "The trustees reacted poorly to the one who told them the truth" it appears that the interpretation of the ones making the case is presumed correct. But is it really the truth? Are we sure? Just because we have read it that way for years, even centuries?

For example, who is Paul taking about when he comments on someone building with gold, sliver, precious stones, wood, hay, and stubble?

I had more, but I will leave it at that for now. I may have misunderstood what you meant, but you must admit that it was not entirely ridiculous to presume otherwise.

These examples are valid for discussion, but not a matter of sin. They are not a matter I would take to the church leadership.

I would suggest that the church was much more tolerant in the beginning that it became over the centuries. That does not mean that the apparent softening in this day is consistent with where the church was at the beginning. But should we simply stick with the addendums of rules that we have added over the years? Should we be in the business of punishing and scolding, or in the business of beckoning and encouraging? Should we be busy trying to get it all right and forcing it on everyone else, or busy trying to live righteously. Both in personal righteousness and in the "love one another" acts of justice.

The organized church has never been the standard. The Bible was written to be the standard for the church, not the other way around. Christians are exhorted to obey the commands in the Bible. Whatever today's organized church is, or isn't, can't be the determining factor for what God has called the church.

Should we be busy trying to get it all right? Is that a bad idea?
and forcing it on everyone else? No.
Should we be in the business of punishing and scolding? No.
or in the business of beckoning and encouraging? Of course. Yes.
Live righteously? Certainly.

These are extremes (on the negative end), and not the only options for living as a Christian who cares for the truth as well as members of the Body of Christ. No Christian I know aspires to force, punishment and scolding as a way to communicate with other Christians.

You live your life, before the Lord, walking in His light, living righteously as best you can. When you fail, when you sin, confess and repent. With others, you love them, speak the truth in love, fellowship the Word, help them to walk in the light of the Word. Receive mutually from one another.

When the church leadership acts secretly about matters of concern to the Body, you say something to them...if the Lord leads.

Forcing, punishing, scolding...of course not. Yet, should we turn a blind eye to sin in the camp? Sometimes you need to tell someone something they don't want to hear. You can beckon and encourage them with something they don't want to hear. You can love them enough to tell them the truth (see the 10 Commandments).

Speak the truth in love, and here is the truth to which I refer:
1. You shall have no other gods before Me.
2. You shall not make idols.
3. You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain.
4. Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. (Old testament)
5. Honor your father and your mother.
6. You shall not murder.
7. You shall not commit adultery.
8. You shall not steal.
9. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
10.You shall not covet (your neighbor's wife)

Some of these are preached: murder, stealing, lying. People need to hear them all.

Nell

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Nell

These examples are valid for discussion, but not a matter of sin. They are not a matter I would take to the church leadership.

Similar to a recent comment to Evangelical, you are looking at the details of the thing provided to find a comparative level of sin when I am pointing to the very purpose of various passages of scripture to which we point for particular direction. Are the passages that we point to intended to purge people from the assembly for their violations, or to challenge the persons within the assembly. Even where Paul lists some pretty significant moral failings to be later followed by positives (sometimes referred to as fruits of the Spirit), he does not (that I can recall) declare that those that may still have issues with any particular one of them should be cast from the assembly.

It is true that there are many things that are specifically mentioned in drawing bright lines between righteousness and unrighteousness. Yet we all still find ourselves on the unrighteous side of things in some things at least on occasion. Do we really believe that the fact of failing at something, even being able to legitimately call it a "besetting sin," means that we should be excluded from the assembly? Always and without fail (in other words we just do it without consideration)? And if we think that we should, do we simply presume that if they are specifically listed then we must do something about them, and if they are not, they are "OK"? Then how do you deal with gluttony or drunkenness. They are on at least some of the lists. Every fat person should be tossed. Anyone who is ever drunk should be tossed.

The only example in the NT was of someone who was engaged in sexual sin that was not even tolerated by the heathen/pagans. That means that allowing such a sin in the open was a diminished testimony to the outsiders with respect to the church. While there is something to be said for having a better testimony than the world on things, remember that it is effectively lost on them to the extent that they don't think it is something of importance. They note the cheats in the marketplace. They notice the cons and swindlers. They notice the violent predators (murders and others). But they don't care if it is not on their list. Having a more stringent list is not important to them.

Don't think that I am saying that the Christian standard should not be higher, or allowing the world's standards to be ours. But in terms of getting us from darkness to light, then to sanctification, it is not a flash in the pan. It takes time.

Therefore with respect to the assembly (not the fully-grown body of Christ that is ready to rule and reign in the New J) if we do not allow for sinners, we simply rely on cutting everyone off for them to grow. To find the answers in the Bible on their own. That is what tossing them does. Note that in all of the NT, there is only one case of someone being tossed. It was for a very specific sin that was recognized as such by the entire world. And when the sin ceased, he was allowed back in. That was for the testimony in front of the world as much as anything else.

But once you don't have that particular stigma (sin in the world's eyes) how do you draw the line? If I think your should understand it as sin and just stop, then that's it.

We are not talking about the nature of the body of Christ. Or the true universal church. We are talking about who is allowed to come an worship and learn.

Getting too picky about who should be allowed makes for an interesting altar call. We'll assume that you allow any kind of heathen in the door. At least for a while. But when they finally respond to that Baptist-like altar call and pray that prayer and declare their belief in Jesus, before they get away from the altar, we should then hand them a list of no-nos. Point out that we know that they are already violating two or three of them. Then let them know that now that they are in, they can only keep coming in if they just stop those right now. If we find out they are not obeying, they are out.

Funny that for all the grotesque things described related to certain churches as contained in those letters in Revelation, they had some pretty severe problems going on there. And no one was excommunicated. And no lampstands were removed.

Say your wayward couple gets married. Then 5 years later, they divorce. Are we excluding them from the assembly after the divorce? If not, other than a temporary legal status, how do you differentiate between them and another couple that lives together faithfully for 10 years then splits? I understand the arguments for the claim of a more complete commitment if it is legally binding. But if it is about having a wedding ceremony, that does not always happen anyway.

I am not advocating for the practice. But when it comes to how we view the people and treat them, what is the sin? Is it part of the 10 commandments? Actually, I do not believe it is. Is it the more generic "fornication"? It might be. But that is a sin with somewhat vague definition.

What is their status before God? One verse declares that a man who simply has one encounter with a prostitute is "one flesh with her." If this couple is consistently together like a husband and wife would be, are we sure that they are not married in God's eyes even if the law allows them split more easily than a "legally" married couple?

Again, I am not trying to just allow everything. But there is a difference between what we hold to for our own purposes, and what we insist upon for others within the context of a group of sinners (we all are sinners) that are on a pathway to sanctification, not a magical transformation into sanctification.

So, are we sure that in the context of the assembly, there is a clear in/out with respect to the sin that has started this particular bit of exchange.

I agree that the elders have a responsibility to make a decision as to how they feel to act on the situation. And we may not agree with the decision that they came to. I actually think that they should have probably made a more uniform decision one way or the other. One decision with a "grandfathering" contrary to it is really pretty poor. But when you are sure that you have the "truth" about what they should have done, I suggest that the "truth" is not so simple. It is not just that something that is sin and is named on a list should be excluded. The one stated example of exclusion was for something much more severe. And some pretty sever sins that are actually on some lists did not get a stated exclusion.

So I would suggest that an Acts 15 council is not unreasonable. And while we might like to say that everyone should have a say, or get to help make the decision, there is no evidence that just anyone was able to speak at that meeting, or that more than the leadership stepped aside to pray and consider how to rule.

Did this particular assembly do that? Maybe. Even if done privately it could qualify. I did not say "does qualify." I really can't say. And neither can you. But at the same time, if you feel that they should have ruled differently and don't think you can meet under those circumstances, then it is upon you to separate and meet elsewhere. And do so without spreading rumors and hearsay about how poorly they decided. (Not saying anything about you personally.)

Where I meet/attend is just a few blocks from a UMC assembly that has specifically been intentional about allowing gays. Now I do not know everything about the UMC's official position, or this particular assemblies following of it or altering of it, so I cannot comment in detail. But if we presume that our position toward people who have an attraction toward the same sex rather than for the opposite should simply be to exclude them, then how do you expect to ever hope to gain their faith in Christ and possibly their rejection of sin? And even though they may live an entire life with that attraction, is that sufficient to exclude them? Or does it require actual homosexual acts? Does living under the same roof without those acts qualify as something to exclude? Does admitting that you have the attraction result in exclusion? Do we presume that living all of life with the attraction cannot be someone's "thorn in the flesh"?

And do we consider an occasional lapse to be grounds for exclusion?

I do not have the answers. And I do not attend that assembly. But they are church. They are not just a country club that has tax-deductible dues. Do I think that everything they teach is entirely correct? Probably not. Even on other things. (For one, they are of Arminian theology, and while I do not think that it is entirely incorrect, as taught it seems beyond the scope of what I read in the Bible.) And the RCC that I pass about a mile before I get to the assembly I attend is also church. As are the Baptists, the Presbyterians, Pentecostals (even those of oneness theology), Anglicans, Lutherans, etc.

When you speak of the church from God's perspective, you are ignoring that it is also the assembly of the broken and the curious. Those are not the same use of the word. They are two sets with significant overlap. But not complete overlap. It is difficult to achieve the mission of the church here on earth if we are so forcefully pure that we mess-up the mission trying to appear perfect.

Preach about what is sin. Help even the really good among us realize where they still fall short. The parts of a sermon that get people to thinking about repentance should not just be aimed at the unbelievers and seriously backslidden. We all need to have those little questions put to us that make us realize that we are still not there. Not perfect. Still in need of that part of the prayer where we say "Forgive us our trespasses . . . ."

[Nell]

Originally Posted by OBW

Preach about what is sin. Help even the really good among us realize where they still fall short. The parts of a sermon that get people to thinking about repentance should not just be aimed at the unbelievers and seriously backslidden. We all need to have those little questions put to us that make us realize that we are still not there. Not perfect. Still in need of that part of the prayer where we say "Forgive us our trespasses . . . ."

I believe I said that already.

Your waaaaaaa tooooo loooooooong post seems to take the same position in more of the same words than I have time to address. I will confess that I did not spend a lot of time with what has turned into a mini-series. I apologize that I cannot continue a discussion that appears to be at a stalemate. We are not that far apart.

Sorry. I know you spent a lot of time with your post and I apologize for being unable to give it due consideration. My mind is made up and so is yours so we should leave it there. Thank you for the dialogue. (We're off topic to boot.)

Nell

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Nell

My mind is made up and so is yours so we should leave it there. Thank you for the dialogue. (We're off topic to boot.)

And that is why I kept at it. My mind is only made up to be open when it comes to the earthly working of the church (assembly) and how we interact with people of all kinds, both Christian and non-Christian. Having your mind made up (closed) is how an Acts 15 council will never again happen. We're smarter than they were and do not need to think about it.

But I agree. If your mind is closed, then we are done.