Quote:
Originally Posted by Nell
The "board of trustees," for example, amends the church bylaws . . . . 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.
. . . .
One person who DID confront the "untrustees" were told to basically "sit down and shut up." That has a familiar ring, doesn't it?
. . . .
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.
|
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.
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."