Women's Role

[Nell]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Why would anyone want to be a leader then?

A leader of what? Ambiguity aside, I can only speculate that you mean "be a leader" in the church. Not everyone desires to be a church leader anyway.

Christ is the head. We are the body. Why not let him lead his church as he sees fit?
.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Nell

A leader of what? Ambiguity aside, I can only speculate that you mean "be a leader" in the church. Not everyone desires to be a church leader anyway.

Christ is the head. We are the body. Why not let him lead his church as he sees fit?

It sounds good. And spiritual. But how he leads is generally through people. Therefore human leaders are and will be. The problem is not leaders. It is those who take the position that should not.

[Nell]

Originally Posted by OBW

It sounds good. And spiritual. But how he leads is generally through people. Therefore human leaders are and will be. The problem is not leaders. It is those who take the position that should not.

i.e. those who usurp his headship. And I believe it is a spiritual problem...a spiritual battle. There are 2 "churches": what man calls "church" and what God calls "church".

I just can't see that the church for which he died has a whole lot to do with the current situation. Of course, to the extent that the members are true believers, yes. To the organization, structure, and leadership in a group dynamic, I see men in charge.

The pattern in the Word is that of a family, with our Heavenly Father and our brother. We are members one of another; all men know that you are my disciples...love one for another.

The converse is a staff of pastors and a board of directors who establish guidelines which often give lip service to obedience to God's Word. This goes far beyond those who shouldn't be in a position of leadership. Expectations in most churches today is that the members would attend a service and everything will be done for them, with no expectation of personal responsibility. This pattern is perpetuated and enabled in the man-made church where politics, membership and finanacial contributions are in the forefront.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Nell

i.e. those who usurp his headship. And I believe it is a spiritual problem...a spiritual battle. There are 2 "churches": what man calls "church" and what God calls "church".

And yet, the Bible is full of references to things within what is labeled as the church that are not entirely what would be if it was all just wonderfully lead directly by Christ.

It is a spiritual battle. And at times the battle, while not with flesh and blood, will include issues with flesh and blood. And it happens within the church.

What you point to in your "2 churches" comment is the fact that the word is used to label two sets (in the mathematical sense) that have significant overlap. And since they are both referred in the Bible as "church," then it is hard to declare that God only calls one of them "church." He is the inspiration behind it all. Not just the parts that talk about the universal church, the body of Christ.

First, there is the church, the body of Christ. No matter how poor we are individually with respect to each other, that is the true, spiritual church.

But second, there is the meeting which will only be nice and neat if we exclude unbelievers and those of different opinions from joining in. And if we exclude unbelievers from meeting, then we take away at least part of the process by which they might come to believe. In the more modern Baptist sense, you can't have an altar call if you have excluded the unsaved from your meeting.

And even if those who have different opinions meet separately, they are each "church" in the sense that they are assemblies of believers (or primarily so, taking the previous discussion into account). But the view from the throne is of one church, the body of Christ, that is meeting in two places. And meeting in two places is not a problem in itself. We will, in the area in which I live, meet in a significant number of places no matter how much we agree or disagree concerning all those side issues.

And if side issues are not the definer of salvation and of "church," then it is all church.

[Nell]

Originally Posted by OBW

And yet, the Bible is full of references to things within what is labeled as the church that are not entirely what would be if it was all just wonderfully lead directly by Christ.

It is a spiritual battle. And at times the battle, while not with flesh and blood, will include issues with flesh and blood. And it happens within the church.

What you point to in your "2 churches" comment is the fact that the word is used to label two sets (in the mathematical sense) that have significant overlap. And since they are both referred in the Bible as "church," then it is hard to declare that God only calls one of them "church." He is the inspiration behind it all. Not just the parts that talk about the universal church, the body of Christ.

First, there is the church, the body of Christ. No matter how poor we are individually with respect to each other, that is the true, spiritual church.

But second, there is the meeting which will only be nice and neat if we exclude unbelievers and those of different opinions from joining in. And if we exclude unbelievers from meeting, then we take away at least part of the process by which they might come to believe. In the more modern Baptist sense, you can't have an altar call if you have excluded the unsaved from your meeting.

And even if those who have different opinions meet separately, they are each "church" in the sense that they are assemblies of believers (or primarily so, taking the previous discussion into account). But the view from the throne is of one church, the body of Christ, that is meeting in two places. And meeting in two places is not a problem in itself. We will, in the area in which I live, meet in a significant number of places no matter how much we agree or disagree concerning all those side issues.

And if side issues are not the definer of salvation and of "church," then it is all church.

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

[OBW]

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.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by OBW

You example of an unmarried couple living together is a classic example.

For example, if we are talking about a couple that is openly living together but wanting to be fully accepted into the fellowship.

And there will be assemblies that are more on the side of accepting believers in more cases despite "certain" sins than other assemblies.

Where is the line for exclusion?

In my LC's, we attempted to practice both inclusion and exclusion.

We would allow most anyone to meet with us if they desired. That would include behaving drunks and gays.

If there was some open sin, like living together without the marriage commitment, we would ask them not to partake the bread and wine at the Lord's Supper. We would also fellowship with them the importance of marriage.

Occasionally, we had some unruly ones, and they were "marked out" by the elders asking them not to speak in the meetings.

[OBW]

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."

[Nell]

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.

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

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Nell

The converse is a staff of pastors and a board of directors who establish guidelines which often give lip service to obedience to God's Word.

I prolly shouldn't butt in here but I should point out that God's Word is 66 books, all written by men ; Jewish men at that, that were highly patriarchal ; that depict God as a male, that attribute the fall out of paradise as the woman's' fault (I Tim 2:14, said to be written by a never married male) -, and even only has male angels -- get that ... no female angels in the Bible ... why's that?

So sticking to God's Word would likely result in the suppression of females.

In churches I've been in, 'where women are to remain silent,' they just ignore the verse that says "in Christ there's no male or female."

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Nell

A leader of what? Ambiguity aside, I can only speculate that you mean "be a leader" in the church. Not everyone desires to be a church leader anyway.

Christ is the head. We are the body. Why not let him lead his church as he sees fit?
.

I agree. Lets let Christ lead and appoint anyone He chooses to oversee.