Women's Role

[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.

[Nell]

Originally Posted by OBW

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.

I never said my mind was "closed" and I cannot leave your final word as accurate. "Closed" is your word...not mine. That is a misrepresentation. I have made up my mind and have no reason to change my mind based on our conversation. I believe the earthly working/s of today's church have created a mess to the extent that in some cases scripture is relegated to a place less than authoritative and more akin to a "good idea." I'm not attributing this position to you but it is what I can see going on today.

Luke 17:3 Watch yourselves! If your brother sins, rebuke him. If he repents, forgive him.

Leviticus 19:17 Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thine heart: thou shalt in any wise rebuke thy neighbour, and not suffer sin upon him.

Luke 17:3 and Leviticus 19:17 seem as clear as "thou shalt not commit adultery." This truth should be spoken to the people. I don't mean to beat people over the head with it, which you again seem to misinterpret my position. According to Leviticus 17, rebuking a brother in sin is to love him. (Parents rebuke their children because they love them.)

So, as to "how we interact with people of all kinds, both Christian and non-Christian" the Word is clear about this too, as you have presented and I have agreed. John 15:13 Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.

In fact, the example assembly I cited, the pastor spoke very recently from I Cor. presenting what the Word says on sexual sin in the church. I believe this is the best approach. Present what the Bible says, and then you have a choice to make. You make up your own mind by the enlightenment and conviction of the Holy Spirit. He didn't give an ultimatum. To me it's not about what the church is going to do, but what are YOU, the sinning brother/couple going to do? This service ended with the taking of communion.

The Word applies to all. Me included.

Nell

[OBW]

It seems a bit of semantics, but I will take your word for it.

As for you comment on adultery, I do not understand that as being the sin undertaken by an unmarried couple. Not saying it should simply be ignored, especially if it is openly stated as potentially temporary and transitory — as opposed to effectively permanent despite the lack of government certification or church ceremony.

I do not disagree that there are places where the church has some responsibility to call its own with respect to sin. The question is which sin. And in an environment in which the whole of the participants are not necessarily Christian, it becomes even more interesting. I understand that you don't just let sin remain. But in the era of the writing of the law on the hearts and the understanding that sin does not simply cease (as a whole), it is not as simple as telling everyone who does something you think is a sin (even if you know it is a sin) to stop it because it is sin or get out. Or writing bylaws to define every sin that everyone thinks is "one of those sins."

But we disagree, so that can be that.