A quote on Biblical Standards and church governance

[ALAYMAN]

The brief context here is those who would be divisive in church (particularly regarding an antinomian attitude about flaunting sin):

No one should expect to join a church (which after all involves a free decision) and then refuse to accept its authority.  For failing to attend a few meetings one can be thrown out of the rotary club.  For failing to live up to a particular dress code, one can be dismissed from most private clubs.  For failing to perform the required community service one can be thrown out of the Junior League.  Yet when the church imposes discipline, denying the benefits of membership to those who flaunt its standards, it is charged with everything short of fascism.  But shouldn't the church have at least the same right to set its standards as the rotary club?  People who don't like it should go elsewhere.  We weaken the church when we fail to discipline.

Thoughts?

 

[rsc2a]

1 - The church is God-ordained. Thereby, He gets to set the "membership standards" of which there is one: covered by the blood of Jesus. If you want to set membership standards, start your own club.

2 - One does not join a church. One is part of the church. An author I read stated it in a way that I thought was excellent. He said, when asked what religion he is, that his answer is "I am a Christian and I practices my faith in the ________ tradition."

3 - One should be committed to a local body of believers. There are expectations for that one so committed, but they are all spelled out in Scripture. There are also benefits, also spelled out in Scripture.

4 - "We weaken the church when we fail to discipline." - Absolutely 100%....with a ton of caveats.

 

[Just me]

The brief context here is those who would be divisive in church (particularly regarding an antinomian attitude about flaunting sin):

No one should expect to join a church (which after all involves a free decision) and then refuse to accept its authority.  For failing to attend a few meetings one can be thrown out of the rotary club.  For failing to live up to a particular dress code, one can be dismissed from most private clubs.  For failing to perform the required community service one can be thrown out of the Junior League.  Yet when the church imposes discipline, denying the benefits of membership to those who flaunt its standards, it is charged with everything short of fascism.  But shouldn't the church have at least the same right to set its standards as the rotary club?  People who don't like it should go elsewhere.  We weaken the church when we fail to discipline.

Thoughts?

Only one thought, clear minipulation.

 

[Ransom]

"the rotary club. . . . most private clubs. . . . the Junior League"

Someone in the church sure wants to imitate the world's standards instead of God's standards.

 

[BALAAM]

Correct me if I am wrong, but I don't see in the NT where a local church has governance over anyone. That is not what they were put there for IMO. The problem, as I see it, with a church holding sway over the parishioners is that there is not any 2 pastors who would agree totally on every standard and conviction. You can have a strong leader as a pastor who sways leadership into saying, 'This is what we believe and if you don't agree, leave.' A couple years down the road he leaves and another comes in who does not see it exactly the same. I have seen pastors change their direction within a couple of years of their ministries.


IFB's make far too much of their standards. When they speak of them it is usually not essential doctrines of the Bible or even defensible out of the Bible it is whatever kind of crowd the present pastor is hanging around with.

I just wasn't aware that the Rotary club and all other private clubs had what they believed to be an inspired Word of God that they based their codes and standards on.

 

[lnf]

aleshanee, I do know of a woman who left her previous church because the Pastor did just that...asked the members to sign an oath.  Not like I know a bunch about different churches, but I wouldn't think that is very common.  Frankly, we talked at length about it, because I was astonished!  I wanted to make sure I knew exactly what she was saying.

As far as asking a member to leave, well, aren't there biblical standards about unrepentant sin?  If I remember correctly, it seems to be more focused on withdrawing fellowship, not membership.  But I haven't really studied that, so I could be mistaken.

My opinion...the circumstances warranting expulsion should be extraordinary, certainly not something like dress codes or having a glass of wine at dinner. 

 

[Fresh Air]

The brief context here is those who would be divisive in church (particularly regarding an antinomian attitude about flaunting sin):

No one should expect to join a church (which after all involves a free decision) and then refuse to accept its authority.  For failing to attend a few meetings one can be thrown out of the rotary club.  For failing to live up to a particular dress code, one can be dismissed from most private clubs.  For failing to perform the required community service one can be thrown out of the Junior League.  Yet when the church imposes discipline, denying the benefits of membership to those who flaunt its standards, it is charged with everything short of fascism.  But shouldn't the church have at least the same right to set its standards as the rotary club?  People who don't like it should go elsewhere.  We weaken the church when we fail to discipline.

Thoughts?

I largely agree with his point while disagreeing a bit with his support. Membership has both privileges and responsibilities. If you won't fulfill the latter you shouldn't be able to avail yourself of the former. We live in a generation in which it is increasingly unpopular to require an actual commitment, and a generation which refuses to be held accountable. Well, if that's the kind of a church you want, there are hundreds to choose from in my city - but ours isn't one of 'em. But if you want to be a member of our church and flaunt your adultery on facebook, as one of our members recently did, don't be surprised when we kick you out. Not only do we have a (church) constitutional right to do so, we have a scriptural responsibility to do so as well.

We can argue about why and where to draw the lines. What we cannot argue is that lines shouldn't be drawn.

 

[ALAYMAN]

Correct me if I am wrong, but I don't see in the NT where a local church has governance over anyone.

What does this verse mean?

Heb 13:17  Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you.

i think the idea of discipline within a church should be viewed he same as discipline within a family.. . . a family does not become stronger by kicking out members who don;t conform any more than a person becomes stronger by cutting off parts of his own body.. ...  eventually he just becomes disabled.. . in my opinion so would the family.. and so would the church.. ...

How do these verses work out in this discussion...

1Co 5:1  It is reported commonly that there is fornication among you, and such fornication as is not so much as named among the Gentiles, that one should have his father's wife.
1Co 5:2  And ye are puffed up, and have not rather mourned, that he that hath done this deed might be taken away from among you.
1Co 5:3  For I verily, as absent in body, but present in spirit, have judged already, as though I were present, concerning him that hath so done this deed,
1Co 5:4  In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ,
1Co 5:5  To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.
1Co 5:6  Your glorying is not good. Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump?
1Co 5:7  Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us:

And what about the idea that Matthew 18 tells us to treat the unrepentant as publicans and sinners?

 

[ALAYMAN]

3 - One should be committed to a local body of believers. There are expectations for that one so committed, but they are all spelled out in Scripture.

What if those expectations ("standards") aren't interpreted by a given member the same way, and they decide to flout their practices in the face of fellow believers in the assembly, even to the point of stirring them up to practice the same?

I never read the above repeat thread to find out who said it,

Three things.  1) In this thread I was not asking folk to name the author of the quote.  2) The folk who answered that thread are no longer here, so a new crowd would find the question fresh, and it ain't as if no question has ever been regurgitated on here.  3)  I just heard the sermon this week (again apparently), and had no recollection whatsoever that the question had ever been asked.

....  but they are incorrect when they state that you are thrown out of Rotary for not attending a few meetings.  An attorney who rents office space at the CPA firm for which I work has not attended his Rotary meetings for years, and is still a (paying) members.  As long as his dues are paid, they do not harrass him about his attendance or lack thereof. 

One of the two CPA partners is an extremely active Rotary member, and never brings it up to him.  I guess he figures if the attorney wants to attend, he will show up.  If not, oh well. 

And so is it your opinion that all rotary club standards are the same as your experience, or is it that you believe there ought to be no standards of conduct and expectations for Christians to support the church?

 

[Castor Muscular]

 

[HeDied4U]

The brief context here is those who would be divisive in church (particularly regarding an antinomian attitude about flaunting sin):

No one should expect to join a church (which after all involves a free decision) and then refuse to accept its authority.  For failing to attend a few meetings one can be thrown out of the rotary club.  For failing to live up to a particular dress code, one can be dismissed from most private clubs.  For failing to perform the required community service one can be thrown out of the Junior League.  Yet when the church imposes discipline, denying the benefits of membership to those who flaunt its standards, it is charged with everything short of fascism.  But shouldn't the church have at least the same right to set its standards as the rotary club?  People who don't like it should go elsewhere.  We weaken the church when we fail to discipline.

Thoughts?

I largely agree with his point while disagreeing a bit with his support. Membership has both privileges and responsibilities. If you won't fulfill the latter you shouldn't be able to avail yourself of the former. We live in a generation in which it is increasingly unpopular to require an actual commitment, and a generation which refuses to be held accountable. Well, if that's the kind of a church you want, there are hundreds to choose from in my city - but ours isn't one of 'em. But if you want to be a member of our church and flaunt your adultery on facebook, as one of our members recently did, don't be surprised when we kick you out. Not only do we have a (church) constitutional right to do so, we have a scriptural responsibility to do so as well.

We can argue about why and where to draw the lines. What we cannot argue is that lines shouldn't be drawn.

Well said Tom!!

 

[Binaca Chugger]

Withdraw membership - fine.
Withdraw fellowship - in some cases.
Withdraw the opportunity for restitution - never.  A church should never tell an unrepentant sinner that they are not welcome or that they are never allowed to seek help from the pastoral staff.  The pastor may need to suggest to the membership that someone needs to be withdrawn from membership and it may be that one flaunting sin should not be the choice for dinner companions.  This is Scriptural.  However, the pastor of the flock should be willing to go pursue the lost sheep and never tell the lost sheep they are never again welcome in the fold.  He may ask the unrepentant to stay attendance, but when help is being sought and the pastor refuses - we have another problem altogether.

 

[rsc2a]

3 - One should be committed to a local body of believers. There are expectations for that one so committed, but they are all spelled out in Scripture.

What if those expectations ("standards") aren't interpreted by a given member the same way, and they decide to flout their practices in the face of fellow believers in the assembly, even to the point of stirring them up to practice the same?

The expectations are pretty clear for the most part...

...would you care to provide any examples?

 

[ThatGirl]

The church is not a club, or at least it shouldn't be.  The end. 

 

[ALAYMAN]

...would you care to provide any examples?

In the case of the reformed person (I'm sure you'll understand the implications ),  who was citing the quoted excerpt in the OP, willful and regular abandonment of the Lord's day.
Or you could think of it in terms of those who'd violate the church covenant by imbibing alcohol.
Maybe a person thinks that their spouse is no longer necessary and they'd like to cast them off so they can seek their true love in their lawfirm, so they begin divorce proceedings.
Could be that Sally and Stever are shacking up.

There's four, take your pick.  For which one(s) should the church acquiesce to the conscience of the member, and abandon their authority to discipline?

they don;t work out in this discussion... .. they are not even related to it... ... and i don;t think it;s fair to try and compare the sin at issue in those scriptures, with the minor infractions against club membership listed in your quote... ...in fact i think it;s a classic bait and switch.. ..  the writer you quoted mentioned missing meetings, failing to perform community service and failure to follow a dress code as grounds for being kicked out of a club...  then asked why churches shouldn;t have similar standards... .. the scriptures you listed concern a person in the church committing the sin of incest with his mother in law.. .. .hardly the same thing.. .. . one is an infraction of a rule set by men.. .. . the other is a grievious sin against God.. ..  ........ such a sin would destroy a family... and allowing an unrepentant partaker of such a sin to remain in the church would destroy the church.....  that;s not even worthy of comparison to a church allowing a family to stay whose son has long hair, who don;t show up for visitation, or who don;t come to every meeting every time the door is opened... ....i would say it;s an apples and oranges comparison, but even apples and oranges are more closely related than that... ...  .

now, if the writer in your quote had said "a member of the rotary club who is caught stealing from the treasury would be immediately kicked out..  and shouldn;t a church be able to do the same?".. i would have said by all means...  and not only that but have the offender arrested and thrown in jail.. ... 

The author of the quote is Chuck Colson, and related in a story by a non-fundy (yet conservative slightly puritanical reformed fellow Alistair Begg), so the use of the word "standards" probably should NOT be thought of in the same terms as that used in the Hyles-style vernacular (short hair on men, dresses on women, no CCM, etc)

Having delineated that, there are things in some church covenants and constitutions (ie, their "standards") that you and maybe I would disagree with, but if we join the ranks of such believers we are obliged to either show due respect to those things, or find a church that more closely matches our beliefs, wouldn't you agree?

and i know you weren;t asking me personally.... . but i believe hebrews 13:17 is one of the most abused and misused scriptures in the Bible .. especially by fundamentalists.. .. . .picked up and preached with a passion when it suits their purpose...  conveniently laid aside and forgotten when it doesn;t.... . and i think if the founding fathers of american, who claimed to have founded this country on christian principles, had been paying attention to hebrews 13:17, then we would still be a part of merry old england.....  ....  ............ just saying... . 

No doubt that many a Scriptures have been improperly abused, but in light of the nature of the question being considered via the OP, and with respect to this verse in Hebrews, does the spiritual leadership have ANY authority in the life of those in the congregation?  If so, what does such authority look like and how is it properly exercised?

Here is one the perspective of Albert Mohler, a southern Baptist leader....

Put simply, the abandonment of church discipline is linked to American Christianity

 

[rsc2a]

...would you care to provide any examples?

In the case of the reformed person (I'm sure you'll understand the implications ),  who was citing the quoted excerpt in the OP, willful and regular abandonment of the Lord's day.

This person already has left your fellowship. How can you hope to discipline said person?

[quote author=ALAYMAN]Or you could think of it in terms of those who'd violate the church covenant by imbibing alcohol.[/quote]

Is this standard in the church covenant based on Scripture? If so, can you please show me where? If not, see my first post.

[quote author=ALAYMAN]Maybe a person thinks that their spouse is no longer necessary and they'd like to cast them off so they can seek their true love in their lawfirm, so they begin divorce proceedings.[/quote]

I can easily point to the verses that clearly forbid this. I assume I don't need to provide them.

[quote author=ALAYMAN]Could be that Sally and Stever are shacking up.[/quote]

I can easily point to the verses that clearly forbid this. I assume I don't need to provide them.

[quote author=ALAYMAN]Having delineated that, there are things in some church covenants and constitutions (ie, their "standards") that you and maybe I would disagree with, but if we join the ranks of such believers we are obliged to either show due respect to those things, or find a church that more closely matches our beliefs, wouldn't you agree?[/quote]

Simple question.

Whose church is it: God's or some man's?

[quote author=ALAYMAN]No doubt that many a Scriptures have been improperly abused, but in light of the nature of the question being considered via the OP, and with respect to this verse in Hebrews, does the spiritual leadership have ANY authority in the life of those in the congregation?  If so, what does such authority look like and how is it properly exercised?[/quote]

Yes. And it looks like the leadership washing the feet of the members.

 

[BALAAM]

I don't deny that there is some truth on both sides of this argument. I, however, immediately get a picture of a puritanical town from early America where they would put a man in stocks who happened to violate one of their pet standards.

 

[Vandal]

I don't deny that there is some truth on both sides of this argument. I, however, immediately get a picture of a puritanical town from early America where they would put a man in stocks who happened to violate one of their pet standards.

Now don't go giving "the preechers" any ideas...

 

[Recovering IFB]

Or you could think of it in terms of those who'd violate the church covenant by imbibing alcohol.

I'll discuss this one with my lead pastor, next time we are having a cigar and bourbon. ;D

 

[ALAYMAN]

This person already has left your fellowship. How can you hope to discipline said person?

No, not abandoned altogether, but rather chooses to miss regularly.

Is this standard in the church covenant based on Scripture? If so, can you please show me where? If not, see my first post.

Yes, based in Scripture.  Many churches have the clause, particularly in the SBC, and it's based on inferences and such.  The point isn't that you disagree with their argument, the point is that the body is acting in accordance to what they believe Scripture teaches and their conscience.

I can easily point to the verses that clearly forbid this. I assume I don't need to provide them

Regarding divorce, it's possible that sophistry might be employed, and that the individual might make the argument that they have been "abandoned" because their spouse won't provide conjugal relations (I've heard similar arguments, right on this forum in the past).  And regarding the "shacking up" issue,  many people would make the argument that living together is equivalent to marriage so they shouldn't be forced to violate their conscience just because a preacher tells them to get a piece of paper, and that the conservative concept of marriage is not Biblical (just as you'd argue that alcoholic prohibition is not in Scripture).

Whose church is it: God's or some man's?

God, with a proper understanding that people covenant together to abide by a faith and practice yielded by following Scriptures, according to their consciences.  So, if a body has covenanted to certain "standards" then who are you to come in and tell them that they've got to agree with your interpretation?

Yes. And it looks like the leadership washing the feet of the members.

Church authority is equivalent and synonomous to foot washing?  Obey them that have rule over you means that if the member disagrees with the faith and practice of the ekklesia that they worship in that the leader needs to submit to their whims and wash their feet?  Really?