Thoughts on church worldliness and "relevance"

[rsc2a]

Seems like today's Christians have a hard time determining what is wordly and what isn't.

*snicker*

[quote author=jimmudcatgrant]Friendship with the word is enmity with God.  But anything goes in today's Chrisitanity, it seems.  There is no way that Jesus would use an ungodly rock song in a worship service, imo.  Just because a lot of wordly people think it is ok doesn't make it so.[/quote]

See the bolded part? In other words, Scripture doesn't clearly forbid it.

[quote author=jimmudcatgrant]Paul tells us in Romans 12 that we are not to be conformed to this world system, but today's Christianity wants to embrace it with both arms wide open.  Psalm 1 warns against the dangers of embracing this sinful world system.[/quote]

Care to define that?

(Hint: Music, clothing style and food choice shouldn't enter that definition.)

[quote author=jimmudcatgrant]There is gonna be a rude awakening for a lot of so-called Christians, I am afraid.  Call me old-fashioned, I don't care.[/quote]

You're so old-fashioned. 

[quote author=jimmudcatgrant]Did Jesus associate with sinners?  Yes, he loved them and reached out to them, but he didn't join them in their sin.  He told the woman taken in adultery to go and sin no more, and he certainly didn't celebrate her adultery, or promote her lifestyle.  I can't believe some of the blasphemous things people advocate nowadays.[/quote]

He joined them enough where He was accused of being a drunkard and a glutton, yet He was still without sin. He was very much "in the world" without being "of the world". (Once you correctly define "this world system", you'll understand how He could do many of the very same things others were doing, yet not sinning in the doing of said things.)

 

[ALAYMAN]

[quote author=rsc2a]Not the question. You are arguing against the idea that "everything a person does in private worship is valid for celebration in public worship".  Your attempt at reductio ad absurdum failed[/quote]

I am arguing that there are appropriate venues for modes of worship.  Further, within that framework, and following the line of reasoning that brought us to this part of the discussion, I'd argue that the subjectivity of art (ie, Star Wars, Harry Potter, interprative dance, etc)  within the corporate assembly makes such means of communication suspect, if not fatally flawed.

Ah! But everyone attending is a baptized believer in Christ, and we were an assembly. Still haven't shown how we weren't doing "church" in my living room.

LOL!  Well, that's at least the trifecta of anti-reformed thought that you've nailed.  The local church is predicated on the precepts of "preaching, ordinances/sacraments, and discipline", but you think that merely because members of a church get together that they've met the definition and model of a NT ekklesia.  Please, for the love of all God-fearing and sincere reformed believers, quit posing as something that you clearly are NOT.

Several pastors. I count at least four husbands and three fathers.

So every father and husband is a "pastor"/"elder"/"bishop" of their own little local church?

Was the word preached? Of course...do you know what a Seder is?

I know I am adopted into Abraham's family, and the passover is a vestige of the Jewish religion, which many Jews find offensive for Christians to mimic in their attempt at religiosity.

If this is your gripe, I hope you never use familial relationships as analogies to describe our relationship with our Father/Husband/Brother. I also hope you never use parable. (Again, Jesus must have gotten in wrong.)

A distraction and detraction by definition would have the purposes of being a be all and end all pursuit, whereas music (or any communication within the framework of the ekklesia) ought to be about channeling the mind (Romans 12) for the purpose of worship.

So it's based on a purely subjective measure? In particular, your purely subjective measure.

Well, duh, no, not according to my usage or the OPs usage.  To entertain/distract/amuse clearly has the understanding of taking the mind to some place other than communion with Christ.

Now there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit; and there are varieties of service, but the same Lord; and there are varieties of activities, but it is the same God who empowers them all in everyone. To each is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good. For to one is given through the Spirit the utterance of wisdom, and to another the utterance of knowledge according to the same Spirit, to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by the one Spirit, to another the working of miracles, to another prophecy, to another the ability to distinguish between spirits, to another various kinds of tongues, to another the interpretation of tongues. All these are empowered by one and the same Spirit, who apportions to each one individually as he wills...

...Now you are the body of Christ and individually members of it. And God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healing, helping, administrating, and various kinds of tongues. Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? Do all possess gifts of healing? Do all speak with tongues? Do all interpret? But earnestly desire the higher gifts....

...What then, brothers? When you come together, each one has a hymn, a lesson, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation. Let all things be done for building up. If any speak in a tongue, let there be only two or at most three, and each in turn, and let someone interpret. But if there is no one to interpret, let each of them keep silent in church and speak to himself and to God. Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others weigh what is said. If a revelation is made to another sitting there, let the first be silent. For you can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and all be encouraged, and the spirits of prophets are subject to prophets. For God is not a God of confusion but of peace.

Good for you that you can quote Scripture (albeit the wrong version).  So do Jehovah's wintesses.  If you have a point that you'd like to address then articulate it in complete and coherent thoughts that are pertinent to the discussion about NT models of worship and seeker-sensitive paradigms. 

Just taking a guess at part of the theme you're alluding to, that being tongues, I'd say that the regulative principle is in view for sure.  Paul said that if an unbeliever comes into the assembly that the over-arching and guiding principle isn't that they forge some bond with them, or be ostentatious in their gifts, but rather that they plainly and clearly speak with intelligibility the essence of the redemption by Christ.

- I am not a fan of two sentence excerpts followed by "...".
- As your article stated (did you read it?), To be fair, D.A. Carson does not specifically call out the Seeker-Sensitive church model by name.
- The first excerpt could apply to any number of churches including anti-SS, fundamentalist churches.
- The first excerpt is also correct. Either/or is stupid in this case. Both/and would be the correct methodology.
- Regarding the second excerpt, "philosophies and values of the world" is very squirrelly language. A two-sentence snippet doesn't provide any context so the excerpt is useless.

Well, Carson wrote a whole book about engaging the emergents a good bit of  it detailing what's wrong with the emergent church philosophy, is honestly a bona fide reformed theologian, and squarely against dumbing down Scripture in the process of evangelizing, but believe what you will.  Regardless of what you think his stance is, the OP author couldn't have been more clear about his opposition to worldly approaches found in some of the SS movement....

And so, our worship is unique. Our music is unique. Our commitment to the study of the Word of God is unique. Our desire is to please the Lord, not ourselves. It is all very Christocentric. And, quite frankly, it is not something for which we need to apologize. It is the essence of authenticity

 

[ALAYMAN]

The article was saying there should be a balance, the very thing you are against.

...which explains why he lobbed off the article, giving us the impression that the author was a sterile, shallow, stilted person.

Also, you know skits tell stories, right?  :

And can be used for a perfect lead-in to a sermon! Our favorite church, so far, was one in the upper part of lower Michigan. (Hopefully Alayman can understand that.) A band, which was awesome for the singing aspect of the service, did a cool skit based off a classic rock song (oops! lost Alayman) and it tied in BEAUTIFULLY with the sermon which was very good!

Alayman needs to get out of his shallow existence and visit other churches! NOT just independent, fundamental, baptist churches.

I literally laughed out loud at this.  Just this past Sunday me and my wife, along with another couple, used a "skit" in the adult worship service to illustrate a truth about evangilizing.  But you keep up your erroneous and ignorant presumptions, you're good at it.

 

[ALAYMAN]

[quote author=themagneticfields]I'm not sure what you're getting at. Does your local church body not occasionally have unsaved in attendance or do you restrict attendance to only believers? Does your local church body not occasionally give an evangelistic call?[/quote]

Yes, no. Yes

Vintage believes only Christians can be members, but all (seekers, doubters, followers) are welcome to attend and observe.

Yes, as do we believe that all are welcome (assuming they aren't disruptive) too, but we don't present invitations to our service in a way that sublimates the propositional and unequivocal truth that Christ is revealed in the word, and we tell them that is our purpose for meeting.

In the example of Lydia we see her going where people would gather to pray and that is where Paul met her and she was converted.

Going to meet with people in an evangelistic endeavor is a different dynamic, with a different purpose, than the ekklesia gathering for the worship of the risen Lord.  Visitors are welcome, and the gospel ought to always include an evangelistic appeal of a minimal sort, but the preferences of the culture won't be accomodated if that means making the gospel less offensive through questionable worship styles.

 

[T-Bone]

The article was saying there should be a balance, the very thing you are against.

...which explains why he lobbed off the article, giving us the impression that the author was a sterile, shallow, stilted person.

Also, you know skits tell stories, right?  :

And can be used for a perfect lead-in to a sermon! Our favorite church, so far, was one in the upper part of lower Michigan. (Hopefully Alayman can understand that.) A band, which was awesome for the singing aspect of the service, did a cool skit based off a classic rock song (oops! lost Alayman) and it tied in BEAUTIFULLY with the sermon which was very good!

Alayman needs to get out of his shallow existence and visit other churches! NOT just independent, fundamental, baptist churches.

I literally laughed out loud at this.  Just this past Sunday me and my wife, along with another couple, used a "skit" in the adult worship service to illustrate a truth about evangilizing.  But you keep up your erroneous and ignorant presumptions, you're good at it.

Yeah, but did you use a Classic Rock Song?  Did ya?

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=rsc2a]Not the question. You are arguing against the idea that "everything a person does in private worship is valid for celebration in public worship".  Your attempt at reductio ad absurdum failed

I am arguing that there are appropriate venues for modes of worship.  Further, within that framework, and following the line of reasoning that brought us to this part of the discussion, I'd argue that the subjectivity of art (ie, Star Wars, Harry Potter, interprative dance, etc)  within the corporate assembly makes such means of communication suspect, if not fatally flawed.[/quote]

See...again....that bold part. It's different. You're waffling.



[quote author=ALAYMAN]

Ah! But everyone attending is a baptized believer in Christ, and we were an assembly. Still haven't shown how we weren't doing "church" in my living room.

LOL!  Well, that's at least the trifecta of anti-reformed thought that you've nailed.  The local church is predicated on the precepts of "preaching, ordinances/sacraments, and discipline", but you think that merely because members of a church get together that they've met the definition and model of a NT ekklesia.  Please, for the love of all God-fearing and sincere reformed believers, quit posing as something that you clearly are NOT.[/quote]

Ah! But there was preaching. We did partake of Communion. There wasn't any need for discipline. We've met all your requirements again! (Even though you shifted them.) I've said this before...weren't you reading?



Also, I've never claimed to be Reformed...I'm Reformed-ish...again reading helps.

And, if you claim to be Reformed, you've got problems:


Westminster Larger Catechism

Question 61: Are all they saved who hear the gospel, and live in the church?

Answer: All that hear the gospel, and live in the visible church, are not saved; but they only who are true members of the church invisible.

Question 64: What is the invisible church?

Answer: The invisible church is the whole number of the elect, that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one under Christ the head.

Question 65: What special benefits do the members of the invisible church enjoy by Christ?

Answer: The members of the invisible church by Christ enjoy union and communion with him in grace and glory.






[quote author=ALAYMAN]

Several pastors. I count at least four husbands and three fathers.

So every father and husband is a "pastor"/"elder"/"bishop" of their own little local church?[/quote]

You really should do more study. Do you know what a pastor is? Do you know what role a pastor fills?


[quote author=ALAYMAN]

Was the word preached? Of course...do you know what a Seder is?

I know I am adopted into Abraham's family, and the passover is a vestige of the Jewish religion, which many Jews find offensive for Christians to mimic in their attempt at religiosity.[/quote]

So the short answer is "no". Because you clearly have no clue.

And if you think the passover is only "a vestige of Jewish religion" then you really have no clue. I suggest you stop posting and spend some time, a lot of time, in your Gospels, particularly John's,  and Paul's letters.



[quote author=ALAYMAN]

If this is your gripe, I hope you never use familial relationships as analogies to describe our relationship with our Father/Husband/Brother. I also hope you never use parable. (Again, Jesus must have gotten in wrong.)

A distraction and detraction by definition would have the purposes of being a be all and end all pursuit, whereas music (or any communication within the framework of the ekklesia) ought to be about channeling the mind (Romans 12) for the purpose of worship.[/quote]

You've failed to prove this regarding SS churches. It's all based on your simple assertion and, as such, is clearly a strawman.



[quote author=ALAYMAN]

So it's based on a purely subjective measure? In particular, your purely subjective measure.

Well, duh, no, not according to my usage or the OPs usage.  To entertain/distract/amuse clearly has the understanding of taking the mind to some place other than communion with Christ.[/quote]

Only one of those words was used in the original article. And only one of those words (not the same one) would "clearly [have] the understanding of taking the mind to some place other than communion with Christ".

Words have meanings.



[quote author=ALAYMAN]

Now there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit; and there are varieties of service, but the same Lord; and there are varieties of activities, but it is the same God who empowers them all in everyone. To each is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good. For to one is given through the Spirit the utterance of wisdom, and to another the utterance of knowledge according to the same Spirit, to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by the one Spirit, to another the working of miracles, to another prophecy, to another the ability to distinguish between spirits, to another various kinds of tongues, to another the interpretation of tongues. All these are empowered by one and the same Spirit, who apportions to each one individually as he wills...

Good for you that you can quote Scripture (albeit the wrong version).  So do Jehovah's wintesses.[/quote]

Any more idiotic statements?



[quote author=ALAYMAN]If you have a point that you'd like to address then articulate it in complete and coherent thoughts that are pertinent to the discussion about NT models of worship and seeker-sensitive paradigms. [/quote]

Ah! But I did. See, you addressed it (incorrectly) here...



[quote author=ALAYMAN]Just taking a guess at part of the theme you're alluding to, that being tongues, I'd say that the regulative principle is in view for sure.  Paul said that if an unbeliever comes into the assembly that the over-arching and guiding principle isn't that they forge some bond with them, or be ostentatious in their gifts, but rather that they plainly and clearly speak with intelligibility the essence of the redemption by Christ.[/quote]

So you'd be fine if someone spoke in tongues and someone interpreted? How about prophetic utterances? What about healings? Would you allow that in your church?

Speak up now...I want to hear your answer.


[quote author=ALAYMAN]...squarely against dumbing down Scripture in the process of evangelizing, but believe what you will...[/quote]

Then you need to stop preaching and just read the Bible to your congregation. Oh yeah....in Greek and Hebrew (with a smattering of Aramaic as well) 



[quote author=ALAYMAN]Regardless of what you think his stance is, the OP author couldn't have been more clear about his opposition to worldly approaches found in some of the SS movement....[/quote]

See...again....that bold part. It's different. You're waffling.



[quote author=ALAYMAN]

And so, our worship is unique. Our music is unique. Our commitment to the study of the Word of God is unique. Our desire is to please the Lord, not ourselves. It is all very Christocentric. And, quite frankly, it is not something for which we need to apologize. It is the essence of authenticity

 

[ALAYMAN]

I know I said I am longsuffering, and have been, but enough is enough.  I'm invoking the "answer not a fool.....lest thou be like him" clause.

 

[jimmudcatgrant]

Seems like today's Christians have a hard time determining what is wordly and what isn't.

*snicker*

No thanks, I prefer almond joy.  Your arrogance and total ignorance is showing with this whole post.  You presume that I don't know what I am talking about, yet you haven't defined world system yourself.  This world system is anti-Christ.  Rock music, time after time, questions whether there is a God, promotes immorality by glorifying it, promotes rebellion against parents, the authorities (police), etc.  Need I go on?  You don't get it r2, and that is sad.  You are so busy trying to be cool, you don't realize that you are embracing the spirit of anti-Christ.  And you would lead others down your damnable path.

These verses show the difference that salvation makes in a person's life:

Ephesians 2:1-6 (ESV)
1 And you were dead in the trespasses and sins
2 in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience

 

[T-Bone]

I know I said I am longsuffering, and have been, but enough is enough.  I'm invoking the "answer not a fool.....lest thou be like him" clause.

You should have done that eight pages ago...most have already learned that with certain posters!

 

[rsc2a]

No thanks, I prefer almond joy.  Your arrogance and total ignorance is showing with this whole post.  You presume that I don't know what I am talking about, yet you haven't defined world system yourself.

I'm not the one make the claims. I'll be happy to define if you but ask.



[quote author=jimmudcatgrant]This world system is anti-Christ.[/quote]

This is pretty much a meaningless statement without clarification.



[quote author=jimmudcatgrant]Rock music, time after time, questions whether there is a God, promotes immorality by glorifying it, promotes rebellion against parents, the authorities (police), etc.  Need I go on?  You don't get it r2, and that is sad.  You are so busy trying to be cool, you don't realize that you are embracing the spirit of anti-Christ.  And you would lead others down your damnable path.[/quote]

Oh really?


Feeling like a refugee
Like it don't belong to me
The colors flash across the sky

This air feels strange to me
Feeling like a tragedy
I take a deep breath and close my eyes
One last time
One last time

Storms on the wasteland
Dark clouds on the plains again
We were born into the fight

But I'm not sentimental
This skin and bones is a rental
And no one makes it out alive

Until I die I'll sing these songs
On the shores of Babylon
Still looking for a home
In a world where I belong

Where the weak are finally strong
Where the righteous right the wrongs
Still looking for a home
In a world where I belong

Feels like we're just waiting, waiting
While our hearts are just breaking, breaking
Feels like we've been fighting against the tide

I wanna see the earth start shaking
I wanna see a generation
Finally waking up inside

Until I die I'll sing these songs
On the shores of Babylon
Still looking for a home
In a world where I belong

Where the weak are finally strong
Where the righteous right the wrongs
Still looking for a home
In a world where I belong

This body's not my own
This world is not my own
But I still can hear the sound
Of my heart beating out
So let's go boys, play it loud

On the final day I die
I want to hold my head up high
I want to tell You that I tried
To live it like a song

And when I reach the other side
I want to look You in the eye
And know that I've arrived
In a world where I belong
In a world where I belong
In a world where I belong

Where I belong
Where I belong

Where I belong

Where I belong

I still believe we can live forever
You and I we begin forever now
Forever now
Forever
I still believe in us together
You and I we're here together now
Together now
Forever now
Forever now
Forever now
Forever
Forever


...go ahead and show me where those lyrics "questions whether there is a God, promotes immorality by glorifying it, [and] promotes rebellion against parents".

Would you rather acknowledge that the lyrics are teaching solid Biblical truths, or do I need to smack you over the head with the verses?




[quote author=jimmudcatgrant]These verses show the difference that salvation makes in a person's life...[/quote]

Absolutely. (And, for the record, Alayman wants you to stop quoting the "wrong version".)



[quote author=jimmudcatgrant]There is a distinct line between being in the world, and of the world, and I am afraid you and your ilk have crossed that line, yet you don't get it, which leads me to wonder about your salvation.[/quote]

Define that line, and we can have a conversation about it. Is that line what you are defining below?



[quote author=jimmudcatgrant]Now I am not your judge, and I would never say you aren't saved, but you talk more like a lost man, imo.  I know a bunch of lost folks who believe in God, but aren't saved, and you put up the same arguments as a lot of them...[/quote]

I know a lot of people who thinks if they are "good enough", God will let them into heaven. You "put up the same arguments as a lot of them". So what's your point? 



[quote author=jimmudcatgrant]...Why can't I party, do drugs, drink, run around, etc., etc.[/quote]

Funny...if that's the line you draw...

My idea of "partying" is karaoke night or dinner parties. I drink occasionally, but have never even been buzzed. I've never used any drugs but OTC drugs and my own prescriptions.  I've been completely faithful to my wife and have no desire to sleep with another woman.

...but here's the big point. None of that is saving me. I could be the "perfect Christian", and I'd still need Jesus. Probably more than if I was willing to acknowledge how jacked up my life is, in spite of the fact that I just met all the criteria on your list.



[quote author=jimmudcatgrant]God made everything for us to enjoy.[/quote]

Why are you arguing with Paul? He wins every time.



[quote author=jimmudcatgrant]Let me ask you, does that include adultery, sex before marriage?  Is there anything you think you can't do?[/quote]

Does it include things clearly forbidden in Scripture? Of course not. Am I going to tack on things that aren't forbidden in Scripture and make it the new standard? Nope.


[size=8pt]Then Pharisees and scribes came to Jesus from Jerusalem and said,

 

[jimmudcatgrant]

Let's boil it all down, r2, and get beyond your ignorant rhetoric and posting of 1 song that you say doesn't promote wordliness.  I can post thousands of rock songs that do, and you know it, but you can't admit when you are wrong. But I digress.

Let me ask you:  If Jesus were at a party (since you say he attended them all the time), and someone broke out a joint (like they did at many a party I attended before I got saved), and someone wanted to give Jesus a shotgun, would he let them?  If so, why?  If not, why?  Answer those questions honestly and you might understand what I am getting at.  In the meantime, you are lost in your holier than thou (you consider yourself holier for what you allow) world, which is ironic, for that is the very world you seek to condemn.

 

[jimmudcatgrant]

You rail against the religious crowd in Jesus' day, and compare people that have standards today (like myself) with them.  Only Jesus didn't condemn their standards, only their hypocrisy.  Standards are necessary as a Christian.  The world does expect a Christian to be different. You think it is ok to go to parties and drink a little.  You would take alcohol consumption into the assembly.  Why didn't Christ ever take alcohol consumption into the temple?  It was forbidden, that is why.  Why was it forbidden? 

Matthew 23:1-3 (ESV)
1 Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples,
2

 

[rsc2a]

Let's boil it all down, r2, and get beyond your ignorant rhetoric and posting of 1 song that you say doesn't promote wordliness.  I can post thousands of rock songs that do, and you know it, but you can't admit when you are wrong. But I digress.

You said rock music is bad because it "questions whether there is a God, promotes immorality by glorifying it, [and] promotes rebellion against parents". I posted an example of a rock song that does none of what you claim and actually promotes a Biblical worldview.

Ergo, all rock music is not bad. (Do you know what the 'guilt by association' fallacy is?)

You rail against the religious crowd in Jesus' day, and compare people that have standards today (like myself) with them.  Only Jesus didn't condemn their standards, only their hypocrisy. 

Did you not read the verses I cited earlier?


Then Pharisees and scribes came to Jesus from Jerusalem and said,

 

[jimmudcatgrant]

R2 said, "Biblical standards are necessary. Your extra-Biblical ones are not."

What extra-biblical standards are you talking about?  Please tell me, and if I agree, I will give you bible that supports my position.  Name them.  Well?

 

[jimmudcatgrant]

R2 says, "* And to clarify, I wouldn't want alcohol in a church service (possible exception for wine at communion) because of weaker brothers. It would have nothing to do with modern day Pharisees and their un-Biblical standards."

My, my, aren't you quite the little hypocrite.  So concerned about the weaker brother in church.  But out of church, who cares, right?  Why not in church if it's ok out of church?  Can't the weaker brother be found in both instances? 

 

[T-Bone]

Alayman has just pulled out of the black hole that is known as trying to discuss with Rsc2a and now jimmudcatgrant is about to be sucked into the vortex!

 

[rsc2a]

R2 said, "Biblical standards are necessary. Your extra-Biblical ones are not."

What extra-biblical standards are you talking about?  Please tell me, and if I agree, I will give you bible that supports my position.  Name them.  Well?

Rock music, skits in church, alcohol consumption, entertaining church services.

(Those are off the top of my head since it's what we've discussed on this thread.)

 

[rsc2a]

R2 says, "* And to clarify, I wouldn't want alcohol in a church service (possible exception for wine at communion) because of weaker brothers. It would have nothing to do with modern day Pharisees and their un-Biblical standards."

My, my, aren't you quite the little hypocrite.  So concerned about the weaker brother in church.  But out of church, who cares, right?  Why not in church if it's ok out of church?  Can't the weaker brother be found in both instances?

I'm pretty sure I have a general awareness of the spiritual condition of the people living in my house.  :

And, I don't claim to be opposed to alcohol consumption when I am in church. Quite the opposite, actually. You do know the definition of hypocrite, right?

 

[jimmudcatgrant]

R2 says, "* And to clarify, I wouldn't want alcohol in a church service (possible exception for wine at communion) because of weaker brothers. It would have nothing to do with modern day Pharisees and their un-Biblical standards."

My, my, aren't you quite the little hypocrite.  So concerned about the weaker brother in church.  But out of church, who cares, right?  Why not in church if it's ok out of church?  Can't the weaker brother be found in both instances?

I'm pretty sure I have a general awareness of the spiritual condition of the people living in my house.  :

I wouldn't count on it.  God forbid that you hurt one of his little ones.  It would be better to have a millstone hanged around you neck and be thrown into the sea.

 

[rsc2a]

R2 says, "* And to clarify, I wouldn't want alcohol in a church service (possible exception for wine at communion) because of weaker brothers. It would have nothing to do with modern day Pharisees and their un-Biblical standards."

My, my, aren't you quite the little hypocrite.  So concerned about the weaker brother in church.  But out of church, who cares, right?  Why not in church if it's ok out of church?  Can't the weaker brother be found in both instances?

I'm pretty sure I have a general awareness of the spiritual condition of the people living in my house.  :

I wouldn't count on it.  God forbid that you hurt one of his little ones.  It would be better to have a millstone hanged around you neck and be thrown into the sea.

How about you let me parent my own children and keep your stupid little comments to yourself?