|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: The moral tipping point in the Church
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Making confession to a stranger communicating from a distance has no biblical support at all, as far as I can see (...) but church discipline is carried out within local churches, not by strangers writing letters. (...) then I don't see why they should feel any right to administer discipline.
As someone who admitted writing to Victory Church, which you mention in this post, I'll be answering this where it belongs, in Hell.
quote:
If exaggeration disqualifies someone from church leadership, then, from my experience, there will be very few leaders left.
I have heard it said that a former General Director of the Evangelical Alliance said pretty much the same about adulterous pastors. Do you think adulterous pastors are ok?
And besides, please show us where anybody here has called for any leader to be disqualified from any church on the basis of exaggeration. If you can't, I think it's safe to conclude that the person exaggerating here is you.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon
In the early church the requirement for absolution was public confession in front of the whole congregation.
Given this I do not think that trying to make the case against the call for public acknowledgement as being Biblical is going to work.
This is what the Bible actually says about church discipline:
quote:
“Moreover if your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he hears you, you have gained your brother. But if he will not hear, take with you one or two more, that ‘by the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.' And if he refuses to hear them, tell it to the church. But if he refuses even to hear the church, let him be to you like a heathen and a tax collector.
(Matthew 18:15-17)
The process is very clear. It starts privately and works its way by stages to public rebuke. It only proceeds on the basis of lack of repentance.
Now has this been applied in the case of Victory Church's sin of plagiarism? Absolutely NOT!!
The act of correction was made public right from the start, which is in direct contravention of this injunction from our Lord. Despite this, the church's mistake was corrected and that should have been the end of it. But instead a huge case has been built against the church (based entirely on the assumption of a cover-up, without any proof that this is the case), simply because they failed to acknowledge the letter of a stranger, despite actually responding in practice.
Do you think this is right?
I certainly do not.
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Everyone else without exception certainly does. So you actually don't. It's not about that.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gracie
Shipmate
# 3870
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
This is what the Bible actually says about church discipline:
(Matthew 18:15-17)
No, actually that passage isn't talking about church discipline. It's telling individual Christians what to do if someone wrongs them - it only becomes church discipline at the third stage, in the absence of repentance.
However 1 Timothy 5:20 does say that elders who sin should be reproved publicly to serve as a warning to other people.
--------------------
When someone is convinced he’s an Old Testament prophet there’s not a lot you can do with him rationally. - Sine
Posts: 1090 | From: En lieu sűr | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Robert Armin
All licens'd fool
# 182
|
Posted
mousethief: quote:
"Situational ethics" is a lot like "politically correct." It's a way of denigrating a way of approaching things, more an insult word than a descriptive one.
Is this a pond difference? To me the term is simply descriptive, with no insult attached to it at all. After all, it's the name of the book that outlined the idea.
--------------------
Keeping fit was an obsession with Fr Moity .... He did chin ups in the vestry, calisthenics in the pulpit, and had developed a series of Tai-Chi exercises to correspond with ritual movements of the Mass. The Antipope Robert Rankin
Posts: 8927 | From: In the pack | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
The process is very clear. It starts privately and works its way by stages to public rebuke. It only proceeds on the basis of lack of repentance.
Now has this been applied in the case of Victory Church's sin of plagiarism? Absolutely NOT!!
As the person directly implicated by this statement, I am (again) answering this where it belongs, in Hell.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
Weren't the Pauline letters public rebukes to churches? He was writing letters to various churches from a distance to discuss difficulties and the ways they were falling short and those letters were read out in the meetings. So how is writing letters to churches not biblical?
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
I know damn-all about the VC situation and won't be commenting on that. But as for rebuking a group of fellow Christians--
One would normally leave such rebuke to those closest to them (that is, friends/fellow congregation members), and only step in if those failed to do the job. Or to those in authority over them (bishops, denom leaders, etc.), ditto. But if nobody is stepping up to the job, even the farthest fetched Christian may do so. It is (or ought to be) part of the love of the Christian church, to fish our fellow believers out of the muck if they misstep.
Of course, that depends on having an attitude of love. Which is not inconsistent with anger, as we see in Paul. But the aim should always be restoration, and for that reason the publicity should be limited to those affected by the sin (barring legal issues, which are another kettle of worms).
David's sin was public. His rebuke and confession were public also--if not at the actual moment of utterance, certainly when it got written down for all time in the Scriptures.
Elders' sin usually affects the whole congregation (witness those who run off with other people's spouses). Therefore their rebuke is also publicly known, where an ordinary member might get a more private rebuke.
A group of people going off the rails is almost always going to be a very public sin simply because so many are involved. As a result, the rebuke and the repentance are also best off on the public level.
And if the sin has reached your ears and you're not directly involved, it's a fairly sure bet things are public already.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Yeah but to everything anyone ever says. Except those who are ignored.
I recommend the ratio of posts be 1 : 1, EE : anyone as he has more stamina than everyone.
I suspect a Turing Test bot.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
Etymological Evangelical
It says do it one to one, but that is when brother sins against brother, it has no application where the sin is public.
Secondly it does not say "private", there is good reason for this. Do you know how they lived in Capernaum at the time of Christ? This is where Jesus chose to live remember. Its a pretty good guess there was no privacy there, just as I imagine the family near me who are seven people living in a two bedroom flat have little privacy. Why do you think Jesus went away into the hills to pray if he could have just gone into a room and shut the door?
So talking to your brother was in effect doing a one to one talk like guys in the pub. Taking an elder is taking someone official along.
Jengie
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
We dig dig dig dig dig dig dig in our mine the whole day through
To dig dig dig dig dig dig dig is what we really like to do
It ain't no trick to get rich quick
If you dig dig dig with a shovel or a pick
In a mine! In a mine! In a mine! In a mine!
Where a million diamonds shine!
We dig dig dig dig dig dig dig from early morn till night
We dig dig dig dig dig dig dig up everything in sight
We dig up diamonds by the score
A thousand rubies, sometimes more
But we don't know what we dig 'em for
We dig dig dig a-dig dig ...
(From 'Snow White & The Seven Dwarfs' Walt Disney)
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
It seems to me that participants on this thread can do a much better job of serious discussion than has been demonstrated in recent posts. How about you all lay off the personal comments and silliness? Make life easier for your hosts.
Alan
Ship of Fools Admin
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Avila
Shipmate
# 15541
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
When considering the faults of fellow Christians, at what point does the presumption of human weakness give way to the assessment of dishonesty and spiritual corruption?
I am thinking in terms of the recent discussion in the Cwmbran thread re plagiarism, exaggeration and hype, making presumptuous claims etc...
How sanctified do we have to be in order to be in a right relationship with God and used by Him in ministry?
How do we define sanctification?
At what point can we justly consider a church or fellowship to be corrupt, rather than merely beset by human weakness?
God does seem to manage to use flawed people - which is just as well or we all might as well give up now. But we are also to seek to grow and develop, so need to have issues pointed out.
Those can be weaknesses and oversights but that doesn't mean that they shouldn't be acknowledged openly or to those affected.
A 'sorry I gave your the wrong info' or 'I should have mentioned that great quote or insight in the sermon came from X' may be all it takes in public.
Went I was first a minister there was a big blow up with someone who had strong views that stood way beyond the church boundaries (nationally not just my idea) and was very aggrieved to be told so. At one point during this at coffee morning he accused my notice board display as being demonic and was highly aggressive and deeply personal such that it hit my buttons and I was drifting into shouting back. Someone hating conflict went outside - I went out and apologised that I had resorted to shouting etc. Then went into apologise to others in room about it.
I my not have started it but I was responsible for my behaviour even though provoked. It didn't reduce me in others' sights for admitting that. It may well have if I hadn't.
Even in private confessional I understand it is common that part of 'penance' or whatever is to acknowledge to someone or make amends etc. Spiritual direction has included that for me in the past.
Holding to account is important, and it is important in a public role (church or otherwise) for that accountability to be visible so people know that it is there - a trust building thing.
As for older and newer churches - the older ones have had generations of developing those processes (and still some of them are flawed in process or the people weakness as already mentioned)
British Methodism reacted against the 'power in one man' post Wesley and his successors leaving us with some of the structures we have now.
Some younger churches and groups are still in the founder stage, and need to learn from the mistakes and solutions of those gone before - but when we are still in messes they may not choose to look to us.
--------------------
http://aweebleswonderings.blogspot.com/
Posts: 1305 | From: west midlands | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
VC's claims pale into insignificance compared to the claims of certain other churches, such as the RCC, and I don't see that institution being excoriated with the same level of zeal.
Should have gone to Specsavers.
EE, let me introduce you to this thread. Oh, I do beg your pardon - you're already acquainted.
Well, actually I was talking about the claims of certain other churches - see my comment above. Victory Church are being accused of having an inflated view of themselves, and are being criticised heavily for so doing. The RCC may have made mistakes, such as the case in Ireland, but that is rather different from the general claim of being The One True Church. This claim may have been disagreed with on this site, but hardly does 'excoriation' come into it, unless I just happen not to have seen the relevant thread. If you manage to find such a thread which is a specific denunciation of the RCC's general claim concerning its own status, then I will happily concede the point.
I have already found and linked to such a thread above, and you posted on it.
Did you read the thread title?
There's a clue right here on the first page.
The thread began as an, um, impassioned criticism (excoriation would be putting it mildly) of the "inflated" claim of the RCC to be the Church in the light of the supposed actions (which were not established as actually happening as reported nor as objected to, as it happens) of some of her members. Just like VC is being criticised for its inflated claims in the light of some of the actions of its leaders.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
On a couple of occasions I have spoken out publicly in my town - by means of a letter to the local paper - about some objectionable views expressed by a particular church leader (who, as it happens, has now moved away from the town). I felt that he was misrepresenting the Church, and that his views were damaging not only to the Church but also to the general public. I did not expect any response from him and I certainly did not ask for one. I believed it was right in that context to speak up, and how he responded was entirely a matter between him and God. I don't assume that because he did not verbally respond to my letters that he was somehow engaging in some kind of cover-up. In fact, it would have been unrealistic of me to expect him to come crawling to me "in sackcloth and ashes", and I considered that I had no right to expect it.
If God tells a Christian to speak up about something, then he or she should speak up and leave it at that. How God deals with the aftermath is often none of our business. Different people deal with rebuke in different ways.
I remember being part of a rather 'heavy' Pentecostal fellowship many years ago (Pentecostal in theology, but unaffiliated to any established Pentecostal church), and there were times of genuine blessing. But unfortunately the leader of this group in London went beyond merely rebuking and correcting his little flock as the Lord led him. He obsessed at times about our response to him. I don't really know what he was expecting; that we should collapse in a heap of tears and self-flagellation when told off about something? The usual response was silence, as we tried to process the latest guilt trip that had been dumped on us. He sometimes interpreted this as rebellion. It was at times a deeply unpleasant fellowship to be in, and eventually we (I and my wife) managed to extricate ourselves without feeling that the ground was going to open up beneath us.
It seemed to me that what this fellowship leader really wanted was personal vindication. He demanded an open emotional response from us in order to feel personally justified and in order to control us in some way.
I think that there are many situations where it is perfectly acceptable to issue a public or private rebuke as we feel God has led us, and then to leave it at that. How God deals with the person or people on the receiving end of that rebuke or correction is frankly none of our business, and (unless there is a continuation of the offence) we should leave the situation well alone. The only response that we should be pleased with is the simple fact that the offence, which provoked the correction in the first place, was no longer being committed.
Repentance, after all, is not about great acts of grovelling, but about ceasing to do what is wrong.
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
This is what the Bible actually says about church discipline:
quote:
“Moreover if your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he hears you, you have gained your brother. But if he will not hear, take with you one or two more, that ‘by the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.' And if he refuses to hear them, tell it to the church. But if he refuses even to hear the church, let him be to you like a heathen and a tax collector.
(Matthew 18:15-17)
The process is very clear. It starts privately and works its way by stages to public rebuke. It only proceeds on the basis of lack of repentance.
Now has this been applied in the case of Victory Church's sin of plagiarism? Absolutely NOT!!
The Bible passage describes face-to-face meetings where the two parties speak to each other. Writing can substitute for speech, but both parties need to write. That did not happen in this case.
The fact that the plagiarized passage was deleted indicates that the message was received, but no admission of wrongdoing was made to the one who raised the issue. The Bible passage you cited seems to consider such an admission an essential part of the reconciliation process.
It is possible that the plagiarism was unintentional. Sometimes people come across a passage that speaks strongly to them and embeds itself in their memories. Later, they don't realize that these words are not their own. If that was the case, Eutychus should have been given this explanation.
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Sure, that's all fine, EE. I may find the way you've framed it rather super-spiritual for my taste - God 'telling' people to say something etc etc.
People say what they want to say and write what they want to write. We aren't automatons guided to write things like some form of automatic writing ...
Now, I know you're not suggesting that, but from where I'm sat you do appear to over-spiritualise these issues at times.
As far as Cwmbran goes, let's wait and see what happens. IMHO, Eutychus should have received some kind of response for his missive pointing out plagiarism ... even if it was a 'whoops, thanks for pointing out our mistake.'
It's not the biggest issue in the world but it is an issue and seems to be symptomatic of a particular revivalist mindset that can cause a lot of harm.
I have no idea whether the actions of the Pentecostal pastor you've mentioned are similar to those at VC or at other Pentecostal and charismatic circles - but I've been on the receiving end of similar tendencies and recognise the kind of scenario you've painted.
That isn't to say that I'd want to see all Pentecostal churches closed down because of the egotistical tendencies of certain pastors ...
No, far from it.
However, given that statistically speaking, Pentecostal pastors are far more prone to burn-out than other ministers and clergy it does suggest that there is something systemic within Pentecostalism that leads to this kind of crash-and-burn tendency.
There is a need for such fellowships to self-correct. If that's not forthcoming from within the fellowships themselves then there's nothing wrong with people from outside gently pointing things out in an effort to help.
Or would you rather that the wider Christian community simply ignored those antics that they feel could lead to harm for those caught up in this kind of over-blown revivalist spirituality?
I know someone who works in mental health services and she regularly finds herself dealing with people from JW or Pentecostal backgrounds. She doesn't blame their Jehovah's Witness background or their Pentecostalism for their mental health issues - but she doesn't believe that they help either.
Her view is that such people should not be directed away from religion but to milder and more helpful forms of it ... so in the case of Pentecostals with mental health issues she will try to direct them towards Christian fellowships and traditions with a more balanced and less full-on revivalist or guilt-inducing approach.
I think we're seeing a similar thing here. I don't believe people are out to knock Pentecostalism per se - most of the posters on the Cwmbran boards haven't done so. Rather, they are gently trying to point out ways of doing things that are less likely to lead to crash-and-burn and people getting hurt.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Meanwhile, I'm still wondering who these 'so-called brothers and sisters in Christ' are - the ones EE referred to in his Point 4 which appears to indicate that people who challenge certain aspects of what they see to be bad practice are somehow questionable in terms of their salvific status.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel
Sure, that's all fine, EE. I may find the way you've framed it rather super-spiritual for my taste - God 'telling' people to say something etc etc.
People say what they want to say and write what they want to write. We aren't automatons guided to write things like some form of automatic writing ...
Now, I know you're not suggesting that, but from where I'm sat you do appear to over-spiritualise these issues at times.
I confirm that I do not believe that God speaks to us in the way that you have described. There is a fundamental difference between the way the Holy Spirit works and spiritualism.
quote:
As far as Cwmbran goes, let's wait and see what happens. IMHO, Eutychus should have received some kind of response for his missive pointing out plagiarism ... even if it was a 'whoops, thanks for pointing out our mistake.'
He should perhaps have received a response as a matter of common courtesy. I will concede that point, but what I don't accept is that one can assume that a lack of response equates to a sinister 'cover-up'. It does not. Arguments from silence are fraught with difficulty, and unless all other plausible hypotheses are comprehensively falsified, then we cannot draw a definite conclusion from this absence of activity. I have presented an alternative hypothesis as to why they did not respond. It may be true. It may not be true. There may indeed be a cover-up. There may not be. The only thing we know is THAT WE JUST DON'T KNOW. End of!
quote:
Or would you rather that the wider Christian community simply ignored those antics that they feel could lead to harm for those caught up in this kind of over-blown revivalist spirituality?
No. But the church being corrected should feel that the wider Christian community is offering them the hand of friendship, acceptance and understanding. A church which is clearly being heavily censured by many in "the wider Christian community" cannot be expected to suddenly engage positively with that community (even if the individual approaching them from the wider Christian community is not personally hostile to them). If I were a pastor in such a church I certainly would feel very nervous and wary about entering into correspondence with a complete stranger, whether he was a Christian or not. My instinct would be to listen to what that person had to say, take it on board if necessary, but I would feel reluctant to say anything about it beyond the safety of my local church - or denomination. I just would not know who I was actually dealing with. Could you possibly blame me for this?
I don't really know why this is so difficult to understand. To me it just seems like common sense: "be wise as serpents".
After all, we surely must understand this kind of thing otherwise we would have to ask ourselves why most of us are communicating here under pseudonyms. It's for the very same reason as that given above. We don't really know who we are dealing with and so we naturally play it safe. Who can blame us?
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel
Meanwhile, I'm still wondering who these 'so-called brothers and sisters in Christ' are - the ones EE referred to in his Point 4 which appears to indicate that people who challenge certain aspects of what they see to be bad practice are somehow questionable in terms of their salvific status.
No, not "those who challenge certain aspects of what they see to be bad practice".
Go and reread my original post, instead of misquoting me.
Thank you.
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Some fair points, there, EE ... and on the Cwmbran thread/s various posters - including myself - have criticised some of those who appear to be taking a gloating approach to the whole thing and who appear only to pleased to see the leadership of VC take a nose-dive ...
I don't think anyone posting on these boards falls into that category particularly.
I can see what you are getting at about arguing from silence, but one could argue that this is what you are doing too in terms of the way you have painted alternative scenarios.
I have some sympathy with the view that the leadership of VC may have pulled their horns in somewhat, given the kind of criticism they'd been receiving from other churches in the area.
However, that doesn't excuse their apparent failure to engage with the issue that Eutychus raised. It may make it more understandable, certainly - but it still begs some questions.
Meanwhile, you still haven't answered my question as to who these 'so-called brothers and sisters in Christ' are who've been criticising VC.
Is Eutychus not a 'real' Christian then? Am I not? Aren't any of the others who have voiced concerns about VC on the Cwmbran thread?
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Just. Stop. Now. You will ignore Alan Cresswell's admonition at your peril.
The issue of the identification of so-called Christians has already been taken to Hell by Eutychus. Stop stirring the personal pot here.
Barnabas62
Purgatory Host
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Ok - I cross-posted ...
Here's what you actually said:
'4. Because in any work, which may possibly be a work of God that has gone off the rails, there needs to be mercy, and not the kind of "ner ner na ner ner" Schadenfreude that seems to be the case from so called brothers and sisters in Christ.'
So, who are these people?
I don't like the tone or tactics of the self-appointed critics of VC on the site cited on the OP of the previous Cwmbran thread ... it was, as you say, rather gloating and full of 'Schadenfreude' ...
Yes, certainly.
I'm not sure I'd suggest that the author wasn't a Christian. They might be a misguided Christian - but there are plenty of those around in all settings.
So, who were you referring to? People on these boards or the bloke who was criticising VC on his website and apparently gloating at the potential downfall of its leadership?
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Apologies - I cross-posted with Barnabas62.
I will drop this line of questioning here in Purgatory. EE can pursue it in Hell if he so chooses.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel
I can see what you are getting at about arguing from silence, but one could argue that this is what you are doing too in terms of the way you have painted alternative scenarios.
No, I am not doing the same thing, because my alternative scenario is not being presented as a definite conclusion! I made it absolutely clear that my hypothesis may be true or may not be true. That is all we can say about it, and also about the other hypothesis.
As for the phrase 'so-called'... I apologise for this. I was simply referring to all the gloating that had been going on on other websites concerning Richard Taylor's alleged fall from grace (something about which people here had also expressed concern). I should have worded the phrase more carefully.
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
How do we define sanctification?
At what point can we justly consider a church or fellowship to be corrupt, rather than merely beset by human weakness?
I'll turn your question around, at what point would you decide that something has to be dealt with systemically rather than merely being excused as human weakness?
Similarly, given that VC as an example - sought to have a national rather than merely local influence, how do you think their accountability should work?
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree
...and the right to expect behaviour that is moral within some code of understanding...
Yeah, but how is that code of understanding defined? How would you know that your code is actually correct under God? Perhaps the other church doesn't interpret God's law in the same way?
Sorry to be so slow. Between a new puppy and a new grandson, things are mildly chaotic.
The problem with your response is that it allows the abuser to dictate the terms of any rapprochement, as pointed out above.
If churches can't live within a code that attempts to reduce harm, what is the point of those churches? At least, the harm being done should be publicised.
and ...especially when the behaviour is done by the leadership.
quote:
Don't underestimate the power of the laity. I was once part of an Anglican church in which powerful lay members (usually retired professional people who thought rather highly of themselves) were, in my view, at least as influential as the Vicar, if not more so.
So you think that an overwhelming vicar should do as he pleases, regardless of ehics?
Seems to me that accountability rules force every party involved to keep things above board. The fact that some businessmen want to run things their way is no more acceptable than having a vicar who has absolute control - neither are accountable to someone else.
What is this thing you have for allowing dubious behaviour because...well, whining?
If people misbehave, they should be accountable. Not a ducking stool or bonfire, but definitely answerable for their behaviour in an orderly manner.
Sorry, messed up code, but I think it is readable.
[I think - but am not sure - I've fixed it correctly]
[ 25. August 2014, 16:46: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
what I don't accept is that one can assume that a lack of response equates to a sinister 'cover-up'. It does not. Arguments from silence are fraught with difficulty, and unless all other plausible hypotheses are comprehensively falsified, then we cannot draw a definite conclusion from this absence of activity.
Let me attempt to keep this Purgatorial.
Who's talking about a "sinister cover-up"? I have repeatedly talked about warning signs - one significant one being the blog being pulled with no explanation, which you do not refer to above.
Perhaps this current meltdown was just a massive coincidence, but my takeaway is that in this context, and taken as a whole, those warning signs were useful.
quote:
The only thing we know is THAT WE JUST DON'T KNOW.
Yes, and the overwhelming opinion on this thread is that given the high profile of the church, the wider public ought to know, if not the ins and outs of the crisis, at least some statement about the situation.
I'm not saying the total silence from the church since the recent developments is a "sinister cover-up", or a "sin", or anything like that, but I am of the opinion that it is yet another warning sign that the leadership culture is not in a good place. It indicates to me that they would like to pretend nothing has happened at all. Their communication does not reflect reality.
quote:
If I were a pastor in such a church I certainly would feel very nervous and wary about entering into correspondence with a complete stranger, whether he was a Christian or not. My instinct would be to listen to what that person had to say, take it on board if necessary
One of the sad things about many church cultures, including this one, is just how difficult it is to reach a leader at all. Many have barricaded themselves behind office hours and PAs. This may protect them from basket cases, but it has the unfortunate side effect of insulating them within their own universe.
[ 25. August 2014, 16:45: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
A church which is clearly being heavily censured by many in "the wider Christian community" cannot be expected to suddenly engage positively with that community (even if the individual approaching them from the wider Christian community is not personally hostile to them). If I were a pastor in such a church I certainly would feel very nervous and wary about entering into correspondence with a complete stranger, whether he was a Christian or not. My instinct would be to listen to what that person had to say, take it on board if necessary, but I would feel reluctant to say anything about it beyond the safety of my local church - or denomination.
I once read a memoir in which a well-educated CofE vicar found himself publicly subjected to criticism from the pastor of some small Pentecostal church; the vicar was understandably indignant at this. I do think we should be wary of bustling in to demand explanations from pastors of churches whose theology and ecclesiology are very different from ours, and with whom we have no ecumenical links. Why would they feel obliged to listen or to justify themselves to strangers?
It's hard to imagine a clergyman from a historical church agreeing to enter into correspondence with an unknown pastor from a smaller and probably less prestigious denomination who disapproves of something he's done or said! Why should it happen the other way round, then? Well, maybe it does happen if both individuals have the time, and inclination. Seeing each other as equals would help, I suppose. But isn't it more likely to happen when the dust has settled?
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
It's hard to imagine a clergyman from a historical church agreeing to enter into correspondence with an unknown pastor from a smaller and probably less prestigious denomination who disapproves of something he's done or said! Why should it happen the other way round, then?
Urm, you seem to be projecting stuff onto the situation that doesn't actually exist in the original.
As has been pointed out numerous times, this isn't just a case of a local church doing something wrong. Whilst VC is a local church, what they were actually doing was much more analogous to a para-church ministry,
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
When I was involved with the house-church/restorationist scene I can remember a number of occasions when an Anglican or Catholic cleric wrote complaining about something or other than people connected with our churches had said or done.
On each occasion that I am aware of, the leaders wrote back or took the matter up with the person concerned. They were pretty assiduous that way.
I'm afraid you often appear to speculate about situations regarding 'prestigious' or 'less prestigious' churches, SvitlanaV2 ... and your speculations are often well wide of the mark.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
I'm glad to hear that you all have the utmost respect for each other. That's a good thing. You should repeat that message more often.
My understanding was that this particular ministry was local. If it's of wider concern, i.e. in terms of being a parachurch ministry, I'm surprised that the problems got as far as seems to be the case. You'd think that the problems of a particular pastor in a parachurch ministry would be picked up more quickly than in a single-church ministry. But obviously not.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Avila
Shipmate
# 15541
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
On a couple of occasions I have spoken out publicly in my town - by means of a letter to the local paper - about some objectionable views expressed by a particular church leader (who, as it happens, has now moved away from the town). I felt that he was misrepresenting the Church, and that his views were damaging not only to the Church but also to the general public. I did not expect any response from him and I certainly did not ask for one. I believed it was right in that context to speak up, and how he responded was entirely a matter between him and God. I don't assume that because he did not verbally respond to my letters that he was somehow engaging in some kind of cover-up. In fact, it would have been unrealistic of me to expect him to come crawling to me "in sackcloth and ashes", and I considered that I had no right to expect it.
If God tells a Christian to speak up about something, then he or she should speak up and leave it at that. How God deals with the aftermath is often none of our business. Different people deal with rebuke in different ways.
.
Confused. The opener suggests that we should be wary of challenging others, and although making a separate thread on this topic you have been more than happy to let it 'derail' back to a specific context.
You are very negative about various people discussing VC leadership on the ship - a public space, worldwide but I would suggest still a niche readership. Yet here you admit to sustained letter writing to a local paper, local maybe but highly public.
But that is ok because you had concerns about the person's behaviour, just like those discussing VC, only they have been discussing warning signs not claiming any full personal failure, and with pastoral concern for the whole situation.
But apparently that's not ok?
--------------------
http://aweebleswonderings.blogspot.com/
Posts: 1305 | From: west midlands | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Some of the comments I overheard weren't particularly respectful, SvitlanaV2 - but the point I was making was that despite that, despite the fact that they largely shrugged off any criticism that came from outside - and sometimes even made a virtue of it ('we must be doing something right, people are criticising us') - they still bothered to reply and did genuinely seek to reply politely and in a dignified way.
There were certainly instances of leaders slagging off or bad-mouthing other churches - but that happens in all traditions I've found.
Nevertheless, to my knowledge, in those instances where someone from one of the traditional or 'mainline' churches raised an issue of some kind it was looked at and responded to ... I'm not saying that the response was always conciliatory or apologetic - but to be fair, in most instances I'm aware of the tone was respectful and considerate.
By the same token, if anyone left one of the other churches to join ours they were pretty assiduous in ensuring that relationships between the people leaving and the leaders/remaining people were as cordial as possible.
I'm not saying things were perfect - far from it - simply that there were procedures in place for such eventualities and for dealing with comments/criticisms etc from outside.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Avila
Confused. The opener suggests that we should be wary of challenging others, and although making a separate thread on this topic you have been more than happy to let it 'derail' back to a specific context.
You are very negative about various people discussing VC leadership on the ship - a public space, worldwide but I would suggest still a niche readership. Yet here you admit to sustained letter writing to a local paper, local maybe but highly public.
Firstly, the OP wasn't suggesting anything, but merely involved asking a series of (what I consider to be) relevant questions relating to the issue of finding fault with other Christians.
Secondly, I believe that I have been consistent in my approach. I am not saying that we should never express our critical views of other churches, but I have been saying that we cannot build a case simply on the basis that our criticism has not been acknowledged. It may be common courtesy to respond verbally to the critic, but what really matters is if the church responds to God, by actually acting on valid criticism. If the critic fails to get a response, then he should just swallow his pride and rejoice that he has done God's will by speaking up.
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
I have been saying that we cannot build a case simply on the basis that our criticism has not been acknowledged (...) If the critic fails to get a response, then he should just swallow his pride and rejoice that he has done God's will by speaking up.
<throws up hands in despair>
As the person directly implicated by this statement, I am (again) answering this where it belongs, in Hell.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Taking down some plagiarised material from a website without acknowledgement or explanation doesn't strike me as reacting validly to criticism ... it strikes me as trying to cover one's tracks or lock the stable door once the horse has bolted ...
Anyhow, whatever the case, things have moved on and it looks like VC has bigger issues to confront and deal with than an instance of internet plagiarism.
I suspect that playing fast and loose with the facts on-line is symptomatic of a wider and more serious malaise ... and that we are seeing now are the chickens coming home to roost - to use a dreadful cliche.
That doesn't give me any pleasure in any way, shape or form ... I'm certainly not gloating over it like some people in the Cwmbran area are doing.
I just think it's desperately sad - but also par for the course in hyper-revivalist style churches where the pressure is on to exaggerate and make extravagant claims that later turn round and bite them on the backside.
It's happened time and again and will happen again ... sadly, people are slow to learn from their mistakes.
You've got to have a very short memory to flourish on the independent charismatic evangelical scene for any length of time or else develop a thick skin when it comes to hyped claims and 'mission-inflation' as I believe the term is these days ...
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
You've got to have a very short memory to flourish on the independent charismatic evangelical scene for any length of time or else develop a thick skin when it comes to hyped claims and 'mission-inflation' as I believe the term is these days ...
I find a lot get over this by 'church hopping'. I found that, when things calmed down again at our place, I had a choice - go to another 'liveler' fellowship or stay. I chose to stay, started to question, became liberal and found myself right on the other side of the theological fence!
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I suspect that playing fast and loose with the facts on-line is symptomatic of a wider and more serious malaise ... and that we are seeing now are the chickens coming home to roost - to use a dreadful cliche.
That doesn't give me any pleasure in any way, shape or form ... I'm certainly not gloating over it like some people in the Cwmbran area are doing.
I just think it's desperately sad - but also par for the course in hyper-revivalist style churches where the pressure is on to exaggerate and make extravagant claims that later turn round and bite them on the backside.
It's happened time and again and will happen again ... sadly, people are slow to learn from their mistakes.
Thanks for your previous post about how the churches you know of interact when they disagree with each other.
Regarding this post, the situation you describe here doesn't sound 'desperately sad' to me, as an outsider. From what you say, the 'serious malaise', as you as it, is just the accepted order of things. Hyper-revivalism appears to have a built-in obsolescence, which actually seems quite modern. We live in a short-term culture. People will get disappointed if their church implodes or the pastor falls off his pedestal, but hey - that's life. Some will loose their faith, but that appears to be unavoidable too, even in the nicest churches. If criminality is involved, the law will deal with it. At least the members of such churches don't feel obliged to waste a lifetime in a church that they discover to be 'corrupt' or otherwise unsatisfactory.
Thinking about the OP rather than revivalist churches in particular, ISTM that since people attend church for such a range of reasons it must be hard to give a definite response as to whether people should leave 'corrupt' churches. The ones who stay do so because they're getting something out of it, even if that something isn't especially profound or spiritually honourable, as others would see it.
In the historical churches, loyalty to the brand (especially if there's a family tradition to maintain) keeps some people around, even if the individual finds the atmosphere to be hostile to them, and/or spiritually 'dead', or if they deeply regret the changing moral or spiritual universe they see going on in the church around them. This sort of loyalty is on the way out, but you can detect if you talk to or read about some of the elderly Methodists, for example.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
That might well be the case.
There's no such thing as a perfect church and all Christian traditions have their particular strengths and weaknesses ... indeed what can be a strength in some contexts can be a weakness in another.
I s'pose the difference between places like VC and traditional Methodist churches etc is that the latter tend to decline gradually and quietly - although not without pain - whereas with high-octane places like VC they can explode quite messily.
I'll be honest, I'm expecting VC to implode but I might be wrong. The leadership issue is symptomatic of a wider and deeper malaise, I think.
We'll just have to see how things pan out.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Heavenly Anarchist
Shipmate
# 13313
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
And what about various other practices that are deemed to be dubious, but not illegal, such as jabbering away in a supposed dodgy version of tongues, or sharing fairly meaningless pictures as prophecies, which then don't seem to come true? Should we desist from criticising these practices, because we should take the plank out of our own eye first, and because, as mentioned, they do not involve a violation of the law of the land?
I would say 'Do no harm'. If your criticism is harmful then what's the point of it?
If you felt that way about a Church you wouldn't be attending it anyway, so leave them to it.
I am a liberal who attends an evangelical Church. The things they do are done in love - so I have no criticism of them. Who am I to judge? If I am asked theological questions I answer them, but carefully so as not to be judgemental.
It's not always easy but I value fellowship and freindship far, far higher than theology and ways of worshipping.
Boogie, you have summed up my own views, as a rather liberal evangelical in a charismatic evangelical church.
--------------------
'I love deadlines. I like the whooshing sound they make as they fly by.' Douglas Adams
Dog Activity Monitor
My shop
Posts: 2831 | From: Trumpington | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gracie
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
This is what the Bible actually says about church discipline:
(Matthew 18:15-17)
No, actually that passage isn't talking about church discipline. It's telling individual Christians what to do if someone wrongs them - it only becomes church discipline at the third stage, in the absence of repentance.
However 1 Timothy 5:20 does say that elders who sin should be reproved publicly to serve as a warning to other people.
Within the context of the local church.
Furthermore, we need to look at the previous verse...
quote:
Do not receive an accusation against an elder except from two or three witnesses.
Therefore a church leader should not accept an accusation against another leader from an individual Christian.
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
That's purely a practical and pragmatic thing, surely? As a means of ensuring that such an accusation isn't based simply on individual grievance of prejudice.
That's a very different thing in context - the relationship between an 'elder' or leader and the people in their congregation - and someone spotting an example of online plagiarism and bringing it to the church's attention.
There's not necessarily any accusation involved in that, simply a calling of something to the attention of the leadership.
In this instance, the sudden removal of the item/s without explanation rather compounds rather than removes the original problem. Sure, it needn't necessarily imply a desire to cover their tracks - but it seems to point that way.
So, the proof-texting and out-of-context Bible references aren't directly applicable in this case.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
Gamaliel -
Just for the record...
You have related my last comment to the issue that I have basically been told not to go on about on this thread. I was making a general point in response to Gracie, who informed me on the hell thread that I had not responded to her / him.
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Who has told you not to mention the Cwmbran thing? I thought that was what this thread was all about ... or at least an exploration of some broader issues around that sort of thing.
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
Gracie's post was way, way upthread ... glad to see you've got round to answering it.
I was simply making the point that the situation that we are apparently not to mention now at your request, wasn't analogous to the ones in the scripture reference you used.
I'm happy to have a conversation about those instead if you'd prefer.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
I've read through the thread and done so in the context of a parish melt-down in Ottawa which I experienced over a long and grueling period. I think that the answer to the OP is simple: the tipping point is when you no longer trust the leadership, either in their words, or in their intentions. The time came when I could only assume that anything in the bulletin or the sermon was put their with a particular agenda in mind. Even the selection of sermon text, if not from the day's gospel or lessons, was taken to make a leadership policy point. Catching them out in repeated lies (to be charitable, a few of them were more outrageously ideological slanting of reality than outright lies) only to be greeted with smirks and passive aggressive comments, only served to prove the point.
Looking back, I think that the best strategy for me would have been to have listed off a few of the most blatant mistruths and misbehaviour in a letter indicating why I was going out the door and suggesting that others should follow. A few times in one's life, one has to use the nuclear option to retain integrity and let others know very clearly why.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel
Who has told you not to mention the Cwmbran thing?
Not in those exact words, hence my use of the word 'basically'. See the implication of this post.
quote:
Gracie's post was way, way upthread ... glad to see you've got round to answering it.
Well, when it's "EE contra mundum", as you put it, then you can hardly blame me for missing posts.
quote:
I was simply making the point that the situation that we are apparently not to mention now at your request, wasn't analogous to the ones in the scripture reference you used.
As you put it:
quote:
So, the proof-texting and out-of-context Bible references...
You say this sort of thing just about every time I dare to quote the Bible. Perhaps every time you quote anything at all - from any source - I will just say that you are "proof-texting" - or "quote mining". Saves having to actually engage with the text.
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gracie
Shipmate
# 3870
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Within the context of the local church.
Yes that was my entire point – the text in 1 Timothy addresses church discipline. The Matthew 18 passage does not.
quote:
Furthermore, we need to look at the previous verse...
Yes, the instruction that accusations should be based on the testimony of a plural number of witnesses is a good one – and also based on Old Testament law. This is to protect against accusations being accepted on the basis of hearsay. In the case in point there were a lot more than 2 witnesses, as the evidence was out there in the public domain for all to see. This evidence was pointed out to the people appointed in the relevant local church to deal with such matters.
--------------------
When someone is convinced he’s an Old Testament prophet there’s not a lot you can do with him rationally. - Sine
Posts: 1090 | From: En lieu sűr | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Ok - so I've missed a few posts ... seems like we both have. You've obviously also overlooked the post in Hell where I've said that it isn't purely a case of 'EE contra mundum' ...
As for the proof-texting thing. In the context of a discussion about Cwmbran then your deployment of those particular scripture references might constitute proof-texting.
In another context or in a more abstract and general way, then no, they might not constitute proof-texting.
It's all down to the context.
From where I'm sitting sometimes it looks as if you are proof-texting, at other times it doesn't. Again, it all depends on the context and how the references are being deployed.
In a Kerygmania discussion on church discipline then those scripture references wouldn't have appeared out of context to me at all, nor would I necessarily levelled the proof-texting charge.
In the context of Eutychus's exchange with the leadership of VC, then yes, I would consider them to be proof-texting.
As you've now told me that you didn't have that in mind then I'll drop the charge.
It's all down to context.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
