homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   »   » Oblivion   » The moral tipping point in the Church (Page 1)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: The moral tipping point in the Church
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091

 - Posted      Profile for EtymologicalEvangelical   Email EtymologicalEvangelical   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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?

--------------------
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
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130

 - Posted      Profile for South Coast Kevin   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Apologies for the somewhat glib response but I'd answer this with the words of Solzhenitsyn:
quote:
If only it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being.


--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.

Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011  |  IP: Logged
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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?

I wouldn't say it has anything to do with them being Christians, particularly. I work in government, and from everything ranging to Yes Minister through to various real life events, my position tends to be: if faced with a choice between a stuff-up and a conspiracy, it's usually a stuff-up.

What tips it into the corrupt/conspiracy category is evidence of consciousness and intention.

A key part of this, though - and while I haven't followed that thread much, it has of course spilled into Hell and I believe this has been part of the discussion - is that trying to cover up your mistakes IS an intentional act. Many, many people have stumbled into the realm of corrupt behaviour not because of their original action, but because of their decision to try to cover up that action rather than admit it and face the consequences.

An Australian judge ended up going to jail after he incurred a speeding ticket. He didn't go to jail for speeding. He went to jail for claiming that someone else was driving, only that person couldn't have been driving because it turned out she'd died earlier. He went to jail for getting other people to lie for him as well, rather than admit that he'd been driving a bit carelessly in a way perhaps not befitting a judge.

In Australia at the moment there is a rash of politicians resigning, primarily in New South Wales where the Independent Commission Against Corruption has thrown a bowling ball through both sides of politics at once. Some of these resignations would probably never have happened if people had admitted their faults.

The last Premier resigned after asserting with extreme confidence that he couldn't possibly have received an expensive bottle of wine because he absolutely would have remembered and declared it on the gift register - and then the proof that he had received the bottle of wine was established, a thank you note that he'd written (and he, frankly, probably wasn't corrupt in any other sense unlike some of the others).

One politician took a non-permitted campaign donation, and admitted having done so (possibly only after he knew that ICAC had proof). Only thing is, he said on the stand that he gave the money back. Within a few days this was established to be a lie. He had also tried to get the donor to participate in the same lie.

Again and again, what demonstrates people's corruption is not the wrong thing they've initially done, which might have been an inadvertent mistake, but the clear evidence that they knew it was a wrong thing because they try to make sure no-one finds out about it.

[ 23. August 2014, 13:22: Message edited by: orfeo ]

--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.

Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649

 - Posted      Profile for Raptor Eye     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
'In considering the faults of fellow Christians'......

Here is where we go astray imv. If only we would all consider our own faults and persevere with everyone else, knowing that they will be coming from all backgrounds and that some will be more 'corrupt' than others, loving them anyway and trusting in God to help us to serve so that his will be done, I think we would make much more progress.

Judging others rather than loving others makes us exclusive and stands in the way of God's will. 'Father, forgive them' said Jesus, even though they had just crucified him.

--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10

Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011  |  IP: Logged
Jengie jon

Semper Reformanda
# 273

 - Posted      Profile for Jengie jon   Author's homepage   Email Jengie jon   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Right

First of all Sanctification is a work of God not of human beings. You therefore need to hold that in tension with doctrine of total depravity by which I mean that there is a taint of sin to everything we experience in this life. God does not demand that we are good before he will have us, but neither does the fact that we have a relationship with God mean we are free from the taint of sin. Rather we experience the ongoing work of God which only comes to full fruition in the life to come. Part of the process of sanctification is by holding all accountable for their actions.

The early Reformers thus took sin seriously and deliberately built in checks and counterchecks to their institutions. You look at the denominations stemming from those times and you see councils and accountable structures.

The failure of many more recent institutions to follow this lead and thus create unaccountable leaderships within institutions is a serious failing.

Jengie

[ 23. August 2014, 13:27: Message edited by: Jengie Jon ]

--------------------
"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
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713

 - Posted      Profile for Sioni Sais   Email Sioni Sais   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:


A key part of this, though - and while I haven't followed that thread much, it has of course spilled into Hell and I believe this has been part of the discussion - is that trying to cover up your mistakes IS an intentional act. Many, many people have stumbled into the realm of corrupt behaviour not because of their original action, but because of their decision to try to cover up that action rather than admit it and face the consequences.


That's an important part of it. Nixon didn't resign the presidency because of a break-in to the Watergate Hotel, but because of the lies and cover-ups that followed. A lack of openness in Britain has led to the Freedom of Information Act, which most dramatically led to reform of Parliamentary expenses and criminal convictions of MPs and members of the House of Lords. It's worth noting that Nixon and the MPs & Lords tried to use defences based on their privileged positions!

--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"

(Paul Sinha, BBC)

Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549

 - Posted      Profile for Dafyd   Email Dafyd   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I think it's a good idea to hold people who have power over other people to abuse and whose wrong doing is therefore more likely to adversely affect others, and who are therefore in a better position to hide those adverse effects, to a higher and more severe standard than those who have less power to abuse.

--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams

Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091

 - Posted      Profile for EtymologicalEvangelical   Email EtymologicalEvangelical   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye
'In considering the faults of fellow Christians'......

Here is where we go astray imv. If only we would all consider our own faults and persevere with everyone else, knowing that they will be coming from all backgrounds and that some will be more 'corrupt' than others, loving them anyway and trusting in God to help us to serve so that his will be done, I think we would make much more progress.

Judging others rather than loving others makes us exclusive and stands in the way of God's will. 'Father, forgive them' said Jesus, even though they had just crucified him.

I sympathise with what you are saying, and a phrase with "speck, plank and eye" comes to mind when thinking about the idea of judging others.

However, how do you think this should work out in practice when considering the ministry of churches, which we may suspect are leading vulnerable people astray with what we think are false claims of revival, healing and so forth?

--------------------
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
Jengie jon

Semper Reformanda
# 273

 - Posted      Profile for Jengie jon   Author's homepage   Email Jengie jon   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
I think it's a good idea to hold people who have power over other people to abuse and whose wrong doing is therefore more likely to adversely affect others, and who are therefore in a better position to hide those adverse effects, to a higher and more severe standard than those who have less power to abuse.

So too did the writer of James
quote:

James 3:1 (ESV)
Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers for you know that we who teach will be judged with greater strictness.

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
Boogie

Boogie on down!
# 13538

 - Posted      Profile for Boogie     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I think Raptor Eye has it nailed.

We don't need to worry about other people, their motivations or where they stand with God. People's spirituality and morality have nothing to do with us (unless they are hurting us, of course then we need to deal with them appropriately)

If we are employing them to do a job or to volunteer in Church or anywhere else we need to look at their character and past record to be sure they are up to/fit for the job. But that's as far as it goes.

--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk

Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649

 - Posted      Profile for Raptor Eye     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
I sympathise with what you are saying, and a phrase with "speck, plank and eye" comes to mind when thinking about the idea of judging others.

However, how do you think this should work out in practice when considering the ministry of churches, which we may suspect are leading vulnerable people astray with what we think are false claims of revival, healing and so forth?

As others have said, it's deceit and hiding of the truth which are so harmful to the Church.

We're talking ideals to work toward rather than the likelihood of reality, but unless we're spelling out the ideal loudly and working toward it as best we can, we're failing in our task to try to serve God imv.

There needs to be complete openness: truth which feeds into the culture at every level. There needs to be the strong desire and heartfelt prayer and strenuous effort for God's will to be done, so much so that the tangible love of God is obvious where this is taking place, as the fruit of the spirit is growing.

If we focus on this in our own church communities, and do what we can in mission to draw in those who are seeking and help them to grow, the difference will be apparent.

People will migrate to the place where they are genuinely loved and welcomed and encouraged. God will help the vulnerable people to see that they are being led astray if that is the case, and to break free from deceit. Sadly, some will be lost to faith, but those who stand in the way of God's will have the burden to carry.

--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10

Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011  |  IP: Logged
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812

 - Posted      Profile for Gamaliel   Author's homepage   Email Gamaliel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I'm not into situational ethics - sin is sin is sin.

However, in cases where we might have grounds to believe that churches are over-hyping things or bearing false witness then the onus is on fellow believers to gently point this out. In the Cwmbran instance, I believe this is what Eutychus has done - although he has admitted to poor practice insofar as he should have shared his concerns directly with the leadership of that particular church rather than airing them here first.

There's a balance here between over-spiritualising the whole thing on the one hand - 'It's alright, God is in control' - or underspiritualising it on the other - 'God isn't involved' ...

Where the 'moral tipping point' lies will depend on the particular circumstance in each case.

Clearly, some things are immediately obvious as being beyond the pale. Other things are less clear cut. Which is why this isn't a simple, straightforward area.

--------------------
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
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379

 - Posted      Profile for Belle Ringer   Email Belle Ringer   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
All people are imperfect.

The serious problems I have seen stem from the community believing a specific individual is essential. Whether that's the preacher, the organist, the moneybags, or anyone else with a resource perceived as central to the functioning of the church and difficult or impossible to replace. Some of those indispensable people let it get to their head even if they themselves weren't initially seeking to be thought "untouchable."

Structure alone doesn't always work; if the oversight board (or Bishop) believes the person irreplaceable, they have to accept whatever s/he does! They might raise a timid question on occasion but don't dare take action because that would "destroy the church."

Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I'm not into situational ethics - sin is sin is sin.

Bah. This isn't true of anyone. Is killing always wrong, or sometimes wrong? Well, it's only wrong if it's murder. How handy we have two different words. If we didn't have the word "murder" we would have to describe the type of killing that is wrong by talking about ... wait for it ... the situation.

This is the case for every sin you care to mention. If you give me a case where you think sin is sin, an somebody else argues the situation should be taken into account, we can invent a species word that describes the sinful situation that is separate from the genus word that describes the action in general. Then lo and behold! We're talking about two different things.

"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. In fact all ethics is situational because all actions take place in situations. The question is whether the particular situation excuses the act ("it was the killing by a soldier of an enemy soldier during a war, so it's not a sinful killing") or not ("he was mad at his wife, so it's a sinful killing.")

(It is perhaps instructive that early Christian codes for determining penance held all killing to be sinful. Soldiers who killed in a war were excommunicate for a certain amount of time (e.g. 2 years; I forget the exact number), after which they could be re-admitted to the chalice.)

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338

 - Posted      Profile for cliffdweller     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I'm not into situational ethics - sin is sin is sin.

Bah. This isn't true of anyone. Is killing always wrong, or sometimes wrong? Well, it's only wrong if it's murder. How handy we have two different words. If we didn't have the word "murder" we would have to describe the type of killing that is wrong by talking about ... wait for it ... the situation.

This is the case for every sin you care to mention. If you give me a case where you think sin is sin, an somebody else argues the situation should be taken into account, we can invent a species word that describes the sinful situation that is separate from the genus word that describes the action in general. Then lo and behold! We're talking about two different things.

"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. In fact all ethics is situational because all actions take place in situations. The question is whether the particular situation excuses the act ("it was the killing by a soldier of an enemy soldier during a war, so it's not a sinful killing") or not ("he was mad at his wife, so it's a sinful killing.")

Exactly.

I think you'd be hard pressed to come up with any sin in which we can't come up with a situation where we'd find it ethically justifiable. Indeed, being too precious about keeping "the letter of the law" rather than appreciating the situation and the underlying principle of the Law seems to be the sort of thing Jesus is often talking about with the Pharisees. Throughout history, we find those who are unwilling to risk getting their hands dirty through the possibility of sin ("impurity") finding themselves on the side of the Levite walking on the other side of the road (refusing to help rather than having to lie about the Jews hidden in your attic).

--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner

Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091

 - Posted      Profile for EtymologicalEvangelical   Email EtymologicalEvangelical   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie
We don't need to worry about other people, their motivations or where they stand with God. People's spirituality and morality have nothing to do with us (unless they are hurting us, of course then we need to deal with them appropriately)

Unless they are hurting us? Only us?

What if we think they are hurting others, or likely to hurt others?

Are we really supposed to have no view at all about the health of other churches?

--------------------
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
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528

 - Posted      Profile for Lamb Chopped   Email Lamb Chopped   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
We may have such opinions, but we'd better take a good long look at Jesus' plank and speck in the eye analogy first.

--------------------
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
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091

 - Posted      Profile for EtymologicalEvangelical   Email EtymologicalEvangelical   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
OK, so since none of us are perfect, can we therefore agree that there should be no more criticism of charismatic (or even fundie) churches by any Christians on this site?

--------------------
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
Jengie jon

Semper Reformanda
# 273

 - Posted      Profile for Jengie jon   Author's homepage   Email Jengie jon   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Why should they be a special case?

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
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
I think Raptor Eye has it nailed.

We don't need to worry about other people, their motivations or where they stand with God. People's spirituality and morality have nothing to do with us (unless they are hurting us, of course then we need to deal with them appropriately)

If we are employing them to do a job or to volunteer in Church or anywhere else we need to look at their character and past record to be sure they are up to/fit for the job. But that's as far as it goes.

I think this is precisely why I said that I don't think it has much to do with the fact that people are Christians.

Because it seems to me that as soon as we start throwing the spiritual labels around and going "Brother! Sister!", we suddenly have a desire to frame things in spiritual terms like 'sin', talk about God's judgement instead of our own and let people off the hook for things that we'd never accept in any other context where we were dealing with human-level interactions and leaving God out of it.

Which may well be exactly how the covering up of sexual crimes in the church happened.

We should spend a lot less time thinking about whether behaviour is 'sinful' and a lot more time thinking about whether it's criminal or a breach of ethics. Leave consideration of whether something is 'sinful' to the cases where it's not criminal or a breach of ethics, but it might still be something that's wrong in the eyes of God.

[ 23. August 2014, 22:23: Message edited by: orfeo ]

--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.

Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713

 - Posted      Profile for Sioni Sais   Email Sioni Sais   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
OK, so since none of us are perfect, can we therefore agree that there should be no more criticism of charismatic (or even fundie) churches by any Christians on this site?

No, because if allegations are made against leaders and they do not deal with them promptly, openly and honestly it will discredit the church.

--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"

(Paul Sinha, BBC)

Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290

 - Posted      Profile for Horseman Bree   Email Horseman Bree   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Jengie Jon:
quote:
The failure of many more recent institutions to follow this lead and thus create unaccountable leaderships within institutions is a serious failing.


One might wonder as to why the "more recent" institutions chose to avoid having accountability structures. Is it just because the leadership is so charismatic and could never do wrong, or is there a (sub)conscious desire to avoid accountability on the part of the leadership?

Or, of course, do the great plans of the beginning go aground on the rocks of aggrandisement and power as things go along, and then it is too late to develop accountability?

--------------------
It's Not That Simple

Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091

 - Posted      Profile for EtymologicalEvangelical   Email EtymologicalEvangelical   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
OK, so since none of us are perfect, can we therefore agree that there should be no more criticism of charismatic (or even fundie) churches by any Christians on this site?

No, because if allegations are made against leaders and they do not deal with them promptly, openly and honestly it will discredit the church.
So presumably they shouldn't be criticised for their supposedly dodgy theology?

Also, presumably if we take it upon ourselves to charge the leadership of such churches (or any church for that matter) with dishonesty through lack of openness, we can only do so if we have first hung out all our own dirty washing in public. Or doesn't it work like that?

--------------------
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      Profile for Martin60   Email Martin60   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
The way the police, lawyers, judges, social workers, parents do?

--------------------
Love wins

Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290

 - Posted      Profile for Horseman Bree   Email Horseman Bree   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
It may be that membership in an organisation requires total unquestioning loyalty, but anyone outside that organization still has the right to demand behaviour which is legal, and the right to expect behaviour that is moral within some code of understanding, especially when the behaviour is done by the leadership. This is particularly true of organizations which exist to preach and teach "moral behaviour".
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091

 - Posted      Profile for EtymologicalEvangelical   Email EtymologicalEvangelical   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin... Biohazard
The way the police, lawyers, judges, social workers, parents do?

Good, you're getting the idea.

They don't feel the need to take the plank out of their own eye in order to do their jobs. Most of those jobs simply involve enforcing the law (or are supposed to).

Trouble is that many of the criticisms of other churches, such as VC in Cwmbran, don't necessarily involve any infractions of the law. There is no law that states that when another Christian pulls them up on plagiarism that they have to acknowledge it. They should stop committing plagiarism, because that is illegal, but there is certainly no legal requirement for them to have to admit it to anyone. Stopping the illegal activity is enough.

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?

Just where do we draw the line?

[ 24. August 2014, 10:15: Message edited by: EtymologicalEvangelical ]

--------------------
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
Boogie

Boogie on down!
# 13538

 - Posted      Profile for Boogie     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk

Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091

 - Posted      Profile for EtymologicalEvangelical   Email EtymologicalEvangelical   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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?

For example, it may be that the leadership of VC Cwmbran looked at the verse "Be wise as serpents" and thought "well, yes, we've messed up on this plagiarism thing, but really we shouldn't advertise that we have done wrong, because we have so many enemies out there, and therefore it is wise to keep our self-incrimination to an absolute minimum." To my mind that is a perfectly decent interpretation of the relevant biblical saying, and I would have thought that many Christians would sympathise, given that confession is usually made to someone you trust (such a priest in the RCC - and in strict confidence!!).

Now they may be totally wrong to think like this, but the point I am making is that they could construct a seemingly legitimate moral code from the same text as their critics.

quote:
...especially when the behaviour is done by the leadership.
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.

--------------------
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      Profile for Moo   Email Moo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
For example, it may be that the leadership of VC Cwmbran looked at the verse "Be wise as serpents" and thought "well, yes, we've messed up on this plagiarism thing, but really we shouldn't advertise that we have done wrong, because we have so many enemies out there, and therefore it is wise to keep our self-incrimination to an absolute minimum."

This is the reasoning that led the RC church to conceal its sexual scandals.

Moo

--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.

Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091

 - Posted      Profile for EtymologicalEvangelical   Email EtymologicalEvangelical   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Moo
This is the reasoning that led the RC church to conceal its sexual scandals.

Are you suggesting that it is therefore always wrong for a Christian to confess his sins privately?

A church may indeed use this justification to cover up evil, but that does not necessarily mean that this argument is always wrong in every situation. Someone could, for example, appeal to the grace of God to justify some sin, but does that invalidate the grace of God?

The sexual crimes of RC priests involved many victims, who were directly assaulted. The only victim of the plagiarism committed by Victory Church was some author, who, as far as I am aware, hasn't even been contacted about this violation of his intellectual property rights.

[ 24. August 2014, 12:46: Message edited by: EtymologicalEvangelical ]

--------------------
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
Jengie jon

Semper Reformanda
# 273

 - Posted      Profile for Jengie jon   Author's homepage   Email Jengie jon   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Individual or Institution? As far as I know privacy has only been given to individuals and then only when within limits.

Those limits are set by the fact that repentance is a pre-requisite for confession. If you mislead people and you repent then you are duty bound to tell them you have misled them as part of that repentance. If you do not you continue to sin as you allow the lie to remain.

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
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091

 - Posted      Profile for EtymologicalEvangelical   Email EtymologicalEvangelical   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon
Those limits are set by the fact that repentance is a pre-requisite for confession. If you mislead people and you repent then you are duty bound to tell them you have misled them as part of that repentance. If you do not you continue to sin as you allow the lie to remain.

The problem is that the leadership of a church involved in what is considered by many to be a controversial work, may make mistakes and those mistakes may be exposed by people unknown to them. I feel a certain sympathy for that church in those circumstances, because, while some criticism may be legitimate, if it comes from a source which may actually be hostile (or it may not be, but the church doesn't know that), then understandably the church will feel rather reluctant to say more than it really needs to. You talk about the need for repentance, but there is also the need for the assurance of genuine forgiveness and that a public confession will not be abused to stir up further animosity against the one who has been at fault. If someone contacted me telling me that I had violated a law on my website, and I had no idea who this was, and what his real intentions were towards me, then I certainly would not communicate with him. I would correct the mistake and leave it at that. Wisdom would require me to be extremely careful in that situation.

I would consider that in this context this is a legitimate application of "being wise as serpents".

[ 24. August 2014, 13:33: Message edited by: EtymologicalEvangelical ]

--------------------
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      Profile for Martin60   Email Martin60   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
There's no idea to be got. Cwmbran are helplessly, innocently unethical. All literalists are by definition.

--------------------
Love wins

Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091

 - Posted      Profile for EtymologicalEvangelical   Email EtymologicalEvangelical   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC...
There's no idea to be got. Cwmbran are helplessly, innocently unethical. All literalists are by definition.

All literalists are unethical, by definition?

Ah, a self-refuting statement, if ever I saw one! (Think about it!)

Well done.

--------------------
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      Profile for Gamaliel   Author's homepage   Email Gamaliel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I still don't 'get' why you are making such a big deal about defending VC, EE. I can see that you regard this as an issue of 'balance' - which is fair enough.

But it's not as if VC has been at all balanced in the claims it's made about itself. It's been setting itself up as some kind of special place where the 'anointing' has been flowing and so on and so forth ...

It's hardly surprising that it has attracted criticism and attention.

On the Cwmbran thread I've made it clear that I question the motives of some of those who've been out to pull the Cwmbran thing down. The gloating tone adopted by some of VC's critics is very unhelpful in my view.

The problem is, VC runs the risk of pulling itself down by making over-blown claims that can't be substantiated.

Ok - one could argue that this is no-one else's business but theirs. Perhaps so. But given that they're dealing with a lot of vulnerable people, I think we're going to see rather a lot of casualties.

I hope I'm wrong, but I can't see any other outcome at this stage.

--------------------
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      Profile for EtymologicalEvangelical   Email EtymologicalEvangelical   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel
I still don't 'get' why you are making such a big deal about defending VC, EE. I can see that you regard this as an issue of 'balance' - which is fair enough.

1. Because there are vulnerable people involved, and therefore we need to get it right.

2. Because charismatic churches are an easy target, and someone has to redress the balance.

3. Because 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.

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.

5. Because everyone deserves a fair trial. A trial with only the case for the prosecution is no trial at all. Any sustained criticism of anyone or any institution is a kind of informal trial.

As for the question of whether the success or failure of VC has any impact on or implication for my own personal spiritual life: irrelevant.

--------------------
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
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110

 - Posted      Profile for Barnabas62   Email Barnabas62   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
OK, so since none of us are perfect, can we therefore agree that there should be no more criticism of charismatic (or even fundie) churches by any Christians on this site?

No we can not agree to that. The avoidance of libel in accordance with C8 is the only constraint on such criticisms. Theology and church management methods in so far as they are in the public domain are perfectly reasonable topics of Purgatorial discussion provided that C8 restraints are observed.

Take this Hostly opinion to the Styx if you like for a debate on discussion limits in Purgatory under the 10Cs and Guidelines.

Barnabas62
Purgatory Host

[ 24. August 2014, 16:16: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]

--------------------
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
Chorister

Completely Frocked
# 473

 - Posted      Profile for Chorister   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
It's difficult to understand, but the sheep have to live with the goats and the wheat has to be mixed with the chaff, if Jesus's own parables are to be believed. Often, this is taken to mean Christians living among non-Christians, but it is rather a shock to realise that it may well mean within the church as well as outside in the secular world.

There are church laws and secular laws, obviously if they are broken, then justice has to be done. But otherwise...

--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.

Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081

 - Posted      Profile for Eutychus   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
1. Because there are vulnerable people involved, and therefore we need to get it right.

What does "getting it right" involve?
quote:
2. Because charismatic churches are an easy target
What makes you think they are an "easy target"?.

quote:
3. Because 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.
The RCC sex abuse scandal has an entire, long Wikipedia page devoted to it. It's hardly escaped notice.

As to the Ship, searching Google using the string
quote:
"catholic" "sex abuse" site:forum.ship-of-fools.com
returns 41 results. Not all of them refer directly to this scandal, but a casual count suggests at least a dozen threads on the subject.

On the basis of the above, what grounds do you have for saying VC has had its undue share of attention?
quote:
5. Because everyone deserves a fair trial. A trial with only the case for the prosecution is no trial at all. Any sustained criticism of anyone or any institution is a kind of informal trial.
This is a discussion board, not a court of law. But for the record, VC were contacted about the original issue and declined to reply. Nobody is preventing them from joining in the debate.

What is fuelling the debate is their complete and utter lack of communication on the issue on a level commensurate with their previous communication about the outpouring.

As to your point 4, I'm posting my answer on the Hell thread.

[ 24. August 2014, 16:34: 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
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812

 - Posted      Profile for Gamaliel   Author's homepage   Email Gamaliel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Ok ... fair enough to an extent.

However ...

1. Yes, there are vulnerable people involved and we need to get it right. Revivalism doesn't help vulnerable people, it preys on them. The answer to all this is to eschew revivalism. Notice I've stipulated 'revivalism' not revival per se - at least not genuine revival. But these things are always messy.

2. Because charismatic churches are an easy target, and someone has to redress the balance. Why? Why does someone have to redress the balance? The criticisms of VC on the Cwmbran thread looked very balanced to me - nobody was aligning themselves with the kind of witch-hunt websites that have been criticising VC and its leadership in the local area. If anything, the Shipmates posting on those threads distanced themselves from those sort of sites and those sort of tactics.

Charismatic churches are an easy target and they make themselves an easy target by doing daft things. If they didn't do daft things they wouldn't be such easy targets. Again, these things are always messy.

3. Because 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.

Don't you? I've seen plenty of criticism of the RCC on these boards and elsewhere. There have been plenty of Hellish criticisms of RCC polity and practice over issues of the child abuse scandals and the bodies of orphans dumped in drains and so on. I could supply links if necessary.

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.

That can happen, but again, most Shippies on the Cwmbran thread were distancing themselves from the 'ner ner na ner ner' comments on certain websites. Also, this is the Magazine of Christian Unrest - it's not the place to come if you don't want to see critical comments or the occasional 'ner ner na ner ner' schtick. I didn't find the Cwmbran thread to be that way at all, to be honest, quite the opposite. If anything VC was cut some slack.

5. Because everyone deserves a fair trial. A trial with only the case for the prosecution is no trial at all. Any sustained criticism of anyone or any institution is a kind of informal trial.

This isn't a court of law, it's an internet discussion board. People have been reasonably restrained and balanced overall on the Cwmbran issue it seems to me. There have been plenty of other threads on all sorts of issues which have been far less restrained and a lot more heated.

On the issue of whether the success of failure of VC has any impact or bearing on your own personal spiritual life - well, yes, that probably is irrelevant. If I raised that possibility in Purgatory then yes, it was out of order and I shouldn't have done.

(From memory and without checking, I think I did raise it rhetorically in Purgatory, in which case fair call and I take back that remark.)

If it was in the context of a Hell thread then that might be different as it's a different context.

Whatever the case, it remains to be seen what will happen in Cwmbran. I'm hoping for the best but fearing the worst.

--------------------
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      Profile for Gamaliel   Author's homepage   Email Gamaliel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Meanwhile, Eutychus has responded to this in Hell. I have echoed a comment he has made there.

Perhaps you might wish to respond to it in the infernal regions, EE.

I have some questions:

Who are you referring to in Point 4:

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.

And who made you judge and jury as to who are 'so-called brothers and sisters in Christ'?

The RCC makes some pretty big claims. It seems that EE is making an even bigger one.

--------------------
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
Chesterbelloc

Tremendous trifler
# 3128

 - Posted      Profile for Chesterbelloc   Email Chesterbelloc   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."

Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368

 - Posted      Profile for Martin60   Email Martin60   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
No EE, it isn't, above the line isn't in it. I'm not Russell's barber.

Literalists are arbitrary legalists and there is no room for any ethics in that. They go beyond mere wooden literalism of course by misapplying stories about Jesus and The Disciples from two thousand years ago to themselves. That's normal in Christianity.

They certainly need empathy and understanding and when they innocently, fecklessly predate the vulnerable publically they need confronting, exposing.

I know a lovely young woman plagued with bipolarity, substance abuse. A guy from a similar set-up as Cwmbran was suspiciously desperate to 'save' her. She told me about it and how she felt uncomfortable. Good job he wasn't in the neighbourhood. I'd have had a word. I FULLY endorsed her reservations about this well meaning, naïve, un-self aware wolf in sheep's clothing.

It's all about power, sex, money.

--------------------
Love wins

Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641

 - Posted      Profile for chris stiles   Email chris stiles   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:
Originally posted by Moo
This is the reasoning that led the RC church to conceal its sexual scandals.

Are you suggesting that it is therefore always wrong for a Christian to confess his sins privately?

No, but sin should be confessed on the register at which it was perpetrated. In this case it was a public wrongdoing.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641

 - Posted      Profile for chris stiles   Email chris stiles   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
OK, so since none of us are perfect, can we therefore agree that there should be no more criticism of charismatic (or even fundie) churches by any Christians on this site?

Lack of perfection does not absolve us of the need to carry out proper church discipline. In charismatic circles, this must include ensuring that someone with a habit of exaggeration doesn't remain in a position of church leadership.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091

 - Posted      Profile for EtymologicalEvangelical   Email EtymologicalEvangelical   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles
No, but sin should be confessed on the register at which it was perpetrated. In this case it was a public wrongdoing.

Is that a biblical rule, or just your personal opinion?

I would contrast this with David's words in Psalm 51:

quote:
Against You, You only, have I sinned,
And done this evil in Your sight

David made his confession to God and was presumably justified in so doing. We don't know whether the powers that be at Victory Church have made their confession to God or not. We cannot make any assumption either way. But it is only to God that they need to make confession (or possibly also to someone within their local church family). Making confession to a stranger communicating from a distance has no biblical support at all, as far as I can see.

quote:
Lack of perfection does not absolve us of the need to carry out proper church discipline. In charismatic circles, this must include ensuring that someone with a habit of exaggeration doesn't remain in a position of church leadership.
Yes, but church discipline is carried out within local churches, not by strangers writing letters. Their missives may be useful, but unless they are part of that local church, or part of the apostolic set up, then I don't see why they should feel any right to administer discipline.

If exaggeration disqualifies someone from church leadership, then, from my experience, there will be very few leaders left. I used to be involved in Christian charity and mission work, and I am well aware of the hype and exaggeration that goes on among those in positions of Christian influence.

Exaggeration is not always easy to define. Being economical with the truth stands in the same category. If we take seriously the injunction to "first take the plank out of our own eye", then I really don't think most of us will have any time left to criticise the likes of Victory Church, quite honestly. (Yes, I know that I can only speak for myself, but if anyone thinks they are perfect, then I am happy for them.)

[ 24. August 2014, 20:56: Message edited by: EtymologicalEvangelical ]

--------------------
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
Jengie jon

Semper Reformanda
# 273

 - Posted      Profile for Jengie jon   Author's homepage   Email Jengie jon   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Private Confession did not exist in Jesus' day. Indeed the Church did not practice it until several centuries afterwards.

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.

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
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601

 - Posted      Profile for Steve Langton   Email Steve Langton   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I've thought for some time that a key verse here is “Seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness , and all these things shall be added unto you”. OK, I know that at first it looks as if the text is about something else – not being anxious about your life in general – but the principle is also applicable to the business of evangelism, another area where we need to be secure from anxiety about things.

Essentially, the 'kingdom of God' means that God is recognised as King. Not just that we get people to have faith in Jesus, but that they confess Jesus as Lord. And in the context of Jesus as Lord and God as King, that phrase 'and his righteousness' is not an optional extra; God's righteousness is part of the very substance of His Kingdom.

Seeking God's kingdom means doing so righteously. And that's where a lot of 'revivalism' goes wrong – the focus is on the outward stuff, the visible success, the bums on seats in the church, the excitement and the hype, and in seeking those things the righteousness gets forgotten all round. The gospel itself can lose it's challenge to repentance and become about the excitement of receiving the Spirit, and generally the ends justify the means instead of understanding that in this case the righteousness of the means is also important.

If we haven't got it about the importance of righteousness, the gospel itself is changed into simply self-indulgence. And like a pastor I quoted back I think on the Cwmbran thread, it will not seem odd to respond to “But that's a lie....” with “Who cares so long as more people come to the church?”

Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013  |  IP: Logged
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091

 - Posted      Profile for EtymologicalEvangelical   Email EtymologicalEvangelical   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
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      Profile for chris stiles   Email chris stiles   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles
No, but sin should be confessed on the register at which it was perpetrated. In this case it was a public wrongdoing.

Is that a biblical rule, or just your personal opinion?

I believe it has biblical backing, See Jengie Jon - also, see that Psalm in context, see chapter 5 of James and Matthew.

quote:
Yes, but church discipline is carried out within local churches, not by strangers writing letters. Their missives may be useful, but unless they are part of that local church, or part of the apostolic set up, then I don't see why they should feel any right to administer discipline.

If this was actually a average local church, that didn't seek to have influence beyond it's boundaries, I would agree with you. As it is the situation is quite different.

quote:

If exaggeration disqualifies someone from church leadership, then, from my experience, there will be very few leaders left.

If we take seriously the injunction to "first take the plank out of our own eye", then I really don't think most of us will have any time left to criticise the likes of Victory Church, quite honestly.

This has to be read in conjunction with the rest of scripture - otherwise I must have missed the coda of 1 Timothy 3 that says "Oh, but no one is perfect, so it doesn't matter anyway".

[ 24. August 2014, 21:10: Message edited by: chris stiles ]

Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
follow ship of fools on twitter
buy your ship of fools postcards
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
 
  ship of fools