Anyone curious about real Amish??

[Fez]

That is a good question.  We know a church has the right to go so far as to turn one over to Satan if they get out of line.  We know God gave people positions of authority in the church.  I don't know exactly what the line would be where someone would be guilty of lording over God's people?  One could make the case that any control whatsoever with any threat of punishment or being put out of the church was a violation of that teaching, but that would mean Paul went too far himself.  Anything short of complete anarchy could bring this charge.  I am not sure where you would draw the line.  It is kind of like the cult label some have been throwing around.  One can make the case that nearly any religion is a cult, when you base it on the Dictionary definition of a cult.  The same thing can be done here with the term "lording over."

The same thing can be done here with the term "lording over."

 

The term has always had negative connotations in the English language.

 

Even going back to feudal times and long before that with the pharisees, it has always had a negative connotation.

[ajchurney]

That is a good question.  We know a church has the right to go so far as to turn one over to Satan if they get out of line.  We know God gave people positions of authority in the church.  I don't know exactly what the line would be where someone would be guilty of lording over God's people?  One could make the case that any control whatsoever with any threat of punishment or being put out of the church was a violation of that teaching, but that would mean Paul went too far himself.  Anything short of complete anarchy could bring this charge.  I am not sure where you would draw the line.  It is kind of like the cult label some have been throwing around.  One can make the case that nearly any religion is a cult, when you base it on the Dictionary definition of a cult.  The same thing can be done here with the term "lording over."

Butero,

this is the major rub here. You speak in vast knowledge of  certain things, and strongly trumpet legalism, yet you plead total ignorance in this, which is an impoertant balancing point regarding leadership. You advocate "ultra-controlling" leadership methods, but here is a clear bible passage that gravitates against your position and you merely fumble around and basically conclude that there is no way of defining what this means. Sorry, but that is a cop-out. Jesus taught serving in leading (Lk 22:24-26), and that we were not to lead as the Gentiles do. Instead of offering some constructive insight here, you only swing to the extreme side and conclude that we can't operate on a dictionary definition of a cult. Well, why don't we just go to the NT and notice that maturity in Christianity is marked first by a genuine and obvious love in action for the brethren. Maturity is marked by the fruits of the Spirit, and "ultra-controlling" is antithetical to that list, is it not? Maturity is marked by humility and gentleness, not a bullying forcefulness or insistence on getting it's own way. The Holy Spirit Himself controls no one, but desires our full cooperation in all things great and small. Demons are those that seek to control and possess a person and force their will upon men. A servant does not control those that he serves, unless there is some odd definition of serving that I am unaware of. Controlling leaders should be rebuked and sat down if they refuse to act more Christlike, period. The solution is for the Elders to hold one another to a biblical standard of love and servant-hood, not for the used and abused to be forced to leave.

 

Another issue I need to raise with you is that your theory is that if one does not like how controlling the leadership is, then they should just leave and fellowship somewhere else. You have several times put this forth as your model for dealing with disagreement. Where can I find this in the NT? Even in the passage about head coverings, Paul concludes by saying that if any seem to contend with the idea, LET THEM, since there is no such rule in the churches of Christ. It does not say LET THEM LEAVE and find another place to fellowship. Your method finds no scriptural backing, and you know that it doesn't. We are supposed to work always to maintain the unity of the Spirit. We are supposed to think the same things in the mind of Christ. We are supposed to love one another in a way that makes the world take notice, not run away every time we find disagreement or conflict. It is one thing to move or change fellowship by the true leading of the Spirit in order to obey the calling of God to minister, be a missionary, etc.  It is quite another to break fellowship over completely secondary issues and preferences. If you ask me, your advice is close to directly opposing scripture. If another Jesus, a patently false Gospel is being preached, or there is serious unchecked abuse going on without hope of correction, then this is reasonable. Leaving a fellowship over music preferences and not wearing suit and tie is dangerous ground, and shows little love or preference for the brethren, and that works either way, whether the preference is conservative or liberal. This is one of the HUGE things wrong with the modern western church. It's all about our own personal, selfish opinions and ideas and not about the unity of the Spirit of God anymore. The whole thing wrong here is that when legalism OR license cuts the church up into tiny bits and destroys all sense of unity, they are both antithetical to the Spirit of Love and reconciliation, and are evidences of our own radical independent, selfish spirits instead of the Holy Spirit of one Lord, one Faith, one baptism, the Spirit of unity. This is why I hate and despise both extremes.

Bottom line: if genuine Christians can no longer debate and discuss and work out their differences, even among the leaders who are supposed to be mature, there is little hope for our pathetic, Laodicean, lukewarm-in-love American church. We need revival.

[Guest Butero]

 

That is a good question.  We know a church has the right to go so far as to turn one over to Satan if they get out of line.  We know God gave people positions of authority in the church.  I don't know exactly what the line would be where someone would be guilty of lording over God's people?  One could make the case that any control whatsoever with any threat of punishment or being put out of the church was a violation of that teaching, but that would mean Paul went too far himself.  Anything short of complete anarchy could bring this charge.  I am not sure where you would draw the line.  It is kind of like the cult label some have been throwing around.  One can make the case that nearly any religion is a cult, when you base it on the Dictionary definition of a cult.  The same thing can be done here with the term "lording over."

Butero,

this is the major rub here. You speak in vast knowledge of  certain things, and strongly trumpet legalism, yet you plead total ignorance in this, which is an impoertant balancing point regarding leadership. You advocate "ultra-controlling" leadership methods, but here is a clear bible passage that gravitates against your position and you merely fumble around and basically conclude that there is no way of defining what this means. Sorry, but that is a cop-out. Jesus taught serving in leading (Lk 22:24-26), and that we were not to lead as the Gentiles do. Instead of offering some constructive insight here, you only swing to the extreme side and conclude that we can't operate on a dictionary definition of a cult. Well, why don't we just go to the NT and notice that maturity in Christianity is marked first by a genuine and obvious love in action for the brethren. Maturity is marked by the fruits of the Spirit, and "ultra-controlling" is antithetical to that list, is it not? Maturity is marked by humility and gentleness, not a bullying forcefulness or insistence on getting it's own way. The Holy Spirit Himself controls no one, but desires our full cooperation in all things great and small. Demons are those that seek to control and possess a person and force their will upon men. A servant does not control those that he serves, unless there is some odd definition of serving that I am unaware of. Controlling leaders should be rebuked and sat down if they refuse to act more Christlike, period. The solution is for the Elders to hold one another to a biblical standard of love and servant-hood, not for the used and abused to be forced to leave.

 

Another issue I need to raise with you is that your theory is that if one does not like how controlling the leadership is, then they should just leave and fellowship somewhere else. You have several times put this forth as your model for dealing with disagreement. Where can I find this in the NT? Even in the passage about head coverings, Paul concludes by saying that if any seem to contend with the idea, LET THEM, since there is no such rule in the churches of Christ. It does not say LET THEM LEAVE and find another place to fellowship. Your method finds no scriptural backing, and you know that it doesn't. We are supposed to work always to maintain the unity of the Spirit. We are supposed to think the same things in the mind of Christ. We are supposed to love one another in a way that makes the world take notice, not run away every time we find disagreement or conflict. It is one thing to move or change fellowship by the true leading of the Spirit in order to obey the calling of God to minister, be a missionary, etc.  It is quite another to break fellowship over completely secondary issues and preferences. If you ask me, your advice is close to directly opposing scripture. If another Jesus, a patently false Gospel is being preached, or there is serious unchecked abuse going on without hope of correction, then this is reasonable. Leaving a fellowship over music preferences and not wearing suit and tie is dangerous ground, and shows little love or preference for the brethren, and that works either way, whether the preference is conservative or liberal. This is one of the HUGE things wrong with the modern western church. It's all about our own personal, selfish opinions and ideas and not about the unity of the Spirit of God anymore. The whole thing wrong here is that when legalism OR license cuts the church up into tiny bits and destroys all sense of unity, they are both antithetical to the Spirit of Love and reconciliation, and are evidences of our own radical independent, selfish spirits instead of the Holy Spirit of one Lord, one Faith, one baptism, the Spirit of unity. This is why I hate and despise both extremes.

Bottom line: if genuine Christians can no longer debate and discuss and work out their differences, even among the leaders who are supposed to be mature, there is little hope for our pathetic, Laodicean, lukewarm-in-love American church. We need revival.

 

Unlike a lot of people, if I am not sure of something, I will say so, and then go back and look into it.  I am not ashamed to admit not being sure of something, and I make no apologies for such an admission.  I did go back and look into it further, and wrote a post about my findings.  I am not sure which thread it is in, but I will look for it.  It might be in this thread. 

 

The Bible never deals with a situation like we have today where there are churches on nearly every street corner that are the result of numerous splits over everything from padded pews, to a church split I once encountered where people left over the type of piano the church purchased.  There is no scripture to cover such a thing.  You had one Christian church in each city, and at times, the people met in various homes. 

 

In the New Testament, I read about a contention between Paul and Barnabus over John Mark.  The contention was so strong, they split up, and Paul began traveling with Silas, and Barnabus with John Mark.  Yes, this does happen in the Bible.  There are times where people just can't get along, and it is better to separate. 

 

That being said, I hope this applies to the Amish people as well.  If they are part of that community, based on what you just said, even if they don't like the controlling leadership, and even if they can't come to agreement, they must remain.  You have really harmed your own position with this last post of yours.  It would mean that no matter how controlling the leadership is in a church, you have to remain.  You have rejected my counsel that you can leave.  It is not your place to determine what is trivial and what is not. 

 

I found it.  Check out post #28 of the thread "Four Anti-Legalistic Strategies."  I took the time to look further into the passage.  I don't care if you agree or disagree with my findings, but I did care enough to investigate it.  I am glad I did, rather than just taking it at face value. 

[ajchurney]

 

 

That is a good question.  We know a church has the right to go so far as to turn one over to Satan if they get out of line.  We know God gave people positions of authority in the church.  I don't know exactly what the line would be where someone would be guilty of lording over God's people?  One could make the case that any control whatsoever with any threat of punishment or being put out of the church was a violation of that teaching, but that would mean Paul went too far himself.  Anything short of complete anarchy could bring this charge.  I am not sure where you would draw the line.  It is kind of like the cult label some have been throwing around.  One can make the case that nearly any religion is a cult, when you base it on the Dictionary definition of a cult.  The same thing can be done here with the term "lording over."

Butero,

this is the major rub here. You speak in vast knowledge of  certain things, and strongly trumpet legalism, yet you plead total ignorance in this, which is an impoertant balancing point regarding leadership. You advocate "ultra-controlling" leadership methods, but here is a clear bible passage that gravitates against your position and you merely fumble around and basically conclude that there is no way of defining what this means. Sorry, but that is a cop-out. Jesus taught serving in leading (Lk 22:24-26), and that we were not to lead as the Gentiles do. Instead of offering some constructive insight here, you only swing to the extreme side and conclude that we can't operate on a dictionary definition of a cult. Well, why don't we just go to the NT and notice that maturity in Christianity is marked first by a genuine and obvious love in action for the brethren. Maturity is marked by the fruits of the Spirit, and "ultra-controlling" is antithetical to that list, is it not? Maturity is marked by humility and gentleness, not a bullying forcefulness or insistence on getting it's own way. The Holy Spirit Himself controls no one, but desires our full cooperation in all things great and small. Demons are those that seek to control and possess a person and force their will upon men. A servant does not control those that he serves, unless there is some odd definition of serving that I am unaware of. Controlling leaders should be rebuked and sat down if they refuse to act more Christlike, period. The solution is for the Elders to hold one another to a biblical standard of love and servant-hood, not for the used and abused to be forced to leave.

 

Another issue I need to raise with you is that your theory is that if one does not like how controlling the leadership is, then they should just leave and fellowship somewhere else. You have several times put this forth as your model for dealing with disagreement. Where can I find this in the NT? Even in the passage about head coverings, Paul concludes by saying that if any seem to contend with the idea, LET THEM, since there is no such rule in the churches of Christ. It does not say LET THEM LEAVE and find another place to fellowship. Your method finds no scriptural backing, and you know that it doesn't. We are supposed to work always to maintain the unity of the Spirit. We are supposed to think the same things in the mind of Christ. We are supposed to love one another in a way that makes the world take notice, not run away every time we find disagreement or conflict. It is one thing to move or change fellowship by the true leading of the Spirit in order to obey the calling of God to minister, be a missionary, etc.  It is quite another to break fellowship over completely secondary issues and preferences. If you ask me, your advice is close to directly opposing scripture. If another Jesus, a patently false Gospel is being preached, or there is serious unchecked abuse going on without hope of correction, then this is reasonable. Leaving a fellowship over music preferences and not wearing suit and tie is dangerous ground, and shows little love or preference for the brethren, and that works either way, whether the preference is conservative or liberal. This is one of the HUGE things wrong with the modern western church. It's all about our own personal, selfish opinions and ideas and not about the unity of the Spirit of God anymore. The whole thing wrong here is that when legalism OR license cuts the church up into tiny bits and destroys all sense of unity, they are both antithetical to the Spirit of Love and reconciliation, and are evidences of our own radical independent, selfish spirits instead of the Holy Spirit of one Lord, one Faith, one baptism, the Spirit of unity. This is why I hate and despise both extremes.

Bottom line: if genuine Christians can no longer debate and discuss and work out their differences, even among the leaders who are supposed to be mature, there is little hope for our pathetic, Laodicean, lukewarm-in-love American church. We need revival.

 

Unlike a lot of people, if I am not sure of something, I will say so, and then go back and look into it.  I am not ashamed to admit not being sure of something, and I make no apologies for such an admission.  I did go back and look into it further, and wrote a post about my findings.  I am not sure which thread it is in, but I will look for it.  It might be in this thread. 

 

The Bible never deals with a situation like we have today where there are churches on nearly every street corner that are the result of numerous splits over everything from padded pews, to a church split I once encountered where people left over the type of piano the church purchased.  There is no scripture to cover such a thing.  You had one Christian church in each city, and at times, the people met in various homes. 

 

In the New Testament, I read about a contention between Paul and Barnabus over John Mark.  The contention was so strong, they split up, and Paul began traveling with Silas, and Barnabus with John Mark.  Yes, this does happen in the Bible.  There are times where people just can't get along, and it is better to separate. 

 

That being said, I hope this applies to the Amish people as well.  If they are part of that community, based on what you just said, even if they don't like the controlling leadership, and even if they can't come to agreement, they must remain.  You have really harmed your own position with this last post of yours.  It would mean that no matter how controlling the leadership is in a church, you have to remain.  You have rejected my counsel that you can leave.  It is not your place to determine what is trivial and what is not. 

 

I found it.  Check out post #28 of the thread "Four Anti-Legalistic Strategies."  I took the time to look further into the passage.  I don't care if you agree or disagree with my findings, but I did care enough to investigate it.  I am glad I did, rather than just taking it at face value. 

 

You did not include the Luke 22 passage that I based my position on. The other is also pertinent, but the Luke 22 passage directly contrasts lording over to serving as a leader. 

Since you did not notice, I will reiterate my position. I said that what the church needs to do is discipline bullying, controlling leaders, and hold them to a Christlike standard. I never said that it is best to stay no matter what. My position was in response to your constant suggestion to simply leave if you don't like something. Why do you spurn holding leaders accountable for their actions and attitudes? The NT is quite clear about how to lead, I believe. I simply disagreed with your idea of doing nothing about the abusive leader and just leave the church. Leaders are supposed to submit to other leaders, and everyone is supposed to have a level of submission to all, since each has the Spirit of God. Yes, the Elders are to be submitted to, but this is in all the other contexts as well. Paul only exercised apostolic authority where gross sin was being tolerated, and he felt he had to step in. I believe that Paul's letters consistently have a mentoring, fatherly tone, not that of a controlling despot, and I hope you would agree with me.

I only feel Amish should leave that church when they are told to listen more to them than to things the Holy Spirit is clearly and repeatedly teaching and showing them. I have never supported leaving over clothing, buggies, or suchlike. When the leaders command them to do things and not do things that violate many clear scriptures, and those leaders have NO interest whatsoever in sitting down and reasoning through the scripture with those who have questions strongly rooted in the scriptures, but prefer the traditions of men ABOVE the word of God, then there is good reason to leave because that is called HERESY! This has happened repeatedly to people I personally know, where scripture is flatly ignored in favor of Amish traditions. Enough said.

Edited March 17, 2014 by ajchurney

[Guest Butero]

 

 

 

That is a good question.  We know a church has the right to go so far as to turn one over to Satan if they get out of line.  We know God gave people positions of authority in the church.  I don't know exactly what the line would be where someone would be guilty of lording over God's people?  One could make the case that any control whatsoever with any threat of punishment or being put out of the church was a violation of that teaching, but that would mean Paul went too far himself.  Anything short of complete anarchy could bring this charge.  I am not sure where you would draw the line.  It is kind of like the cult label some have been throwing around.  One can make the case that nearly any religion is a cult, when you base it on the Dictionary definition of a cult.  The same thing can be done here with the term "lording over."

Butero,

this is the major rub here. You speak in vast knowledge of  certain things, and strongly trumpet legalism, yet you plead total ignorance in this, which is an impoertant balancing point regarding leadership. You advocate "ultra-controlling" leadership methods, but here is a clear bible passage that gravitates against your position and you merely fumble around and basically conclude that there is no way of defining what this means. Sorry, but that is a cop-out. Jesus taught serving in leading (Lk 22:24-26), and that we were not to lead as the Gentiles do. Instead of offering some constructive insight here, you only swing to the extreme side and conclude that we can't operate on a dictionary definition of a cult. Well, why don't we just go to the NT and notice that maturity in Christianity is marked first by a genuine and obvious love in action for the brethren. Maturity is marked by the fruits of the Spirit, and "ultra-controlling" is antithetical to that list, is it not? Maturity is marked by humility and gentleness, not a bullying forcefulness or insistence on getting it's own way. The Holy Spirit Himself controls no one, but desires our full cooperation in all things great and small. Demons are those that seek to control and possess a person and force their will upon men. A servant does not control those that he serves, unless there is some odd definition of serving that I am unaware of. Controlling leaders should be rebuked and sat down if they refuse to act more Christlike, period. The solution is for the Elders to hold one another to a biblical standard of love and servant-hood, not for the used and abused to be forced to leave.

 

Another issue I need to raise with you is that your theory is that if one does not like how controlling the leadership is, then they should just leave and fellowship somewhere else. You have several times put this forth as your model for dealing with disagreement. Where can I find this in the NT? Even in the passage about head coverings, Paul concludes by saying that if any seem to contend with the idea, LET THEM, since there is no such rule in the churches of Christ. It does not say LET THEM LEAVE and find another place to fellowship. Your method finds no scriptural backing, and you know that it doesn't. We are supposed to work always to maintain the unity of the Spirit. We are supposed to think the same things in the mind of Christ. We are supposed to love one another in a way that makes the world take notice, not run away every time we find disagreement or conflict. It is one thing to move or change fellowship by the true leading of the Spirit in order to obey the calling of God to minister, be a missionary, etc.  It is quite another to break fellowship over completely secondary issues and preferences. If you ask me, your advice is close to directly opposing scripture. If another Jesus, a patently false Gospel is being preached, or there is serious unchecked abuse going on without hope of correction, then this is reasonable. Leaving a fellowship over music preferences and not wearing suit and tie is dangerous ground, and shows little love or preference for the brethren, and that works either way, whether the preference is conservative or liberal. This is one of the HUGE things wrong with the modern western church. It's all about our own personal, selfish opinions and ideas and not about the unity of the Spirit of God anymore. The whole thing wrong here is that when legalism OR license cuts the church up into tiny bits and destroys all sense of unity, they are both antithetical to the Spirit of Love and reconciliation, and are evidences of our own radical independent, selfish spirits instead of the Holy Spirit of one Lord, one Faith, one baptism, the Spirit of unity. This is why I hate and despise both extremes.

Bottom line: if genuine Christians can no longer debate and discuss and work out their differences, even among the leaders who are supposed to be mature, there is little hope for our pathetic, Laodicean, lukewarm-in-love American church. We need revival.

 

Unlike a lot of people, if I am not sure of something, I will say so, and then go back and look into it.  I am not ashamed to admit not being sure of something, and I make no apologies for such an admission.  I did go back and look into it further, and wrote a post about my findings.  I am not sure which thread it is in, but I will look for it.  It might be in this thread. 

 

The Bible never deals with a situation like we have today where there are churches on nearly every street corner that are the result of numerous splits over everything from padded pews, to a church split I once encountered where people left over the type of piano the church purchased.  There is no scripture to cover such a thing.  You had one Christian church in each city, and at times, the people met in various homes. 

 

In the New Testament, I read about a contention between Paul and Barnabus over John Mark.  The contention was so strong, they split up, and Paul began traveling with Silas, and Barnabus with John Mark.  Yes, this does happen in the Bible.  There are times where people just can't get along, and it is better to separate. 

 

That being said, I hope this applies to the Amish people as well.  If they are part of that community, based on what you just said, even if they don't like the controlling leadership, and even if they can't come to agreement, they must remain.  You have really harmed your own position with this last post of yours.  It would mean that no matter how controlling the leadership is in a church, you have to remain.  You have rejected my counsel that you can leave.  It is not your place to determine what is trivial and what is not. 

 

I found it.  Check out post #28 of the thread "Four Anti-Legalistic Strategies."  I took the time to look further into the passage.  I don't care if you agree or disagree with my findings, but I did care enough to investigate it.  I am glad I did, rather than just taking it at face value. 

 

You did not include the Luke 22 passage that I based my position on. The other is also pertinent, but the Luke 22 passage directly contrasts lording over to serving as a leader. 

Since you did not notice, I will reiterate my position. I said that what the church needs to do is discipline bullying, controlling leaders, and hold them to a Christlike standard. I never said that it is best to stay no matter what. My position was in response to your constant suggestion to simply leave if you don't like something. Why do you spurn holding leaders accountable for their actions and attitudes? The NT is quite clear about how to lead, I believe. I simply disagreed with your idea of doing nothing about the abusive leader and just leave the church. Leaders are supposed to submit to other leaders, and everyone is supposed to have a level of submission to all, since each has the Spirit of God. Yes, the Elders are to be submitted to, but this is in all the other contexts as well. Paul only exercised apostolic authority where gross sin was being tolerated, and he felt he had to step in. I believe that Paul's letters consistently have a mentoring, fatherly tone, not that of a controlling despot, and I hope you would agree with me.

I only feel Amish should leave that church when they are told to listen more to them than to things the Holy Spirit is clearly and repeatedly teaching and showing them. I have never supported leaving over clothing, buggies, or suchlike. When the leaders command them to do things and not do things that violate many clear scriptures, and those leaders have NO interest whatsoever in sitting down and reasoning through the scripture with those who have questions strongly rooted in the scriptures, but prefer the traditions of men ABOVE the word of God, then there is good reason to leave because that is called HERESY! This has happened repeatedly to people I personally know, where scripture is flatly ignored in favor of Amish traditions. Enough said.

 

I have a question for you.  Lets suppose people go to the church leadership, and they make a case they believe to be sound from the scriptures, and after considering the arguments, the church leadership doesn't agree with their conclusions?  It is kind of like the situation we have in this country with the Supreme Court.  I can clearly see violations of the Constitution, and that the court is making rulings based on twisting of the text, but what can I do?  They are the highest court in the land.  What do these people do in such a situation?  Once the leadership has spoken, what then?  Who makes the call?  In the Amish community, they have people in positions of authority, and when they make a decision, it is final.  If you disagree, what do you do?  Do you stay and accept the ruling or leave?  Who corrects the highest court or rulers?  There will always be someone at the top.

[ajchurney]

Butero,

I agree. In the Christian church, there truly is always a man at the top. His name is Jesus Christ, and he rules the church by the Person of the Holy Spirit. When human leaders will not listen to the man at the top, there is no real Spiritual authority anymore. The Holy Spirit does not confirm His Word with the accompanying signs, because it is not His Word but the traditions and words of man that are being taught and honored and not His Word. When Paul needed to exercise authority, he said that he did not speak with merely persuasive words of men, but in the DEMONSTRATION and POWER of THE SPIRIT. If some leader wants to claim spiritual authority, he had better be exhibiting the fruits and gifts of the Spirit, and speaking the truth IN LOVE. If the Holy Spirit is not in active, recognized authority over  a "church" organization, then it is not a part of His Church, but is a man-made religious group sticking His Name on their works and calling it Christian. A church is not THE Church just because they try to highjack His name to build their own religious kingdom. IMHO, many American "church members" are going to have a rude awakening when they find out that Jesus says to them, "Go away from me, you workers of iniquity..." And the leaders of those churches will be held doubly accountable for leading others astray. That being said, when leadership goes entirely astray, they are no longer leaders in Christ's kingdom but only have a false and unspiritual authority, and not to be followed. I suppose that it is not always cut and dry to determine such things, as some wolves put on a good showing. This is a serious situation warranting going elsewhere, and not a simple matter of disagreement about unclear, secondary issues like musical style, mode of dress, or suchlike. I am talking about a pervasive and systemic departure from the Spirit.

Despite all that I find hard to understand about some of your viewpoints, I actually think we have more in common on the important issues than our disagreements would indicate. I think some of our differences are based on perspective and angle of attack more than substance.

Blessings brother,

Andy

[Guest Butero]

All authorities come from God.  You can't attain any position unless God gives it to you.  We are accountable for what we do with those positions, and how we conduct ourselves.  The church world is fractured.  There is no universal church.  We have too many denominations to count, plus thousands of independent ministries.  In each case, someone is at the top in human government.  There are bishops, a board, or in the Catholic Church, a Pope.  There is someone in charge.  I don't believe that if the Southern Baptist Convention makes a decision, the church at large has any authority to rebuke them and make them come into line with their teachings.  I don't expect them to listen to a rebuke from the Presbyterian USA leaders.  When the Church of Christ headquarters makes a ruling, I don't expect them to be obligated to listen to public rebukes from the United Pentecostal Church.  The same thing goes for the Amish.  They have leaders in place, and their decisions are final.  I don't have a right to rebuke them publically and really expect them to listen to me.  I am not a member of their group.

 

I had an incident regarding a Christian group sometime ago, where I knew I was in the right, and they had violated their own rules.  Once I exhausted all of my appeals, I took the matter to Jesus Christ himself, the head of the church.  That was all I could do, and then I left it in his hands.  Sometimes that is all you can do.  You can believe you are right, and the others are wrong, but ultimately, there are people in place that will make those decisions.  Once they are made, they are made.  To me, the Amish have a right to make their own choices about how they do things.  If that were not so, what would be stopping the Catholic Church, who claims they are the true church, from rebuking all protestants and demanding they come in line or else.  Are we supposed to listen if they do?  While there is only one true church, and God knows who the members of that church are, when it comes to groups, there are many, and those outside of a particular group have no authority to interfere with how other groups conduct their business. 

[Qnts2]

Matthew 20:25  But Jesus called them to Himself and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and those who are great exercise authority over them. ²⁶ Yet it shall not be so among you; but whoever desires to become great among you, let him be your servant. ²⁷ And whoever desires to be first among you, let him be your slave— ²⁸ just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.

 

Jeremiah 23:1 “Woe to the shepherds who destroy and scatter the sheep of My pasture!” says the Lord. ² Therefore thus says the Lord God of Israel against the shepherds who feed My people: “You have scattered My flock, driven them away, and not attended to them. Behold, I will attend to you for the evil of your doings,” says the Lord.

 

These are just two of the verses which show that leaders/shepherd are not to lord it over others. Lording it over is not just boasting of position but to claim great authority or exercise great authority over the people.

 

So, having seen this in action, I have wondered what a person is to do.

 

1 Tim 5:19 Do not receive an accusation against an elder except from two or three witnesses. ²⁰ Those who are sinning rebuke in the presence of all, that the rest also may fear.

 

So, we need 2 or 3 witnesses, and rebuke in the presence of all.

 

In my own experience, a Pastor would encourage or appoint leaders/elders under him who are like minded. In the system I was in, no one was allowed to do anything in the church or outside of the church, without a meeting with the Pastor, and receiving his permission. In this particular group, the Pastor would test people to see if they were 'obedient'. The pastor might call someone up and ask them to do him a favor, (but not tell them what the favor was going to be). If the person said immediately 'yes' with no questions, then the pastor might ask them to wash his car. If they asked what the favor was, or when, or any question, the pastor would say 'never mind', and then the person would not receive any assignments in the church, or permission to do any service in or outside of church. If the person decided not to wash the car, again, no assignments, or permission. Those who were always 'obedient' and never questioned the pastor, were those who held positions of ministry or higher. The ambitious learned the game, and worked their way up. Of course, if they ever questioned the pastor, they were immediately demoted. Those on their way up, had time and effort invested so would never question the pastor. In this kind of situation, it is very difficult to get 2 or 3 witnesses willing to come forward.

 

So what is a person to do if others are not willing to come forward in such a controlling situation?

 

Revelation 2:4 Nevertheless I have this against you, that you have left your first love. ⁵ Remember therefore from where you have fallen; repent and do the first works, or else I will come to you quickly and remove your lampstand from its place—unless you repent. ⁶ But this you have, that you hate the deeds of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate. 

 

There has been much debate about what or who the Nicolaitans were. One of the theories comes from a direct translation of the word: Nicolaitans.

 

The first part, Nico, is Greek and means to conquer or subdue. The second part of the word 'laos' is actually a term we all know. Laity. The people. So, if we use the meaning of Nicolaitans to understand who they were, they would 'conquer or subdue the people'. Jesus hated the Nicolaitans, or it can read, Jesus loathed the deeds of the Nicolaitans, and complimented those who also hated their deeds. This is such strong wording, but we already have other scripture which says those who lord over the people are wrong, and Christians are not to do that.

 

Moving on in Revelation to another church which did not hate the deeds of the Nicolaitans.

 

Rev 2:12 “And to the angel of the church in Pergamos write,

‘These things says He who has the sharp two-edged sword: ¹³ “I know your works, and where you dwell, where Satan’s throne is. And you hold fast to My name, and did not deny My faith even in the days in which Antipas was My faithful martyr, who was killed among you, where Satan dwells. ¹⁴ But I have a few things against you, because you have there those who hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balak to put a stumbling block before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed to idols, and to commit sexual immorality. ¹⁵ Thus you also have those who hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitans, which thing I hate. ¹⁶ Repent, or else I will come to you quickly and will fight against them with the sword of My mouth.

 

 

This church did not hate the deeds of the Nicolaitans, which Jesus loathed/hated. Jesus will fight against them if they do not repent. 

 

So, if there are no other witnesses willing to come forward, the only answer is to leave. Actually, if enough people left, that group could not continue and fewer people would be hurt. But, in the end, it will be Jesus who deals with the Nicolaitans.

[Guest Butero]

 

 

So, if there are no other witnesses willing to come forward, the only answer is to leave. Actually, if enough people left, that group could not continue and fewer people would be hurt. But, in the end, it will be Jesus who deals with the Nicolaitans.

First of all, I don't think God calls Pastors to test the congregation's obedience by making them do tasks like washing his car.  That is an abuse of his position.  I agree with you that sometimes the best course of action is to leave a church.  That has been my position all along.  If you have issues with a church you know is out of line, leave. 

 

The doctrine of Balaam is plain.  Balaam wasn't allowed to curse Israel because God found no fault in them, so he taught Balak to seduce them to sin, and when sin entered the camp, they would come under a curse because of their iniquity, thus the doctrine of Balaam is to place a stumbling block of temptation in the path of a believer so they will come under God's wrath.  I am not sure what the doctrine of the Nicolaitans is, and it is mentioned as something different from the doctrine of Balaam.  All people do is speculate on what the doctrine of the Nicolaitans was.  You have a theory, but that is all it is. 

[Qnts2]

 

 

 

So, if there are no other witnesses willing to come forward, the only answer is to leave. Actually, if enough people left, that group could not continue and fewer people would be hurt. But, in the end, it will be Jesus who deals with the Nicolaitans.

First of all, I don't think God calls Pastors to test the congregation's obedience by making them do tasks like washing his car.  That is an abuse of his position.  I agree with you that sometimes the best course of action is to leave a church.  That has been my position all along.  If you have issues with a church you know is out of line, leave. 

 

The doctrine of Balaam is plain.  Balaam wasn't allowed to curse Israel because God found no fault in them, so he taught Balak to seduce them to sin, and when sin entered the camp, they would come under a curse because of their iniquity, thus the doctrine of Balaam is to place a stumbling block of temptation in the path of a believer so they will come under God's wrath.  I am not sure what the doctrine of the Nicolaitans is, and it is mentioned as something different from the doctrine of Balaam.  All people do is speculate on what the doctrine of the Nicolaitans was.  You have a theory, but that is all it is. 

 

 

I'm not entirely sure what your position is, but leaving is not the first option. Actually, leaving is not in scripture, but scripture assumes the process to be followed will be followed, except in Revelation. In Revelation there are two scenarios which God criticizes churches for. One is supporting the deeds or doctrine of the Nicolaitans. The other is allow Jezebel to teach in the church. For an individual who has tried to follow the biblical process concerning issues or sins and found the church unwilling, in my view, the only way to not support what is happening, is to not be a part of a church which refuses to follow the process. The unwillingness to participate shows a 'biblical hatred' of false doctrine or teaching.

 

I think the only time a person should not simply leave is when the abuse rises to a level which is so bad, like sexual or physical abuse, that action absolutely must be taken. For what I saw, many people in the church were invested in the system and feared losing the benefit of the work they had already done. Others had been taught doctrines concerning the leadership being untouchable, as touching the leadership was equivalent to disobeying God, that they  believed it was a biblical teaching.