No attacks, just doctrinal discussions, IMHO...
So, no one belonging to a church can work for a private or public company that isn't scripturally approved by some church authority.
Notice I did not say any "approval" was required by Scripture
"a Church that is Scriptural must insist upon their members adhering to their specific teachings"
I'm talking about the members of a congregation being required to refrain from open habitual sin. If I am an abortion doctor, my Church should be exercising Church discipline (admonishing me, denying the Lord's table, and excommunicating if necessary) over me. I use the phrase "specific teachings" (which is obviously wrong at face value) to refer to the fact that many denominations no longer view many sins as sins - but some denominations are still relatively close to Scriptural truth in this regard, though these denominations are relatively very small. Well, whatever a denomination sees as sin, it certainly should be using Church discipline to keep the sin out of its midst, from being openly and habitually practiced by its members, even as the Church publicly proclaims said practices as sin. To allow this would be the height of hypocrisy, would it not ?
So it's not a stamp of approval from the Church, but a rejection by the Church of careers devoted to habitual sin. Church discipline is clearly spoken of in Scripture and its reason is given - so that the sin does not spread throughout the Church. It is one thing to go out in the "worldly world" and preach to unrepentent sinners (they need the Gospel, i.e., the sick need the doctor) who are known to be committing grave sins continually; it's quite another to invite that unrepentent sinner of grave sins to join the congregation and continue merrily along persuing his sin, with the Church ignoring the sin.
Of course, we all sin - Church discipline is NOT about "someone raised his voice", i.e., minor things. The opponents of Church discipline cast it as a bunch of prudes picking at whatever suits their fancy, but such opponents simply want a Church which allows them to do as they please. Church discipline is Biblically required and there are writings that explain it, citing the applicable Bible verses. Perhaps the most succinct is in the Westminster Confession of Faith,
Chapter XXX Of Church Censures (Scripture citations are included).
To apply the idea to career choice, imagine if a local pimp wanted to join the congregation - and continue running his prostitution business while a member. A Scripturally-based Church would ultimately excommunicate a member who refused to disengage from that business once found out. A less dramatic example might be something like Planned Parenthood, perhaps working with their computer systems. Even though the congregant was simply doing IT work, PP is an organization that's diametrically opposed to the Word of God. I would certainly never consider working for them as an employee, and even as an independent consultant that somehow found myself working for them via some subcontracting arrangement, etc., I'd still promptly leave. Most companies, of course, do not fall into the category of their primary product, service, mission, etc., being squarely in opposition to God's Law, so this is a rare situation, but one that a Christian should keep in mind - especially as we see more and more publicly-held corporations publicly declaring support of sodomy. The boards of directors are who make these over-arching company policy decisions, so Christians who actually are obedient to Christ should make every effort possible to control MORE boards of directors, therefore reversing the trend in business to reject the Word of God. Of course, at this point, the law is moving in the very same direction, a culmination of decades of effort by financial oligarchs. Interestingly, the financial oligarchs make these - and really all - efforts through BOTH major political parties. Case in point, the
Republican Unity Coalition, with
David Rockefeller having sat on it's advisory board along with prominent Republicans.
Church discipline is also not about things that many denominations have ADDED to Scripture and declared sins, things like eating too much meat according to some standard they develop, using too much energy "according to them", so-called "social justice", etc., since they are NOT sins defined in Scripture.
Of course, where there is no explicit or implicit Biblical prohibition, men have the freedom to do as they choose. Note the "implicit" prohibition, ergo, we need to follow "the whole counsel of God", that is, study it, since it is not a simple list of do's and dont's.
Your "arguments" may work in a vacuum, but not the world we live in. We can debate indefinitely like Jesus did with the Pharisees, but I'm afraid we'd come to the same conclusion. There is religion, and there is Godliness. They are not the same.
The Bible applies to us living in the world we live in and it remains God's Law Word. Every generation thinks it lives in "modern" times that are "different" or "special" and too often they then start picking and choosing which of God's laws they will abide by and which they will not.
I'm simply pointing out that the Bible does not sanction any group purporting to provide instruction regarding morality other than the pastors of the Church. Of course, that does not preclude people having discussions such as this, but our discussion is not binding or authoritative.
RE: "religion vs. godliness" - I must submit to the Scriptural authority of the Church; this is in the area of doctrine (teaching), and only in the rare cases of Church discipline. If and when Church discipline comes up, I need to admit and repent if in truth I have committed the sin I am confronted with. If I have questions on doctrine, I need to ask the pastor for guidance with my ongoing, lifelong, studies.
The part that folks find difficult is that Biblical teaching is supposed to be our rule and guide in life. So while they may never face Church discipline because they're not comitting grave sins, they have a lot of changes they need to make to bring their life in conformance to the Bible. Rather than make the right changes, they seek out a Church denomination that accepts ungodly habits.
Things like dressing modestly can be turned into an excuse for disobedience to God's Word, when we should simply ADMIT to ourselves when we're not dressing modestly. It's the honesty that folks have trouble with. "Oh, I didn't realize you could see that", etc. The New Testament, of course, does not contain a list of clothing do's and dont's. But a regenerate heart would be striving to please God and make sure that their dress was not enticing others to think sinful thoughts (modest) and at the same as clean and presentable as the situation permitted while not being ostentatious.
There are certainly many other aspects of society where the absence or rejection of Biblical moral law should evoke participatory action from Christians, e.g., movies, business, education, etc.; modest dress is just an example. Sabbath-honoring is significant - how many of us make the Lord's Day a day of sports and fun as soon as Church is over, no to mention those that do not understand that there are 52 Biblical Holy Days per year, no more, no less ? Which is strikingly odd in America, because that's how the Pilgrims started out.
Some refer to Biblical Law as "religion" and opt for a "free-form" lifestyle where they can do as they please, and they say they are "godly" because "their heart's in the right place", etc. But these poor, misguided folks have not read God's Word and taken it to heart, they've read a little and used that as the basis to form their own "religion", i.e., a rule and guide for life of their own making. Often the cruelest lie is the half-truth.
"So it's not a stamp of approval from the Church, but a rejection by the Church of careers devoted to habitual sin." To extrapolate this comment back to the topic at hand - you are saying that the Scouts practiced "habitual sin"? That's been the topic all along. I've just been probing your suppositions and proclamations using related situations. [not talking about the Scouts under their current gay policy]
"I'm simply pointing out that the Bible does not sanction any group purporting to provide instruction regarding morality other than the pastors of the Church."
I'd like to see that scripture. In fact, you haven't quoted a single scripture, while purporting to hold a superior knowledge of God's intent. But, it's not the first time I've debated with someone espousing men's traditions versus God's clearly articulated will through scripture.
Paul and Peter had the same debate on Gentiles following the Mosaic law and the conclusion was that the Bible is a spiritual book, only understood through the Holy Spirit. The Pharisees and Sadducees interpreted scripture incorrectly because they relied on their own understanding, excluded knowledge from unassociated groups or people, and focused on legalistic interpretations.
Mark 9:38:
"Teacher, said John, "we saw someone driving out demons in your name and we told him to stop, because he was not one of us... “Do not stop him,” Jesus said. “For no one who does a miracle in my name can in the next moment say anything bad about me, for whoever is not against us is for us. Truly I tell you, anyone who gives you a cup of water in my name because you belong to the Messiah will certainly not lose their reward."
David, while evading King Saul, entered a Holy temple and ate the Shewbread - Luke 6:4
"He entered the house of God, and taking the consecrated bread, he ate what is lawful only for priests to eat. And he also gave some to his companions."
Eating the Shewbread was a sin according to Mosaic law, but God imparted to David an understanding of the intent as opposed to the mechanics of obeying the law. That's a key point - the reason laws were introduced was to point the believers to God's love and desire vs rote adherence to rules that none at the time understood.
You made a big deal about parents having the primary, if not exclusive, authority for teaching children anything relating to ethics or morality (making whatever Biblical interpretations and judgment necessary). But then, you contend that only ordained church elders can provide any moral instruction. Whichever - that's as narrow of an interpretation as the Levitical priests denying David the sustenance of the Shewbread. That wasn't God's will and neither is your espoused interpretation of basic Christian and moral instruction led by Scout leaders [not deep theology - simply common sense citizenship like honesty, reliability, stewardship, etc.].
While I agree with the vast majority of your discourse, I keep seeing a highly legalistic interpretation of learning, as well as a vacillation between who is responsible.