In reality, I have served as an elder for the past six years of my life in a Christian church. I have ruled on questions precisely of the nature you describe. I am not going to pretend that I lack understanding of Scripture in the manner you describe— though you clearly seek that.
It is that judgmental sense of things that I detest. I have little doubt that when Jesus ran afoul of Scriptural interpretations among his spiritual elite, they had the same thoughts. Let’s not kid ourselves, the men judging Jesus knew scriptures better than you or I. I do believe in the integrity of scripture. I have little faith in the integrity of powerful individuals “interpreting” it.
The origins of this thread are comments made by President Bush in response to a journalist. IF the journalist is accurately reporting the matter then it is slightly interesting. Nonetheless, it is not President Bush speaking in a church setting.
Honestly, I don’t think the thief hanging on the cross would make it past your interpretation schema.
You leave a question then as to what you use as a final authority when judging. “Judge” is a scriptural term. “ . . . Do not ye judge them that are within?” (1 Cor. 5:12)
I think it has been fairly well authenticated that President Bush verily low-rated the authority of the Book of Genesis in his answers to the reporter.
Church setting or not a church setting. President or not president. If he were to attempt join a Bible-believing church, even his public answers would would be a point on which to question him.
I have read two books that claim to contain Mr. Bush’s testimony of conversion to Jesus Christ. I read them specifically looking for that testimony. I have yet to read any Biblical testimony from Mr. Bush on any faith of his in the Blood Atonement of Jesus Christ as the foundation of his faith.
Coupled with his compromise on the issue of the Genesis account of creation, I still determine that the Scriptures hold little authority to him.
Judgmental attitude. How about a firm Scriptural attitude. That honors Christ. Christ on earth was dealing with Jewish leaders of whom it had already been attested had replaced the authority of the word of God with their own traditions. They were making their judgments of people and situations not based on the words of God, but on their traditions, making the word of God of none effect.
Jesus Christ never rebuked men who held the authority of the Scriptures as their Final Authority. Israel’s leaders were not people who were using the words of God with a bad or judgmental attitude toward people. He was rebuking people who had REPLACED the authority of the words of God with traditions. There is quite a difference.
Move in to the epistles and note that judment in the local church is required for the doctrinal and moral purity of the churches.
The thief on the cross. To the dying Saviour: “Remember me when thou comest in to thy kingdom.” The thief knew the identity of the Saviour and His purpose: to be the King. His faith was in Christ as sin-bearer, One wou would not stay dead (he had a belief in the Resurrection), and King.
The thief went to be with Christ in Paradise. He never did try to join a local New Testament Church. He died an agonizing death for a crime he had committed. Though he believed on Christ and was saved, he was not set free from the consequences of an earthly act of the flesh.
If Christ had miraculously delivered him to go on living on this earth, he would have to have gone to the apostles at some subsequent point and been baptized and join a New Testament church. Then he would have been under church discipline like anyone else. If he had continued to live along with the Apostles, he would have entered the period governed by the Epistles, as we are today.
A reading of the Epistles reveals a fairly strict order of church discipline and “judgment” of doctrine and practice; that which the modern apostate church tends to loathe and avoid in violation of the Scriptures.