Posted on 07/23/2014 8:15:29 AM PDT by Gamecock
All of us will, at times, be called to endure humbly a leader’s mistakes and sins. Nonetheless, should you find yourself in a church where the leadership is characteristically abusive, I would, in most cases, encourage you to flee. Flee to protect your discipleship, to protect your family, to set a good example for the members left behind, to serve non-Christian neighbors by not lending credibility to the church’s ministry.
How do you recognize abusive leadership? Paul requires two witnesses for a charge to be leveled against an elder (1 Tim. 5:19), probably because he knows that leaders will be charged with infelicities more often than others, often unfairly. That said, abusive churches and Christian leaders characteristically
-Make dogmatic prescriptions in places where Scripture is silent.
-Rely on intelligence, humor, charm, guilt, emotions, or threats rather than on God’s Word and prayer (see Acts 6:4).
-Play favorites.
-Punish those who disagree.
-Employ extreme forms of communication (tempers, silent treatment).
-Recommend courses of action which always, somehow, improves the leader’s own situation, even at the expense of others.
-Speak often and quickly.
-Seldom do good deeds in secret.
-Seldom encourage.
-Seldom give the benefit of the doubt.
-Emphasize outward conformity, rather than repentance of heart.
-Preach, counsel, disciple, and oversee the church with lips that fail to ground everything in what Christ has done in the gospel and to give glory to God.
For interested Freepers, Pastor Matt Devers is behind the 9 Marks project; he discipled my pastor. He wrote “9 Marks of a Healthy Church”. It is a quick read, and well worth your time. It’s a very enjoyable.
The scripture is not silent (or adverse to) the Trinity, so your example fails.
Gloating about his good deeds from the pulpit?
Good point.
Maybe your church will be good for the creepy people, if you're patient.
>> I’m just goofing with you.
I thought you might be, but I wasn’t sure, so I figured I’d better give the broken record one more spin. :-)
While we’re on the subject of giving alms, I always found interesting and profitable our Jewish brother Maimonides “levels of giving” (in ascending order of, I guess, “righteousness”). And may GOD’s rich blessings be put into your lap, in “...good measure, pressed down, shaken together, running over...”. In JESUS’ Name!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Maimonides defines eight levels in giving charity (tzedakah), each one higher than the preceeding one.
8. When donations are given grudgingly.
7. When one gives less than he should, but does so cheerfully.
6. When one gives directly to the poor upon being asked.
5. When one gives directly to the poor without being asked.
4. Donations when the recipient is aware of the donor’s identity, but the donor still doesn’t know the specific identity of the recipient.
3. Donations when the donor is aware to whom the charity is being given, but the recipient is unaware of the source.
2. Giving assistance in such a way that the giver and recipient are unknown to each other. Communal funds, administered by responsible people are also in this category.
1. The highest form of charity is to help sustain a person before they become impoverished by offering a substantial gift in a dignified manner, or by extending a suitable loan, or by helping them find employment or establish themselves in business so as to make it unnecessary for them to become dependent on others.
I fled. And looking back over my shoulder, I don’t question my faith or the basic concepts of Christianity. What I do question is the “church”. (Little “c”). The structure is so finely organized and directed by people who didn’t see the world as I do. They throw around a lot of Latin terms (most of us have little or no understanding of their meaning, nor does knowing that meaning makes a difference in one’s faith) ...terms used by those “in the know” making the leadership only seem more important than they are. I left behind the “religi-babble,” the structure, human as well as bricks and mortar. Sunday morning is more peaceful...I choose the prayer book that works for me, (not the one chosen by others that is “best” for me), and then and I choose my own quiet spot. I fled, I would flee again.
Thank you very much!
Interesting analysis from Maimonides. He has a very orderly mind!
**-Seldom do good deeds in secret.**
Hmmm.
What does the Bible say?
“When you pray, go to your room and pray alone.” (Paraphrasing)
“Don’t let your right hand know what your left hand is doing.” (Again paraphrasing)
And last of all — I didn’t think that non-Catholics believed in ‘works’, per se.
**Submit to a church? Never. It isn’t a church if it requires submittal.**
Are you saying that you would never obey the words of Jesus Christ?
Strange.
Then you are once again mistaken. Of course we believe in good works. They are the result of our faith.
From the Westminster Confession:
I. Good works are only such as God hath commanded in his holy Word, and not such as, without the warrant thereof, are devised by men out of blind zeal, or upon any pretense of good intention.And the point above is they do their good works and brag about it. They should do their good works in private, like scripture instructs.II. These good works, done in obedience to God's commandments, are the fruits and evidences of a true and lively faith: and by them believers manifest their thankfulness, strengthen their assurance, edify their brethren, adorn the profession of the gospel, stop the mouths of the adversaries, and glorify God, whose workmanship they are, created in Christ Jesus thereunto, that, having their fruit unto holiness, they may have the end, eternal life.
III. Their ability to do good works is not at all of themselves, but wholly from the Spirit of Christ. And that they may be enabled thereunto, besides the graces they have already received, there is required an actual influence of the same Holy Spirit to work in them to will and to do of his good pleasure; yet are they not hereupon to grow negligent, as if they were not bound to perform any duty unless upon a special motion of the Spirit; but they ought to be diligent in stirring up the grace of God that is in them.
LOL!
Not even beginning to look like sola scriptura.
I don’t think that’s nitpicking at all. The term “church” as we understand it today isn’t even found in the New Testament. The word used in the New Testament is “assembly” and the corrupted interpretation of “church” has cause innumerable errors.
Again....sola scriptura?
Expand on that please. Hard to reply to a three word post.
Maybe it depends upon the translation one uses, however, Jesus did sa , “upon this rock, I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail.” This doesn’t refer to the Catholic Church as they like to erroneously teach. Paul addressed different churches and the Book of Revelation contains the words of Jesus to the 7 churches. My dispute is with people referring to their place of worship as the church - when the church is the body of Christ, regardless of the name over the door. (providing they are a Bible based one, of course).
Matthew 18:20 For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.
The guilt trip that most, even many in this thread, try to impose in justification for belonging to some organized religious organization is antithetical to the meaning of ekklēsian scripture.
“**Submit to a church? Never. It isn’t a church if it requires submittal.**
Are you saying that you would never obey the words of Jesus Christ?”
Jesus is not a church, I don’t care what the Catholics are trying to claim.
I don’t disagree with this - I just disagree with what we in the western world refer to as “church.” Many are not taught correctly, and thus, remain ignorant to the Word. However, that doesn’t excuse anyone from searching out the truth of the Scriptures for themselves - most, sadly, neglect to do so. I’m quite aware of what the body of believers is - and that it refers to those who are gathered together to worship - and it doesn’t necessarily have to be in a building designated as such. They are nice, however, not necessary to worship. I don’t think that the Lord objects to us having buildings, however, but I do think he might take umbrage with the thousands of denominations which are sectarian.
And that certainly makes sense, because a parochial opinion on matters like that cannot override the consensus of the entire Church.
I would just be careful to note that "established doctrine" tends to be a sticky wicket. What was the established doctrine in the Quartodeciman controversy? Sure they were a minority in the ancient world, but didn't they have an established practice apparently given to them by St. John himself? So would it be untoward for a Christian today to adopt it? I don't know the answer, but I think having as wide a historical grasp as possible helps to counter any parochialism we may bring to the table to define what "established doctrine" is.
2. Those who disagree are those who maybe have an issue with an expansion project, or question some program. Not those who are practicing heretical teaching.
Good. Point taken then. I might expect creedal laxity from a lot of folks on here, but sure as heck not from a Calvinist!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.