# Holding opinions differring from your local church



## he beholds (Apr 15, 2009)

On this thread, Scott1 wrote this:


> The effects of the second part of what you are saying is, in our denomination, as a member, you are not required to have comprehensive knowledge of your doctrinal standards, far less vow agreement with every statement/proposition in them.
> 
> I've come to learn here on Puritan Board some reformed denominations would require such for membership, but our denomination, the PCA, does not require that for membership. It does require that for church officers, but not for members.
> 
> The membership vows include peaceably learning the church's doctrine. That is, humbly studying (not trying to create faction, defiance, or dissent) and learning the doctrinal standards.



Does that apply to people in the church who would hold minority opinions of doctrine? For instance, and this is not an EP debate, what about the people who won't sing the hymns with everyone else? I understand why they cannot, because their consciences won't allow it, but should they be trying to peaceably learn why hymns are allowed? In that scenario, they don't sing the hymns because they believe it is a sin to do so--could that not cause faction because others would realize that the non-singers believe the singers to be sinning?

Or what about headcoverings, holidays, baptism or communion practices, etc. 

How does/should a church handle a situation when some in the minority have different practices because they specifically believe to do otherwise is to sin. 
Should the church itself change, as to not offend those who believe the majority practice to be sin? Or should the minority seek a new church if at all possible? And if there are no local churches that share the same beliefs, should they split off and start a church plant for another denomination? Or is it right for the minority to try to bring about change in the existing church? Or should they remain, while personally not partaking in the activity that they deem to be sinful, but being careful not to condemn? Or should they try to learn the reasons the church does what it does?

In Western Pennsylvania, there are a million different Reformed churches to choose from, so for a person there, I would think they should maybe switch denominations to find one that fits. But in a place where the only Reformed churches are PCA churches, what is the best scenario?


----------



## Theoretical (Apr 15, 2009)

Out of thanks, but thank you, I'll look forward to the responses.


----------



## Scottish Lass (Apr 15, 2009)

Are you dealing with members, visitors, both? 

For example, I'm sure you probably mean members, but we have a student who worships/rooms with us during the semesters he does a coop. He believes in non-instrumental EP. He stands while we sing hymns (and psalms), but does not sing during worship. He respects/tolerates our view, and we respect his. He never comments on it, nor is it distracting to anyone other than the choir since he sits on the front row. We don't consider him to be sinning, and though he probably does, he continues to worship with us since the choices are few and far between here. 

I am the sole woman in our congregation to practice headcovering. If it's an issue for someone else, I don't know about it.

I could count the Reformed churches here in Louisville on one hand and have fingers left over, so choices are few.


----------



## lynnie (Apr 15, 2009)

I am in a PCA church. I am the only woman with a headcovering. We have a few Baptists, and there are widely varied opinions about what is acceptable on the sabbath. Our service is more traditional and one family tried unsuccessfully to get the Intergity Music contemporary type singing introduced. Women and careers is touchy with a couple working girls. One lady who predates my pastor- I kid you not here- likes Osteen. One lady whose hub is in leadership (also predating the pastor) turned out last year to be a Beth Moore fan (I was horrified). We have pro Tedd Tripp spankers and non spanking time-outers. Cessationists and continuists. McCain voters and Ron Paul voters.

Everybody appears to love the Lord, and as far as I know loves our pastor. Sunday we focus on God and His word, and members submit to the elders in matters regarding church. We are growing and not shrinking on Sunday.

"Community" has been a deficit for the past 2.5 years since we started going, and I think your question is part of it. One lady told me she can't handle people thinking differently from her. Maybe half at most go to midweek small groups. Prayer meeting attendance is low. Some people really like me, and I've had a few withdraw when I casually said something outside their doctrinal box. 


I pray for love a lot. If we do not have love that covers sin and accepts others the way God accepts us, we'll never make it. 

_Or is it right for the minority to try to bring about change in the existing church? Or should they remain, while personally not partaking in the activity that they deem to be sinful, but being careful not to condemn?_

I think you should shut up and pray unless a very clear opening to give an opinion comes up. Very unmistakably clear, and it may never happen.

I feel your pain


----------



## KMK (Apr 15, 2009)

There are ways, for the truly humble, to abstain from things that offend their conscience without being divisive. There are also ways for a church to accommodate those with different consciences. This must occur on some level with all churches for I doubt there has ever been one where all the elders and all the congregants were in agreement with everything! 

For example, a man might have a scruple about the use of grape juice in the Lord's Supper. He could make the leadership aware of that fact and ask that the cup not be sent his way so that he need not refuse it in the sight of everyone. Also, the church could serve both grape juice and wine. 

It is conceivable that some things are 'dealbreakers' but, in general, I don't think Christians work hard enough at Paul's command in Rom 15:2 "Let every one of us please [his] neighbour for [his] good to edification." Our liberties should not get in the way of our brothers edification.


----------



## KMK (Apr 15, 2009)

lynnie said:


> I am in a PCA church. I am the only woman with a headcovering.



Do you know the reason for this? Is it because they have never thought of it before? Or they have thought of it and they are convinced that it doesn't matter whether you were one or not?


----------



## he beholds (Apr 15, 2009)

KMK said:


> There are ways, for the truly humble, to abstain from things that offend their conscience without being divisive. There are also ways for a church to accommodate those with different consciences. This must occur on some level with all churches for I doubt there has ever been one where all the elders and all the congregants were in agreement with everything!
> 
> For example, a man might have a scruple about the use of grape juice in the Lord's Supper. He could make the leadership aware of that fact and ask that the cup not be sent his way so that he need not refuse it in the sight of everyone. Also, the church could serve both grape juice and wine.
> 
> It is conceivable that some things are 'dealbreakers' but, in general, I don't think Christians work hard enough at Paul's command in Rom 15:2 "Let every one of us please [his] neighbour for [his] good to edification." Our liberties should not get in the way of our brothers edification.




Great post, thanks!

The grape juice was another good example. Our church actually believes the wine is proper, but puts an outer ring of grape juice in case anyone's health or conscience needs it, so I didn't think of that example. 
But there are more, like sending your kids up to the children's lesson during church, or keeping them from Sunday School, or keeping them in Church or putting them in nursery. Basically,


> This must occur on some level with all churches for I doubt there has ever been one where all the elders and all the congregants were in agreement with everything!


 is spot on!

I, for the record, am not really speaking about myself differing from my church. I am more just curious on how to respond on all sides. I grew up _always_ trying to be different, for different's sake, so now I find it hard to differentiate between when I'm falling into that trap again, or really being convicted of a minority view, so for the most part, as of yet, I am fine following my husband or the leaders of my church. We may do some things differently, but not most things.


----------



## Scottish Lass (Apr 16, 2009)

KMK said:


> lynnie said:
> 
> 
> > I am in a PCA church. I am the only woman with a headcovering.
> ...



I don't know. When we came, I wore it and no one asked except if my last church had practiced it. I knew they meant the last church from our denomination (ARP), which didn't, so I said no. (It stemmed from a church we visited, but that's a long story.)
Tim has taught the views on it since then in the context of _20 Controversies that Almost Killed the Church_, but no one seemed even vaguely interested. No one's argued, either, though.


----------



## DonP (Apr 16, 2009)

I would say, make your views known to your pastor, ask if he is OK with it, ask what he wants you to do. 
If it isn't evil, submit or move to a church where you can do what you want. Don't tell me there isn't one. Move a long ways and get a new job or keep quiet. 


You can bug him and your elders with questions about their belief and yours as long as you are asking for instruction on how they interpret a verse etc. 

Don't disturb others. If you find those who ask you about your visible position, make it brief and handle it as the pastor told you. Refer them to him unless he gave you permission to speak on it. 

Its not your job to reform the church. 

If you are in the church position then sure you can seek to influence others to come to the church's position unless they ask you not to any more. Then let the pastor or elders handle that one. 

It's not your job to weed out the church either. 

And you should encourage women to ask their husbands to speak to you or your husband about it or the pastor. I don't think we should have women undermining other women's husbands, even if it is the church position, and men for sure.

Pray for them. 
Pray for yourself, you may be wrong. 
(Unless you agree with me and Calvin on everything. If all would do this we wouldn't have these challenges). 

So many vrs but it shows the emphasis and importance of this. I think more than on our disputed ideas. 

James 3:16 For where envy and self-seeking exist, confusion and every evil thing are there. 17 But the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, willing to yield, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality and without hypocrisy. 18 Now the fruit of righteousness is sown in peace by those who make peace. NKJV

Heb 12:14 Pursue peace with all people, and holiness, without which no one will see the Lord: NKJV

1 Thess 5:13Be at peace among yourselves. 
14 Now we exhort you, brethren, warn those who are unruly, comfort the fainthearted, uphold the weak, be patient with all NKJV

Col 3:14 But above all these things put on love, which is the bond of perfection. 15 And let the peace of God rule in your hearts, to which also you were called in one body; and be thankful. NKJV

Eph 4:2 with all lowliness and gentleness, with longsuffering, bearing with one another in love, 3 endeavoring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. 4 There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called in one hope of your calling; 5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism; 6 one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all. NKJV

2 Cor 13:11 Become complete. Be of good comfort, be of one mind, live in peace; and the God of love and peace will be with you. NKJV

Rom 14:19 Therefore let us pursue the things which make for peace and the things by which one may edify another. NKJV

One may ask about PB in this respect. 

Personally I consider this personal study and research, just as looking up something on the web. 
No one here is in my congregation, no one has to be here to worship. No one should feel any obligation or special respect for me or anyone here as they would a member of their local church, although since we list denominations there maybe should be some respect to that, or if you do have church members here. Hopefully you agree. 

And it probably would be a good idea for us to ask our pastors about doing this, I did, though we may have liberty anyway. Esp. the women; and I know some women who post here have asked their husbands permission to be here and ask questions of men who post here. Hopefully they ask their wives what they learned as I do of my wife when she comes home from the women's Bible study.

And I am open to feedback on this position as well. I am personally reflecting on my posting here and will probably be much more careful and reflective on this from now on as I post because: Each person is a member of some church and though I may have less responsibility for them than a member of my own church, I would have a hard time saying I have no responsibility to someone who professes to be member of a reformed denomination and chats or posts here since much of it is conversational as opposed to a simple article post.


----------



## KMK (Apr 16, 2009)

Scottish Lass said:


> KMK said:
> 
> 
> > lynnie said:
> ...



If a church is convinced that it makes no difference whether a head covering is worn or not, then it would be a loving act to wear one for the edification of a sister who does. That is the kind of thing Paul is talking about in Rom 15. 

It wasn't until I became a pastor that I realized how much of what we do is to please ourselves without a thought for our brothers and sisters.


----------



## Edward (Apr 16, 2009)

he beholds said:


> How does/should a church handle a situation when some in the minority have different practices because they specifically believe to do otherwise is to sin.
> Should the church itself change, as to not offend those who believe the majority practice to be sin?



No. It is unreasonable to think that one can bend a congregation to his will. (While it is possible for the Lord to use someone to do it, it is arrogant for a member to take that upon him or herself) At best, you can split the congregation and cause much heartbreak and grief. The more appropriate action would be for the session to put the dissenter under church discipline. 

If one wants to lead by example - quietly standing with the congregation during the singing of a song, or wearing a headcovering during the service, that would be acceptable - and more effective in the long run. But demanding that the church change? No.



> Or should the minority seek a new church if at all possible? And if there are no local churches that share the same beliefs, should they split off and start a church plant for another denomination? ... Or should they remain, while personally not partaking in the activity that they deem to be sinful, but being careful not to condemn? Or should they try to learn the reasons the church does what it does?


Yes to all. And if the community has the capacity, the congregation might be willing to assist with a church plant, if there is already some tension in the congregation.


----------



## satz (Apr 16, 2009)

KMK said:


> If a church is convinced that it makes no difference whether a head covering is worn or not, then it would be a loving act to wear one for the edification of a sister who does. That is the kind of thing Paul is talking about in Rom 15.
> 
> It wasn't until I became a pastor that I realized how much of what we do is to please ourselves without a thought for our brothers and sisters.



Pastor Ken

Are you saying the whole church should start to cover (or do anything else) for the benefit of one member?

I am not sure I agree. A individual christian should be willing to give up liberties in specific circumstances for others, as Paul describes in 1 Corinthians 10. 

I am not sure that a whole church should change its practice for one member. If a church believes that headcoverings are not necessary, it presumably does so for good biblical reason. I am not sure a church should be changing its practice - and requiring this of its members - because of the views (the wrong views, as far as this church is concerned) of one member.


----------



## DonP (Apr 16, 2009)

satz said:


> KMK said:
> 
> 
> > If a church is convinced that it makes no difference whether a head covering is worn or not, then it would be a loving act to wear one for the edification of a sister who does. That is the kind of thing Paul is talking about in Rom 15.
> ...



I took it he meant if you knew the woman and were a friend you might do it so she was not alone. Since you have the freedom to wear a hat or not just as clothing not as a covering. 
As an individual out of love for her. Not that the whole church would do it each week. And not that they would change their view. 
Some women just wear hats as fashion anyway with no thought of the command.


----------



## KMK (Apr 16, 2009)

Mr. Partridge is correct. If a church is convinced that head coverings are NOT necessary, it would be an offense to require them. But, some ladies could, since they believe it makes no difference, wear a head covering as an act of love toward their sister.

Now, if a church is convinced that it would be sinful for ladies to wear head coverings, then you have a different problem. (I have never heard of this, but who knows)

Similarly, if one of you tie wearin' southron Presbyterians moved to So Cal, your brothers could show love to you by leaving the shorts and Hawaiian shirt at home in favor of slacks and a tie.

We are to take every opportunity to please, not ourselves, but our brother in matters of indifference.


----------



## Scott1 (Apr 16, 2009)

Good questions. A few thoughts below.



> > On this thread, Scott1 wrote this:
> > Quote:
> > The effects of the second part of what you are saying is, in our denomination, as a member, you are not required to have comprehensive knowledge of your doctrinal standards, far less vow agreement with every statement/proposition in them.
> >
> ...



Or what about head coverings, holidays, baptism or communion practices, etc.

I can't imagine someone who doesn't believe in infant baptism as covenant baptism remaining in a PCA church whereas, as far as I'm aware there is no confessional requirement on things like head coverings.


----------



## sastark (Apr 16, 2009)

KMK said:


> Similarly, if one of you tie wearin' southron Presbyterians moved to So Cal, your brothers could show love to you by leaving the shorts and Hawaiian shirt at home in favor of slacks and a tie.



Growing up in Northern California, this was truly shocking to me. I would always were a tie and slacks to church, but now, wearing a tie is rare because of the Southern California influence. There were churches we visited where the pastor didn't even wear a tie! Talk about a culture shock!


----------



## DonP (Apr 16, 2009)

Scott1 said:


> [
> 
> I can't imagine someone who doesn't believe in infant baptism as covenant baptism remaining in a PCA church whereas, as far as I'm aware there is no confessional requirement on things like head coverings.



Well we sure have allot of them. Baptists who can't stand what can go along with the independent nature of their past baptist churches, but do not see covenantal baptism as taught in scripture yet. They are thankful for the safety and sensibility of the pres govt but not convinced. 
We even have one who was licensed to preach in Ref Baptist churches and our session lets him preach occasionally.


----------



## a mere housewife (Apr 16, 2009)

KMK said:


> Mr. Partridge is correct. If a church is convinced that head coverings are NOT necessary, it would be an offense to require them. But, some ladies could, since they believe it makes no difference, wear a head covering as an act of love toward their sister.



Rev. Klein, I was wondering if you think this should go the other way as well -- if in a church that covers, a woman who thinks it makes no difference should not cover as visitors etc. come in (and other women in the church also do not). Where does the greater 'charity' in that case lie -- in covering so as not to offend the majority of the congregation, or in helping the visitor or the other unconvinced women to feel less alone and awkward?

If you are in a church where none of the women wear slacks, is it loving or unloving to wear slacks occasionally to 'wear down' any kind of reaction against visitors? (we had a mother of some of our VBS kids come a couple of years ago in slacks etc: she was terribly embarrassed and never returned. In Mexico we had no problems with that kind of reaction with visitors because our people were so poor that they wore everyday clothes, no hats, etc?)

(edit: I don't mean to take this thread off topic with the introduction of 'visitors' -- I reference them because they are an additional consideration in wondering if the 'charity' argument works the other way as well?)


----------



## Skyler (Apr 16, 2009)

he beholds said:


> On this thread, Scott1 wrote this:
> 
> 
> > The effects of the second part of what you are saying is, in our denomination, as a member, you are not required to have comprehensive knowledge of your doctrinal standards, far less vow agreement with every statement/proposition in them.
> ...



I think Paul's advice in Romans 14 is applicable in this case:



Romans 14:1-8(NIV) said:


> 1Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters. 2One man's faith allows him to eat everything, but another man, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. 3The man who eats everything must not look down on him who does not, and the man who does not eat everything must not condemn the man who does, for God has accepted him. 4Who are you to judge someone else's servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand.
> 
> 5One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. 6He who regards one day as special, does so to the Lord. He who eats meat, eats to the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who abstains, does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God. 7For none of us lives to himself alone and none of us dies to himself alone. 8If we live, we live to the Lord; and if we die, we die to the Lord. So, whether we live or die, we belong to the Lord.



The passage continues but in the interests of avoiding too-large posts I'll let you look up the rest of the passage.

The gist of it is, the person who feels he must do something(regard a certain day as holy, abstain from certain foods, etc.) must not condemn his fellow believers who aren't convicted on that point, and likewise his fellow believers must not look down on him for his weakness. Rather, they should each be convinced in their own minds as to what is right and what is wrong, and they should conform to that. They will answer to God for their deeds.


----------



## Skyler (Apr 16, 2009)

Scott1 said:


> > *Skyler*
> > The passage continues but in the interests of avoiding too-large posts I'll let you look up the rest of the passage.
> >
> > The gist of it is, the person who feels he must do something(observe the Sabbath, abstain from certain foods, etc.) must not condemn his fellow believers who aren't convicted on that point, and likewise his fellow believers must not look down on him for his weakness. Rather, they should each be convinced in their own minds as to what is right and what is wrong, and they should conform to that. They will answer to God for their deeds.
> ...



Thanks for clarifying that for the readers. Sorry for any confusion I might have caused; I'll fix it.


----------



## KMK (Apr 16, 2009)

a mere housewife said:


> KMK said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Partridge is correct. If a church is convinced that head coverings are NOT necessary, it would be an offense to require them. But, some ladies could, since they believe it makes no difference, wear a head covering as an act of love toward their sister.
> ...



If a woman is convinced that Scripture _requires_ a head covering then she is not at liberty to remove it. If a church is convinced that Scripture _requires_ head coverings it is not at liberty to change that practice for the benefit of those who hold a differing opinion.

I think your example of slacks is different because proper dress is a matter of propriety, not precept. (I guess it is possible that some churches are convinced that Scripture _requires_ a dress code, but I am not aware of any.) This being so, proper dress is a 'scruple' which individuals are at liberty to adjust for the edification of a sister.

As for visitors, you are within your liberty to change your dress as an act of love if you want to. However, a church cannot require it of you lest it become guilty of binding your conscience and changing your act of love into a stumblingblock.


----------



## DonP (Apr 16, 2009)

a mere housewife said:


> KMK said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Partridge is correct. If a church is convinced that head coverings are NOT necessary, it would be an offense to require them. But, some ladies could, since they believe it makes no difference, wear a head covering as an act of love toward their sister.
> ...



Not answering for KMK but I will share my thoughts. 

If one feels it is a matter indifferent to sing psalms, wear pants, or cover for women, they have no problem accommodating the person. 

If one felt it was sin to cover then they should nto cover to support one who comes in covered. 

Similarly those are are convicted to cover as a command of Scripture, it would be wrong for them to uncover to support one who is indifferent about it. 

Does that make sense? 

Interestingly I do not know of any who think it is sin to sing psalms, or cover, or wear dresses. 

So not sure how to answer the hypothetical what if
both were convicted the other was sin. 

It actually makes you think doesn't it? The complete and total absence of the one? Hmmmm 

So expanding on KMK's last post I would say it might even be wise where there are a significant # of people in a congregation with convictions, for the session to go that way since it is indifferent to them anyway and we are asked to be willing to give up our liberty for the other. 
*
Another Hmmm... wonder why the church does not do that? Why they insist on exercising their liberty of indifference instead of yielding to the brother of conviction even though that is what scripture teaches?? 
*
How loving and selfless are we really? How much suffering will it really cause a woman to cover her hair for an hour or two? 

Would love some feedback from some women on this


----------



## Scott1 (Apr 16, 2009)

> Westminster Confession of Faith
> 
> Chapter XXV
> Of the Church
> ...



One other observation is that we must be biblically realistic. The visible church is composed of believers at all levels- brand new, mature and everything in between. It is to be composed mainly of believers who walk an orderly life but sometimes has mixed in believers walking disorderly. Even occasionally of unbelievers who would harm to Christ's cause. This is why there is church discipline, and God appoints His purposes in that.

We really can't expect a new believer to understand profound truths like the "high mystery of predestination" far less to understand and embrace it immediately. How much less can we demand of important, but nonetheless much smaller, matters of doctrine or practice.

Reformed theology says God's people are covenanted together in community to serve God in this world. A Confession of faith and discipline help bind that together.

The covenant community is not, however, bound conditionally on a persons' perception of every other person's faithfulness in every single belief and practice. We were not created to be an island unto ourselves. God summarized his commands in two major ways:

1st Love God
2nd Love your neighbor

If we lose sight of that, we are truly lost.

The world makes vows and rationalizes breaking them on those kinds of subjective basis, but God's people are called to make them on the basis of His faithfulness to them (not on their evaluation of others' perceived faithfulness).


----------



## he beholds (Apr 16, 2009)

PeaceMaker said:


> Not answering for KMK but I will share my thoughts.
> 
> If one feels it is a matter indifferent to sing psalms, wear pants, or cover for women, they have no problem accommodating the person.
> 
> ...



Well, one reason I could see _against_ accommodating another brother's convictions as church policy or practice, would be that now the rest of the church will have its conscience bound to something they believe to really be a matter of liberty. 
Like what Pastor Klein said:


> However, a church cannot require it of you lest it become guilty of binding your conscience and changing your act of love into a stumblingblock.



So if my church were to tell all of the women to cover, though it does not believe it a matter of law but of liberty, then it has essentially put that yoke on its other members, who would then do it out of law and not in faith. 
That was pretty jumbled up, but I hope my point is clear.

And for the example of the Psalms, sure, we should be singing Psalms in church (or hymns from Psalms) but to say that church-wide, we are no longer allowed to worship God with hymns that come from another portion of scripture, I think the church would be going against the conscience of many who believe that we are required to worship God with songs praising him for everything he has done.


----------



## a mere housewife (Apr 16, 2009)

> If a woman is convinced that Scripture _requires_ a head covering then she is not at liberty to remove it. If a church is convinced that Scripture _requires_ head coverings it is not at liberty to change that practice for the benefit of those who hold a differing opinion.


If I understand correctly you mean that those who are convicted on the matter should not change their positions, and the church its teachings, to accommodate those who are not? 

Personally I don't believe that a church has *legitimate* Scriptural authority to require such a practice for membership in Christ's body. But setting that aside for the sake of the discussion: if most women in a church wear headcoverings, but one is not convicted of the biblical teaching and is not actually transgressing church authority either way, is it uncharitable not to wear one -- so as to make a handful of other women and visitors less uncomfortable? Basically who should a woman be more concerned about being charitable to in that situation -- the one or two people in the church who don't cover (as in the other scenario, it was one or two people who did); or all of the people who do? Are we supposed to, in the lack of our own convictions on an issue, seek to behave so as to always accommodate the minority, or the more convicted regardless of ratios (or any tendency to judge others by such convictions), or is there some other consideration that would be helpful in making that decision? 

It seems one is always going to give offence somewhere -- you simply can't please everyone. How do you decide who to please?

-----Added 4/16/2009 at 02:43:09 EST-----



he beholds said:


> Well, one reason I could see _against_ accommodating another brother's convictions as church policy or practice, would be that now the rest of the church will have its conscience bound to something they believe to really be a matter of liberty.
> Like what Pastor Klein said:
> 
> 
> ...



Exactly. The church is not faithful to the teaching of Paul if it drops liberty in order to legislate love. The liberty *is* to love; and the church is supposed to protect that, and to exhort both the strong and the weak, not to legislate either one's freedom over the other.


----------



## DonP (Apr 16, 2009)

a mere housewife said:


> [
> is there some other consideration that would be helpful in making that decision?
> 
> It seems one is always going to give offence somewhere -- you simply can't please everyone. How do you decide who to please?



As was quoted previously the scripture tells us how. 

To clarify my last post, I did not mean the church would require the members to cover, for yes that would be binding them. 

The point was, if we all loved each other foremost, then we would naturally follow the scripture, and would voluntarily cover for the sake of the one's conscience. 
No requirement would be necessary. *
For one to choose to give up their liberty, is not to be bound.
So there is no legislating going on except to point out the scripture below that we are to obey.
*
1 Cor 8:8 But food does not commend us to God; for *neither if we eat are we the better, nor if we do not eat are we the worse.* 
9 But beware lest somehow *this liberty of yours become a stumbling block to those who are weak* NKJV

1 Cor 8:13 Therefore, if food makes my brother stumble, *I will never again eat meat,* lest I make my brother stumble. 
9:1 Am I not an apostle? Am I not free? NKJV

1 Cor 10: 28 But if anyone says to you, "This was offered to idols," do not eat it for the sake of the one who told you, and for conscience' sake; for "the earth is the LORD's, and all its fullness." 29 "Conscience," I say, not your own, but that of the other. NKJV


----------



## a mere housewife (Apr 16, 2009)

Don, I think this is probably a separate discussion if it is to carry on -- but briefly Paul is just as concerned to make sure the weak do not rule the consciences of the strong as vice versa. The view you advocate does not balance both halves of Paul's exhortations.

I hope I was not too confused in the question for Rev. Klein -- does one seek to act charitably, in the absence of one's own convictions on a matter, to minorities, to the more convicted, etc?


----------



## KMK (Apr 16, 2009)

a mere housewife said:


> > If a woman is convinced that Scripture _requires_ a head covering then she is not at liberty to remove it. If a church is convinced that Scripture _requires_ head coverings it is not at liberty to change that practice for the benefit of those who hold a differing opinion.
> 
> 
> If I understand correctly you mean that those who are convicted on the matter should not change their positions, and the church its teachings, to accommodate those who are not?
> ...



I love that phrase you used, 'legislate love'. And that is the heart of the matter isn't it? Charity cannot be legislated or it ceases to be charity at all.

In your example, it would depend upon whether the 'most' who do cover do so out of precept or propriety or some other reason. (Maybe its cold) I am not advocating for people to go against their conscience, but laying aside their liberty. If the majority cover but the church does not have a confessional stance on the issue, then it might be best to go to the elders and explain your concern about the consciences of the visitors. If it is the official confession that women should cover that is a different issue.


----------



## KMK (Apr 16, 2009)

a mere housewife said:


> Don, I think this is probably a separate discussion if it is to carry on -- but briefly Paul is just as concerned to make sure the weak do not rule the consciences of the strong as vice versa. The view you advocate does not balance both halves of Paul's exhortations.
> 
> I hope I was not too confused in the question for Rev. Klein -- does one seek to act charitably, in the absence of one's own convictions on a matter, to minorities, to the more convicted, etc?



Perhaps the guiding principle in the decision should be that the strong are to receive the weak but not to doubtful disputations. Who are the strong and who are the weak in your scenario? That would be the question to answer.


----------



## a mere housewife (Apr 16, 2009)

Thanks Rev. Klein.

In my experience, those with stronger convictions do not often consider themselves 'weaker' brethren (very few of us do!); so it becomes difficult to determine. In some cases of course it becomes much more clear -- if a person has a history as an alcoholic, you don't flaunt any liberty to drink around them. But what about a person whose 'weakness' is a tendency to be uncharitable in the way they judge others? That is a much subtler weakness -- not so straightforward (in that they aren't being tempted to sin against their conscience by doing something they believe to be wrong -- the temptation is not to remove the headcovering but to judge the woman without it as if _she_ were rebellious etc) and has to be combatted in a subtler way. One wants both not to tempt them to uncharity, but also to help them to stop judging others so uncharitably.

I will think more about this. My own church is wonderfully charitable despite requiring some things I might personally disagree with (we have a very charitable pastor and I think that sets the tone). But I have been in situations where it was not the case and one wondered what charity, giving up one's own preferences, really looked like, and how much one's own 'subtler' forms of weakness were creeping in, trying to determine how to behave.


----------



## lynnie (Apr 16, 2009)

My personal experience is that many women who do not cover believe it would be giving in to a "spirit of legalism" to do so. They would feel the same way I would to use incense as a symbol of prayers going up to God, or candles or icons. It is a creepy outdated ritual they want no part of. I happen to disagree and think it is eternal for the New Covenant church, but I would never push it on anybody after what I've been through.

My hub has been over this in the Greek a few dozen times with interested folks who asked. Everybody conceeds that it appears to be biblical when they see the interlinear, but they don't want to force it on their wife, or if a woman, don't want to cause division, be like the old Catholics, draw attention to themself, etc etc etc. There is always some reason not to. You have to pick your hills to die on, and this isn't one of mine. I'll alienate every career woman on earth who leaves babies 50 hrs a week and does not need the money, that she should be home with babies, but coverings I keep my mouth shut on.


----------



## DonP (Apr 16, 2009)

lynnie said:


> My personal experience is that many women who do not cover believe it would be giving in to a "spirit of legalism" to do so.



If they are judging the woman covering to be following a spirit of legalism, that is works salvation, or even if you just meant fundamentalism, she should confront the woman living in this sinful manner. Then she should take it to her elders. 

If not she should repent of her own judgmental spirit. 

Then simply ask the woman why. 

When she sees the woman is truly convicted to obey plain scripture, then she should have no problem giving up her liberty to not cover, if she wanted to always or on occasion with no fear she was encouraging the other woman to be a legalist or fundamentalist. 

We are so tangled up in our sins today it is hard to figure out what is right. 

Breath on us Holy Spirit. Revive us from our blindness and casualness and give us strong shepherds who will discipline their flocks.


----------



## KMK (Apr 16, 2009)

a mere housewife said:


> Thanks Rev. Klein.
> 
> In my experience, those with stronger convictions do not often consider themselves 'weaker' brethren (very few of us do!); so it becomes difficult to determine. In some cases of course it becomes much more clear -- if a person has a history as an alcoholic, you don't flaunt any liberty to drink around them. But what about a person whose 'weakness' is a tendency to be uncharitable in the way they judge others? That is a much subtler weakness -- not so straightforward (in that they aren't being tempted to sin against their conscience by doing something they believe to be wrong -- the temptation is not to remove the headcovering but to judge the woman without it as if _she_ were rebellious etc) and has to be combatted in a subtler way. One wants both not to tempt them to uncharity, but also to help them to stop judging others so uncharitably.
> 
> I will think more about this. My own church is wonderfully charitable despite requiring some things I might personally disagree with (we have a very charitable pastor and I think that sets the tone). But I have been in situations where it was not the case and one wondered what charity, giving up one's own preferences, really looked like, and how much one's own 'subtler' forms of weakness were creeping in, trying to determine how to behave.



Rom 14 and 15 concern scruples regarding the worship of God. I agree that you would not want to flaunt your freedom to enjoy alcohol on an ex-drunk, but not for the reasons contained in Rom 14 and 15. The weaker brother is not someone who struggles with sin, but has placed themselves under a requirement that is not Biblical. If you are convinced that covering one's head is a liberty, then you must also be convinced that those who require it have placed themselves under an unnecessary rule and are, by definition, the weaker brother. This, then, is your opportunity to lay aside your liberty for their edification.

In the case of most visitors, they would agree with you that covering or not covering is a matter of liberty. I think what you are asking is this: I you exercise your liberty to wear a covering, are you stumbling a visitor by encouraging them to do the same thing even though they are not convinced it is necessary? Interesting scenario. Once again, if the church does not have an official stance on the subject, it might be a good topic to discuss with the elders.


----------



## KMK (Apr 16, 2009)

lynnie said:


> My personal experience is that many women who do not cover believe it would be giving in to a "spirit of legalism" to do so.



In this case, these women do not really believe that covering or not covering is a matter of liberty. They have, perhaps unwittingly, placed themselves under a rule in their zeal to avoid unbiblical rules!  

I have found a similar argument from those who prefer grape juice at the LS. They say the element might as well be grape juice since it doesn't matter what is in the cup. Well, if it truly doesn't matter what is in the cup, then why not use wine? The point is, that deep down they believe it does matter what is in the cup.


----------



## DonP (Apr 16, 2009)

Pastor K your wisdom Excelleth today

And without a drop of fundamentalism, 
legalism or man made rules. 

How sweet to my soul.


----------



## he beholds (Apr 16, 2009)

a mere housewife said:


> Exactly. The church is not faithful to the teaching of Paul if it drops liberty in order to legislate love. *The liberty *is* to love;* and the church is supposed to protect that, and to exhort both the strong and the weak, not to legislate either one's freedom over the other.


Great point! I have never thought about it like that. 



KMK said:


> a mere housewife said:
> 
> 
> > Thanks Rev. Klein.
> ...



Sorry, there's a lot of great pearls of wisdom in there, so I want to make sure I see what you mean. In your opinion, should I lay aside my liberty, and so should the whole church, not legislated, but as simple kindness? So all of the women (if there is one who covers) should wear the covering for the edification of the one? I feel like this sounds angry or antagonistic, and I want to assure you that it is not!! I keep trying to re-word this so that I can sound gentler or more teachable and less accusative, but I can't get my words right. Please bear with me and trust that that is not my intention!

I ask for clarification because this is precisely what my OP was about: What is the proper response of all involved?

For very real issues (even if for me they may be hypothetical), how do you see this playing out properly?

With headcoverings, I asked above. Should all the women wear them even if they believe them to be a matter of liberty?

Would you say that if there are ten families, out of 100, who do not sing the hymns, that a church should only sing Psalms (supposing the church does not think it is a sin to only sing Psalms, but does think it is also right to sing about more than the the Psalms). Is that fair to the members of the church who believe it is good to sing more than just the Psalms? 
Should fairness be a factor? Is fairness a factor in the other direction?
Should the original intent of the church be a factor? People joined the church thinking they were among like-minded brethren, whereas the EP people would have known that they weren't agreed in that issue, when they joined?
(In this instance, though I am sure that in an EP church, the members feel to sing otherwise is sin and not liberty, so there's no possible way that an EP church would consider singing a hymn.)

OK, there are so many other issues, but these are very concrete ones that probably some here deal with, so for now I'll stick with those two.


----------



## Edward (Apr 16, 2009)

Scott1 said:


> I can't imagine someone who doesn't believe in infant baptism as covenant baptism remaining in a PCA church


Not uncommon around here. Only a couple of Reformed Baptist churches in the area, and they aren't very centrally located.


----------



## DonP (Apr 16, 2009)

Awesome wrestling Jessi. 

It is a personal issue, not a whole church issue. Any individual is free to wear a head covering. I do not think they all will. 
But wouldn't it be great if we were all willing to lay aside our own desires for the other. 
I think we would have a blessed church then. 

So if everyone willingly did this, the would not be wishing they were in a church that didn't do it. 

And the question is, in a church that didn't do which? 

didn't love their brother enough to give up their liberty for them
or 
didn't get to be uncovered? 

But if it is their choice, their desire, their delight, how could they feel cheated or bound or limited? 

So should all do this? Well, should all seek to cause no offense to their brother or sister? Should all seek the others best before their own? 

The point is no one has to cover. Only those who choose to. Everyone doesn't have to cover. Some will, some won't, some may do it occasionally so she is not alone always, etc. 
*
We can't legislate who should or we just took it out of liberty and made a rule. 
*

But we can say all should prefer one another. So how ever that effects your conscience. You can't speak to how that affects someone elses conscience. 

Its like saying help the poor. 
Well do you help every poor person? Do you give all your money away? 
If it doesn't come from choice, it is bondage no matter what 

In fact if you don't wear a head covering because no one else does and you don't want to be the only one, or you don't want to make them feel badly, or you want to fit in, or be like them, whatever, *then you are in bondage anyway. Just to a different person and practice. 
*
So one must stop seeking to avoid bondage, that automatically puts them in bondage. They have to avoid bondage, whatever that may be. 

Seek to use your liberty to serve others and the kingdom as God gives you holy desires. 
And don't worry about who might judge you in your freedom. 
Exercise your freedom before you and God. 


As for the psalms that is a different issue. 

It would have to be prescribed by the church for all to sing something and it is a directed activity. 

Now of course it would not be wrong to only sing psalms in the mind of most ministers. But it could be seen as inappropriate or as if they were seeking to bind others conscience, even if they were choosing to do it as a matter of choice and liberty. 
So they may not decide to make the decision for everyone. But sometimes a church chooses to do this. They decide to switch everyone to wine or they decide to have both. They decide to switch to psalms only as some churches have. 

In fact why is no one screaming Liberty liberty when the church switch from psalmody to hymns?? 
The church bound the conscience of all when it said we will sing hymns now, whether all wanted to or not. 

Whereas the head covering would be individuals choosing to do it, not the church telling them to. 

And isn't that in fact what culture or fashion is. We do what others around us do to fit in. Be within reasonable style. 

So if many started wearing scarves or hats then it would be a choice some would be happy to make and may change the culture or fashion to where most or all did. 

I mean originally women did not wear hats. How did that come to be the culture? They switched out of scarves to hats. 
They switched out of robes to tailored dresses or pants.

Do not be in bondage to your liberty! Be at liberty to give up your liberty.


----------



## satz (Apr 16, 2009)

I guess I am still a little confused as to how wearing a headcovering when you don't believe in doing so can edify or love a sister. 

Paul's ideal desire was that the strong and the weak should be able to live together and let the other party do whatever they want in matters that are truly liberty (Rom 14:3). Paul admonition to give up our liberties applies in situations where someone might be stumbled (1 Cor 8:9-13) or where we might tarnish the name of christianity (1 Cor 10:27-33). 

Just the fact that there is someone with a different conviction in the church should not prompt a response wanting to follow that conviction. As long as that conviction does not involve sin, the ideal situation is that the members in the church should be able to live together in peace. So I am not sure why we need to jump straight away to following the conviction of the weaker brother.


----------



## KMK (Apr 16, 2009)

he beholds said:


> With headcoverings, I asked above. Should all the women wear them even if they believe them to be a matter of liberty?



I would not use the word 'should' because that implies that they are under obligation to do so. I would say that these women _could_ express their love for their sisters by giving up their liberty to NOT cover. Charity is the obligation, but charity can be expressed in different ways. One way might be to cover. Another way might be to have hospitality. Another might be to pray with/for a person. I am not trying to be vague but it is important that we stay away from some kind of universal mandate that is not contained in Scripture.



he beholds said:


> Would you say that if there are ten families, out of 100, who do not sing the hymns, that a church should only sing Psalms (supposing the church does not think it is a sin to only sing Psalms, but does think it is also right to sing about more than the the Psalms).



Most churches I know who sing hymns in addition to Psalms do so because they are convinced that the revelation of the NT _should_ be used in praising God in song. If that is the case it would go against conscience to exclude hymns in favor of Psalms exclusively. 



he beholds said:


> Is that fair to the members of the church who believe it is good to sing more than just the Psalms?
> Should fairness be a factor? Is fairness a factor in the other direction?



As individuals, I don't think fairness is an issue. As Paul said, in Rom 12:10, "Be kindly affectioned one to another with brotherly love; in honor preferring one another..." However, some situations might actually call for putting the wishes of an individual above the group. For example, we have a woman who gets migraine headaches under fluorescent lights so, at the inconvenience of the rest of the church, we turn the overhead lights off during the service and use only natural lighting from the windows. 



he beholds said:


> Should the original intent of the church be a factor? People joined the church thinking they were among like-minded brethren, whereas the EP people would have known that they weren't agreed in that issue, when they joined?
> (In this instance, though I am sure that in an EP church, the members feel to sing otherwise is sin and not liberty, so there's no possible way that an EP church would consider singing a hymn.)



I do think the original intent is a factor. I think most people who are mature enough to actually have an opinion about head coverings or EP and join a church that believes contrary anyway, know what they are getting into and are probably mature enough that they are not in danger of an offended conscience. These kinds of things should be hashed out before membership vows are taken.


----------



## KMK (Apr 16, 2009)

satz said:


> I guess I am still a little confused as to how wearing a headcovering when you don't believe in doing so can edify or love a sister.
> 
> Paul's ideal desire was that the strong and the weak should be able to live together and let the other party do whatever they want in matters that are truly liberty (Rom 14:3). Paul admonition to give up our liberties applies in situations where someone might be stumbled (1 Cor 8:9-13) or where we might tarnish the name of christianity (1 Cor 10:27-33).
> 
> Just the fact that there is someone with a different conviction in the church should not prompt a response wanting to follow that conviction. As long as that conviction does not involve sin, the ideal situation is that the members in the church should be able to live together in peace. So I am not sure why we need to jump straight away to following the conviction of the weaker brother.



No one is arguing that you 'need to' but that you 'can'. The OP, as I understood it, had in view people who are visitors or fairly new. There is sometimes a desire to make people feel welcome and more comfortable. 

The intent of Paul's argument in Rom 14 is not simply 'to live and let live' but, "Let everyone of us please his neighbor for his good to edification. For even Christ pleased not Himself..." (Rom 15:2,3) Christ willingly laid down His liberty as God to become flesh and blood to benefit us. We should also look for opportunities to willingly lay down our liberties for the benefit of our brothers and sisters.


----------



## he beholds (Apr 16, 2009)

KMK said:


> he beholds said:
> 
> 
> > With headcoverings, I asked above. Should all the women wear them even if they believe them to be a matter of liberty?
> ...


The bold sentence is definitely what I see happening when differences do occur! 
So maybe the answer to my OP is, "let everyone act as they will," since I have only seen kindness and maturity. 

Very good point about the lights, it is a practical way to show love. I have been in a church that asked people to refrain from wearing perfumes because it bothered an elderly woman. 

Thanks for your responses!


----------



## satz (Apr 16, 2009)

KMK said:


> The intent of Paul's argument in Rom 14 is not simply 'to live and let live' but, "Let everyone of us please his neighbor for his good to edification. For even Christ pleased not Himself..." (Rom 15:2,3) Christ willingly laid down His liberty as God to become flesh and blood to benefit us. We should also look for opportunities to willingly lay down our liberties for the benefit of our brothers and sisters.



I think the laying down of liberties has to be defined in the context of what Paul has been saying in Romans 14, and by wider context in 1 Cor 8-10. Paul is asking the strong to lay down their liberty rather than destroy or grieve a brother (Rom 14:15). He does not ask them to change just because someone happens to have a different point of view. A headcovering woman attending a church that does not cover is not necessarily going to be grieved or offended. As others have said, she should have know what she was getting into when deciding to attend such a church.

I do think Paul is effectively telling Christians to "live and let live" in matters of liberty. In Rom 14:3 he says: "Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath received him. "

Since this is a matter of liberty (meaning God does not care which side you chose), ideally both sides should just let the other do what they want. It is only when the weaker brother makes it an issue that Paul says the stronger must defer in love.


----------



## DonP (Apr 16, 2009)

satz said:


> I do think Paul is effectively telling Christians to "live and let live" in matters of liberty. In Rom 14:3 he says: "Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath received him. "
> 
> Since this is a matter of liberty (meaning God does not care which side you chose), ideally both sides should just let the other do what they want. It is only when the weaker brother makes it an issue that Paul says the stronger must defer in love.



If that was true then these verses do not mean what they say

Rom 14:19 *Therefore *let us pursue the things which make for peace and the *things by which one may edify another.* 20 *Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of* food. All things indeed are pure, but it is evil for the man who eats with offense. 21 I*t is good neither to eat meat nor drink wine nor do anything by which your brother stumbles or is offended or is made weak. *NKJV

1 Cor 8:8 But food does not commend us to God; for neither if we eat are we the better, nor if we do not eat are we the worse.
9 But beware lest somehow this liberty of yours become a stumbling block to those who are weak NKJV

1 Cor 8:13 Therefore, if food makes my brother stumble, I will never again eat meat, lest I make my brother stumble.
9:1 Am I not an apostle? Am I not free? NKJV

1 Cor 10: 28 But if anyone says to you, "This was offered to idols," do not eat it for the sake of the one who told you, and for conscience' sake; for "the earth is the LORD's, and all its fullness." 29 "Conscience," I say, not your own, but that of the other. NKJV

So it is clearly not live and let live. It is look out for your brother. 
Be willing to sacrifice and give up your liberty for your brother. 

But yes in the case of a woman coming into a church where most or none are uncovered she would expect it. 
But not to be persecuted for it. 

Same with psalms. 

But not always. My wife was a new Christian, thought they were supposed to be nice, came from a nice Ref Baptist church where most wore coverings. 

No problems, and we came to an RPCNA where they really are so careful about obedience to the word they still only sing song a capella. They were from the covenanters, who she and I read about and loved. 

But the women so despised her for what that covering stood for they called a special meeting under pretense of a tea, and all ganged up on her and scolded her and told her not to do what I told her. 
And the pastor knew it was going to happen and didn't warn her or me and 
His wife was the main driver of it because they wanted to get women deacons too and shed this horrible submission and authority antiquated stuff. 

So no, it can be the new Christian like my wife who said wow I thought Christians were to be nice. The sinners are better people than these Christians.


----------



## satz (Apr 17, 2009)

PeaceMaker said:


> If that was true then these verses do not mean what they say
> 
> Rom 14:19 *Therefore *let us pursue the things which make for peace and the *things by which one may edify another.* 20 *Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of* food. All things indeed are pure, but it is evil for the man who eats with offense. 21 I*t is good neither to eat meat nor drink wine nor do anything by which your brother stumbles or is offended or is made weak. *NKJV
> 
> ...



Don, I think you misunderstood me... I said that a christian ought not to do something which causes a brother to stumble. I never denied that. 

However, just because there are differences in views on liberty does not mean someone has to change. Ideally both sides would let the other do what they want. That is the very definition of liberty.

Those women you described were very clearly wrong to do what they did. But nothing I said supported anything even close to that. As I said, _both_ sides should respect the other.


----------



## DonP (Apr 17, 2009)

satz said:


> However, just because there are differences in views on liberty does not mean someone has to change. Ideally both sides would let the other do what they want. That is the very definition of liberty.



I agree. 
And the point has nothing to do with change, as in change their belief. 
But they may choose to change their actions.

And no one has to. Agreed. I don't think any of us implied they had to. 

We implied they *could *

and they *should *follow the passages I listed. Where ever that leads them. 

And if they talk to the person and there is no offense then there is no duty for the other. They still could choose to do it just to make them feel cared for supported etc.


----------



## KMK (Apr 17, 2009)

satz said:


> I do think Paul is effectively telling Christians to "live and let live" in matters of liberty. In Rom 14:3 he says: "Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath received him. "



Then what is the meaning of Paul's reference to Christ in Rom 15:3? "For even Christ pleased not Himself..." Did Christ merely 'live and let live'?

William Plummer:



> The Apostle confirms his injunctions by the example of Christ. He did not please Himself, or look for the favor of men; but instead of this, voluntarily acted in such a way as to subject Himself to every inconvenience and evil for the good of His people. If, then, our Lord Himself acted in this manner, how does it condemn a contrary practice in His people, if they indulge their own humor at the expense of those for whom Christ died!


----------



## satz (Apr 17, 2009)

KMK said:


> Then what is the meaning of Paul's reference to Christ in Rom 15:3? "For even Christ pleased not Himself..." Did Christ merely 'live and let live'?



Pastor Ken

Christ did give up his rights for us. What I was trying to say is that Paul wants christians to give up their rights _in order to prevent someone from being stumbled - i.e. grieved or destroyed, or the gospel maligned. _

He did not ask them to change simply because there were people around holding to different convictions.


----------



## Geneva (Apr 17, 2009)

I do understand what you are saying, but It does seem adherents to reformed doctrine see this as a problem most acutely. It seems to me that most people in just about any church are blissfully ignorant about what the people around them really believe. They just assume that most wouldn't go to a church if they had a problem with its doctrine or practices.

George
Baptist Minister
Louisiana


----------



## KMK (Apr 17, 2009)

satz said:


> KMK said:
> 
> 
> > Then what is the meaning of Paul's reference to Christ in Rom 15:3? "For even Christ pleased not Himself..." Did Christ merely 'live and let live'?
> ...





> Rom 14:21 It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak.



Paul is absolutely asking them 'to change'.

I think we are talking past each other over the meaning of the words 'offense' or 'stumblingblock' or 'occasion to fall'. These words refer to encouraging a brother to exercise your liberty or follow your rule without sharing your knowledge. We shouldn't flaunt our liberty when it might encourage a brother to go against his convictions and do likewise. Rom 14:22 Hast thou faith? have it to thyself before God.


----------



## satz (Apr 17, 2009)

KMK said:


> Paul is absolutely asking them 'to change'.
> 
> I think we are talking past each other over the meaning of the words 'offense' or 'stumblingblock' or 'occasion to fall'. These words refer to encouraging a brother to exercise your liberty or follow your rule without sharing your knowledge. We shouldn't flaunt our liberty when it might encourage a brother to go against his convictions and do likewise. Rom 14:22 Hast thou faith? have it to thyself before God.



I agree with your definitions... and that we have probably been talking past each other(!).

Still, using the example given in the OP (and which has been discussed in this thread), how can a headcovering woman who choses to attend a non-covering church claim she is being encouraged to sin against her conscience?


----------



## calgal (Apr 17, 2009)

A tangent: If you do hold a differing opinion than the rest of the church, how do you express it? Is it done lovingly like this:

A lady discreetly has her head covered and when asks explains her reasoning; a family does not sing when hymns and praise songs are sung; A family does not participate in Advent or Lent and is polite and respectful about their refusal. 

Or is it approached in the following manner (note this is just.an.example):

"Oh WE are (covering our women's heads, NOT singing those ungodly songs, NOT celebrating those heathen holidays) because that is God's way and anyone who does not agree is in sin." 

I realize people are not always nice about differing opinions but sharing what you personally believe is different than constantly implying that those who differ are "sinners" or are "convicted." You do not know their history and what they believe. But how you approach them is more important sometimes than what you say. 

To explain, I will use Halloween. A very emotional fundie woman had a fit that we had kiddies in costumes come by the house for candy on Reformation Day/Halloween and informed me that we were in siiiiiinnnnnnnnnn!!!eleventy! is someone I lost all respect for. Now if you say "gee we don't feel comfortable with Halloween" and explained why without not getting into hysterical fearmongering would have made me reconsider. Again the approach is key.


----------



## a mere housewife (Apr 17, 2009)

Trying to read through all the added info, I feel a little tangled. Rev. Klein to try to clarify my understanding of your last post and the ones ensuing:

Do you then think that the other passages should be separate and not throw light on the one in Romans? 

Reading through them again it seems that even in Rom 14,15 'lack of faith' is a different matter than 'lack of charity' -- this seems like what you and Satz are saying too -- is that right? So we are all to receive the brother weak in faith without any display of liberties that might cause him to stumble against his conscience. Yet Paul resists those with a lack of charity, of judging one another over areas of liberty: he wants us only to judge that we do not put an occasion of stumbling into the way of those that are weak *in faith*. He will give up meat completely if his brother lacks faith about idols and is in danger of eating meat offered to them, but he rebukes those who are not so much in danger of eating themselves as of judging another for eating? (Is this accurate?)

I can't honestly believe from my own experience that those who hold to stronger convictions than I do are always 'the weaker brother' -- their faith is often much greater than my own (as with Margaret, Galatians 2:20, who has stronger convictions in some areas: her faith has encouraged me many times). Their love is very often much greater as well (again, Margaret's example of love has encouraged me tremendously). I would gladly wear a head covering at Margaret's church (as I do at my own) -- not because I think I am in danger of making anyone stumble, rather because it is pleasing to people I care about: but I don't feel like I'm 'giving in' to lack of charity in either case. When lack of charity is involved, I think Paul resists that?

(Just to clarify that I am aware of the danger of uncharitably judging lack of charity. I think one should try never to _assume_ such. It becomes all too clear in statements -- as that a girl not being a sincere or unrebellious Christian if she wears slacks, etc. At this point one does not rush out to put on a pair of slacks and shout 'AHA!'; but I do find myself thinking that it would be good to try to throw that idea of a Christian out of joint in whatever way I am able -- because it is unbiblical. It does not seem like an act of love to go along with it, nor does it seem in keeping Paul's concern not to give ground to people who judged their brothers on the wrong criteria?)


----------



## KMK (Apr 17, 2009)

satz said:


> Still, using the example given in the OP (and which has been discussed in this thread), how can a headcovering woman who choses to attend a non-covering church claim she is being encouraged to sin against her conscience?



I understood the OP to concern 'visitors' or at least 'newbies', not someone who is an 'attendee'. As I mentioned earlier, a person who knowingly joins a church that holds contrary convictions should not expect the majority to change their practices.


----------



## KMK (Apr 17, 2009)

a mere housewife said:


> Trying to read through all the added info, I feel a little tangled. Rev. Klein to try to clarify my understanding of your last post and the ones ensuing:
> 
> Do you then think that the other passages should be separate and not throw light on the one in Romans?
> 
> ...



I love the phrase 'uncharitably judging lack of charity'. 

I am feeling tangled myself. Paul uses the words 'weak' and 'strong'. Those are not my words, but his. It is the farthest thing from my mind to imply that coverers or EPers are 'weak'. This whole thread has been in response to someone else's situation and not my own.

However, if a man is absolutely convinced, as Paul was, that a brother is placing himself under an unnecessary rule, then, by Paul's definition, that man is the stronger and his brother is the weaker _in that particular situation._ Remember, Paul is not talking about rules of which he has not come to a conclusion one way or another. He says in Rom 14:14, "I know and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus..." If a woman KNOWS and is PERSUADED by the Lord Jesus that it doesn't matter whether she covers or not, then, by Paul's definition, her sister who follows covering as a rule is 'weak'. 

(Notice I am not saying, _I_ think women who cover are weak)

In many cases, however, I think women do not cover simply because they have not been persuaded one way or the other. This is a different situation because she does not know for sure whether she has liberty in this area or not.


----------



## a mere housewife (Apr 17, 2009)

I can understand that 'weak' and 'strong' as terms can be -- used entirely inoffensively if the content is simply that one person is following a rule another person is convinced is not a rule. 

However if the content is 'weak in _faith_' -- which it seems inescapably to be -- that does seem to make things a little different [in that weak/strong don't seem to fall along such easily 'ruled' lines ]. Presumably the weakness of faith is with regard to thinking one will sin if one transgresses in an area of liberty and it seems also that the 'weak' are in danger of doing so? -- the 'not causing such a person to stumble' would be helping them not to sin against their conscience in that area?

While at the same time guarding the fact that it is an area of conscience, which they cannot lay down as a rule of faith for others? (So while Paul is ready to give up meats for one who is in danger of sinning against conscience through weakness of faith, he says elsewhere that those who lay such restrictions upon others teach 'doctrines of demons'?)

Thanks much for your answers. I will certainly be thinking about them more . . .


----------



## DonP (Apr 17, 2009)

a mere housewife said:


> I can understand that 'weak' and 'strong' as terms can be -- used entirely inoffensively if the content is simply that one person is following a rule another person is convinced is not a rule. . .



It may help to consider the week or strong is from the point of view of the one judging the other. 

It is not a matter of whether one is weal or strong. Maybe educated more or less even. 

Point is, if I judge it to be a matter indifferent, the other person does not, they either don't know and so cover to be safe, or are convicted they should, then you would not want to offend their conscience by tempting them to violate it until God would change their mind on that subject. 

So its not about whether they have more faith in other areas, or whether they are wrong or you are wrong and they are right, its about noticing people's conscience, not saying live and let live, instead realizing you are a part of the body, loving them as you would have them love you, as you would love your own body. 

I would also balance this by saying God does tell us not to receive doubtful disputes. So we should seek to educate one who may be in that situation. 
But if they do not get it we accept them as they are, knowing we may be wrong. 

Also when there is clear scripture that says cover because you were made from and for the man and because of the angels, we should not be quick to say this passage doesn't apply to me, it was only for that culture that day, when the rest of the context before and after, you would not say that about. When it was a majority practice less than 50 years ago, and a person is not acting out of a legalistic or even fundamentalist view, but is conscientiously seeking to obey the word, it is not a doubtful disputation. 

But dialogue back and forth in a peaceful way is always useful anyway. 

And it is interesting to note that God did not say as cotton sharpens cotton so man sharpens his friend. It is as iron, hard, sharp, sparks heat etc. 
We ought not to take offense so easily if one is passionately horrified by sin and detests it as we all should. 
And sometimes they may not be tactful about it. oh well. Maybe they could be gentler but maybe we all should hate sin more too?? And be shocked and appalled when we see it. 
Now I grant you there maybe should be a context. If one knows many profess Christ and still celebrate holidays they should not be so shocked and appalled to go beyond what their own church has decided. 
But if you come across a person from a stricter denomination should you not be the one to expect they will react strongly?
If I were to go to an RPCNA I would not e shocked they only sing psalms, if I went to the home of an FRC or FCc I certainly would not expect them to enter into congenial conversation about my celebrating Halloween if I did. 

And when we are inexperienced with others beliefs, some times we will have some clashes and be shocked. Then take a breath, love them and remember for next time. Don't take offense and think all who are like them are evil or fundie or legalists etc. just because they weren't real polite and patient with you. 
*Love does not take offense, is not easily provoked
*
Why do we not hear much on these aspects of loving each other?


----------



## a mere housewife (Apr 17, 2009)

Don, I agree that we should hear more on these aspects of loving one another, esp considering how much in the New Testament is devoted to this topic of esteeming other people better than ourselves.

I edited my post above because rereading I realised it was unclear and might communicate the wrong thing to a more convicted person -- honestly at this point I am unsure how to judge weak from strong etc. but my attempts to clarify that point are not meant to be offensive to any of the people whose stronger convictions I greatly respect, and whose stronger faith has often been an example to me!


----------



## DonP (Apr 17, 2009)

a mere housewife said:


> Don, I agree that we should hear more on these aspects of loving one another, esp considering how much in the New Testament is devoted to this topic of esteeming other people better than ourselves.
> 
> - honestly at this point I am unsure how to judge weak from strong etc. but my attempts to clarify that point are not meant to be offensive to any of the people whose stronger convictions I greatly respect, and whose stronger faith has often been an example to me!



Good! Then you will have to live by faith, not by knowing for sure, not seeking to be "right" but in constant communication with God asking for guidance, discernment, love, and and an ever increasingly sensitive conscience. 

I don't think any would say they have this down. I don't. 

But I hope I am willing to give up anything or any liberty to show love and support to another. I hope I am also willing to be bold and firm and confident by faith in what God has shown me is the best so far, to help others grow. 
And I pray for wisdom to know when to use which.

Its not an either or, confront and reprove and admonish or turn the other cheek, and take no notice of a thing. 

Its not a rule or law we can memorize then comfort ourselves we are obeying it always, it is a walk of faith, trusting God to convict and give us His desires. 

We don't get to know when we are doing it "Right" or best, we just do it as best we know how today in accord with the word, unless there is a clear command, like do not...

This is the challenge of liberty and faith versus a life of rules and laws where we can comfort ourselves by keeping them. 

We need to seek assurance and comfort from the Spirit rather than rules.
We want to be able to prove to one who opposes us that we are "right", rather than live meekly before God ready to change. 

It can be scary to not have a rule for everything, I think people put themselves in bondage for this reason. 
Look at the Jews waiting for Moses, unsure, lets go back to bondage of Egypt, After Christ, Judaizers want to go back to rules, 

Gal 4:21 Tell me, you who desire to be under the law, do you not hear the law? NKJV

This is not how we are righteous. We would have to keep it perfectly if we had rules. 

Our righteousness is by a walk in the Spirit, by faith, not by knowing what we should do for sure in each situation. Just as we are justified by faith ;

Gal 3:3 Are you so foolish? Having begun in the Spirit, are you now being made perfect by the flesh? NKJV


----------



## calgal (Apr 17, 2009)

Although I understand and respect Heidi's point of view (and Don may be making a good point through the wall of text), I want to go back to the OP. 

IF a family has taken membership vows in a church (and by extension is part of a denomination) they should have a good idea of what the church teaches, what areas (if any) they take exception to, how important their exceptions are to them, how much these exceptions will impact their walk with the Lord and if the exceptions will be a stumbling block to them and to the rest of the congregation. It is in my opinion pretty easy to figure out where a congregation stands on EP: If one walks into a PRC then it is obvious by the lack of a hymnal in the pew that they are EP. And it helps to be related to someone. If one walks into a church with views on headcovering, that is also pretty obvious. Thanks to the wonder of technology, most churches (the Netherlands Reformed are an exception) have a website and you can get a pretty good "feel" for some of the distinctives by some web searching.

If the area of difference is not something like women pastors and elders (a dealbreaker in my house) or other evidence of bad theology, then deciding to stay in the church may mean you need to accept that there are several points of view regarding nonessentials AND be charitable in dealing with those who hold a different view. I do not care if someone celebrates no holidays, covers their heads, does not sing anything but psalms UNTIL they try to force their ideas on me. 

And as for Don's indirect reply, it is rude (and not exactly Christlike behavior) to *overreact* negatively to some other family's choice of celebrating holidays: Jehovah's Witnesses do better than that. There is a better way to respond that MIGHT just cause the other person to rethink their stance on an issue without saying "if you don't do what I believe you should do on (insert NON SALVIC issue) you are following the devil." THAT is a way to shut down discourse and to be anything but a peacemaker.


----------

