# Rulemaking & Offenses



## JML (Feb 14, 2011)

Is it permissable for a church to make a rule that forbids something for its members that is not forbidden in Scripture for the reason that the elders feel that this particular action is an action that might cause those in the congregation or outside to stumble of be offended (see 1 Cor. 8:13)? If prospective members voluntarily submit to this in order to become members of the church, is it wrong?


----------



## Skyler (Feb 14, 2011)

That seems to have been the case in Acts 15.


----------



## Gage Browning (Feb 14, 2011)

That's a sticky one when dealing with the adiophora. I'm not sure how one could rightly bind men's conscience when God's law hasn't. Maybe there's an instance where I may be persuaded otherwise...but that's my initial thought without knowning circumstances.


----------



## KMK (Feb 14, 2011)

John Lanier said:


> Is it permissable for a church to *make a rule* that forbids something for its members that is not forbidden in Scripture for the reason that the elders feel that this particular action is an action that might cause those in the congregation or outside to stumble of be offended (see 1 Cor. 8:13)?



No. When Jesus instituted the Lord's Supper, he used wine as one of the elements knowing full well that some people use wine to get drunk. God commanded the Israelites to use the Festal Tithe for wine and strong drink. God commanded mankind to be fruitful and multiply knowing full well that some would abuse the marriage bed. Once you start binding man's conscience so that others are not 'offended', where does it all end? (See the Shakers)

However, if individuals desire to bind their own consciences outside of the church, that is a different matter.


----------



## Wayne (Feb 14, 2011)

Consider this article, which dealt with a situation in the old Southern Presbyterian Church which was, if I remember correctly, quite similar to the situation you are describing:

http://www.pcahistory.org/HCLibrary/periodicals/spr/v31/31-2-2.pdf

Admittedly not the easiest thing to read, but try to stick with it, maybe scan it over once or twice before really digging into it. Basically the question at issue is this paper is, "Can the church tell the congregation that dancing is sinful?" The author, Thomas Peck, expands the issue and his answer out to general principle.

Chris will have to help here, but I also seem to remember that Nick Willborn had an article in an earlier issue of _The Confessional Presbyterian_ that dealt with the above article. Willborn's piece might be more accessible.


----------



## JML (Feb 14, 2011)

What got me thinking about this was this quote:



> We are a fellowship of people who voluntarily abstain from alcoholic drink. Those who wish to be communicant members with the right to vote and, in the case of men, be voted into office obviously must agree to voluntary abstinence.
> 
> We abstain for testimony's sake. Leaving aside the considerable exegetical controversy as to whether the Bible does in fact sanction the use of alcoholic drink, there is good reason for the temperance stand. This is a case where our abstinence is a step to protect our testimony and enlarge our usefulness in gospel witness.
> 
> ...



and



> We believe it makes it incumbent on us, faced with the utterly incalculable devastation caused by alcohol, to separate ourselves totally from it unto the Lord. And it is unto the Lord that we do this. This is no bitter legalism. It is an expression of our love for the Lord, for His testimony, and for the welfare of others.



Both of these quotes are from the Free Presbyterian Church of North America. I just wanted to get some thoughts from the Board on this.


----------



## Pergamum (Feb 14, 2011)

This is about the "Alcohol clause" in many baptist churches, ain't it?


Here is a good little article:

TOTAL ABSTINENCE AND CHURCH MEMBERSHIP - John Piper


----------



## Ivan (Feb 14, 2011)

Pergamum said:


> This is about the "Alcohol clause" in many baptist churches, ain't it?
> 
> 
> Here is a good little article:
> ...


 
No such thing at my church.


----------



## Skyler (Feb 14, 2011)

With all due respect to John Piper, I don't think he sufficiently takes into account the act of the church council in Acts 15 in forbidding the Gentile churches in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia from eating meat sacrificed to idols, blood, or things strangled. James seems to indicate in verse 21 that this prohibition is in consideration of those who hold to the law of Moses as a matter of conscience. With that in mind, I don't see how we can forbid churches from making church policy out of matters of conscience when there is a need to do so.


----------



## Edward (Feb 14, 2011)

John Lanier said:


> must agree to voluntary abstinence.



Probably should be a separate thread, but I can see issues with their definition of 'voluntary'.


----------



## KMK (Feb 14, 2011)

John Lanier said:


> We are a fellowship of people who voluntarily abstain from alcoholic drink. Those who wish to be communicant members with the right to vote and, in the case of men, be voted into office obviously must agree to voluntary abstinence.



If membership requires abstinence, then how can it be considered voluntary? How is that any different than saying, "Those who wish to be communicant members must agree to voluntarily attend Mass once a week?"


----------



## satz (Feb 14, 2011)

Skyler said:


> With all due respect to John Piper, I don't think he sufficiently takes into account the act of the church council in Acts 15 in forbidding the Gentile churches in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia from eating meat sacrificed to idols, blood, or things strangled. James seems to indicate in verse 21 that this prohibition is in consideration of those who hold to the law of Moses as a matter of conscience. With that in mind, I don't see how we can forbid churches from making church policy out of matters of conscience when there is a need to do so.


 
I don't think you can say churches are forbidden from making such policies but I think the bible would say it should be rare. If God has truly left something as a matter indifferent, there is a reason for it, and we should be slow to try to be more conservative than him.

I would be hesitant as using Acts 15 as a precedent for the type of church covenants like the one quoted above forbidding alcohol. Acts 15 was dealing with an event of immense magnitude in the history of the God's people, with transition from the Old Covenant to the New Covenant, the ceremonial laws passing away, and the gentiles being allowed in large numbers into God's church for the first time. This special circumstance required the Apostles and Elders to make a special ruling to avoid giving undue offence to the jews. Any controversy which we encounter today does not even begin to approach what was happening in Acts 15 in magnitude. 

Also, after finishing his explanation of idol meat and avoiding offence to weak brethen in 1 Cor 8-10, Paul gives his practical application in the last part of ch 10, and his advice to the corinthians is not to do everything they can to avoid idol meat, even though it was a controversial issue. He told them to go ahead and buy meat and eat at unbeliever's dinners, but only when someone expressly made an issue of the meat (1 Cor 10:28) were they to abstain. So the idea of total abstience from something indifferent "just in case" of offending someone should not be the first response to a controversial issue.

I think its also worth noting that Paul does not hesitate to call those who are offended where there need be no offense as "weak". Their understanding is not complete. And as such, they should not necessarily be allowed to dictate church policy. While normal believers should do all they can to avoid offending these weak brethen, I think the church leadership itself does have a role to play to protect the rest of the membership from overly scruplous brethen who expressly or passively want to enforce their extra biblical convictions upon others.


----------



## JML (Feb 14, 2011)

Pergamum said:


> This is about the "Alcohol clause" in many baptist churches, ain't it?



No. Actually this is from a Presbyterian Church. The Free Presbyterian Church of North America. I was reading about them and came across this doctrine of theirs. I wanted to see what people thought of it.


----------



## Pergamum (Feb 14, 2011)

I don't think that the items contained in the letter circulating among the churches after Acts 15 was to be normative for all Christians everywhere at all times. 

It was specifically written during the time in which the predominantly Jewish church began expanding into the Gentile world and as their native consciences differed on some issues, such as halal meat, etc. The early church thus urged Gentile believers to try to refrain from those items that were either particularly predominant gentile sins, or to refrain from those things that would hinder their brethren, even if it was merely eating habits.


----------

