# To what extent does the church have a right into your personal business?



## Scott Bushey (Dec 27, 2017)

Is anything in your life divorced from your church membership and elder oversight? If so, what would those things be?


----------



## Dachaser (Dec 27, 2017)

Scott Bushey said:


> Is anything in your life divorced from your church membership and elder oversight? If so, what would those things be?


My wife and children. my job, and basically anything not related to church activities.


----------



## Gforce9 (Dec 27, 2017)

Scott,
I hadn't thought much about this specifically, but I think of the charge to me as a member of the OPC and the charge to the session over me. I think this means they have more "right" than the individualistic, American, evangelical mindset is willing to grant. Since doctrine and life are both covered in the charge, the application may be broad. I don't expect the session to plan my lunches for me, but I would fully expect them to help correct myself and family if life and practice were out of step with our shared (and publically committed to) Christian beliefs.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Alan D. Strange (Dec 27, 2017)

Such a question appears to be one having to do with the proper nature, exercise, and limits of church power.

The OPC Form of Government addresses that question in Chapter 3 ("The Nature and Exercise of Church Power") in sections 3-5, citing two relevant places in the WCF:

3. All church power is only ministerial and declarative, for the Holy Scriptures are the only infallible rule of faith and practice. No church judicatory may presume to bind the conscience by making laws on the basis of its own authority; all its decisions should be founded upon the Word of God. "God alone is Lord of the conscience, and hath left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men, which are, in anything, contrary to his Word; or beside it, if matters of faith, or worship" (Confession of Faith, Chapter XX, Section 2).

4. All church power is wholly moral or spiritual. No church officers or judicatories possess any civil jurisdiction; they may not inflict any civil penalties nor may they seek the aid of the civil power in the exercise of their jurisdiction further than may be necessary for civil protection and security.

5. Nevertheless, church government is a valid and authentic jurisdiction to which Christians are commanded to submit themselves. Therefore the decisions of church officers when properly rendered and if in accord with the Word of God "are to be received with reverence and submission; not only for their agreement with the Word, but also for the power whereby they are made, as being an ordinance of God appointed thereunto in his Word" (Confession of Faith, Chapter XXXI, Section 2).

Peace,
Alan

Reactions: Like 4 | Informative 2


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Dec 27, 2017)

Gforce9 said:


> I don't expect the session to plan my lunches for me, but I would fully expect them to help correct myself and family if life and practice were out of step with our shared (and publically committed to) Christian beliefs.


Indeed. The church possesses the keys to bind and to loose. The current modern evangelistic mindset that would claim the church has no say in a member's "private lives" is out of bounds. (e.g., Point 5 of Rev. Strange's quote above.)

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## SolaScriptura (Dec 27, 2017)

Many would suggest that church leadership have no business in a member's "personal life" unless they are invited in.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser (Dec 27, 2017)

Gforce9 said:


> Scott,
> I hadn't thought much about this specifically, but I think of the charge to me as a member of the OPC and the charge to the session over me. I think this means they have more "right" than the individualistic, American, evangelical mindset is willing to grant. Since doctrine and life are both covered in the charge, the application may be broad. I don't expect the session to plan my lunches for me, but I would fully expect them to help correct myself and family if life and practice were out of step with our shared (and publically committed to) Christian beliefs.


There is a biblical balance to be maintained on this issue though, a son one extreme, there are Christians who feel no accountability to anyone other than Jesus Himself, and on the other extreme, there are groups such as in the so called Shepherding Movement that pretty much told you who to marry, what job could have etc.


----------



## Gforce9 (Dec 27, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> My wife and children. my job, and basically anything not related to church activities.



Respectfully, David, I plead that you and the officers responsible for you reconsider. If what your family believes or practices or your character at work is of no concern or off limits to those with spiritual charge over you, there is only danger ahead. I say this as one who struggles with rebellion daily
..

Reactions: Like 6


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Dec 27, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> My wife and children. my job, and basically anything not related to church activities.


Rest assured, *if* you are abusing your wife, abusing your children, and or selling drugs as a job, I am confident your local church should have something to say and do in the matter. 

In other words, there is more elaboration needed to your statement than what you have claimed.

Reactions: Like 8


----------



## JimmyH (Dec 27, 2017)

Just perusing the OPC Book of Church Discipline ;
https://www.opc.org/BCO/BD.html


> *Chapter I*
> *The Nature and Purposes of Discipline*
> 1. Ecclesiastical discipline is the exercise of that authority which the Lord Jesus Christ has committed to the visible church for the preservation of its purity, peace, and good order.
> 
> ...


When I was accepted as a member of my congregation I had to take an oath to be subject to discipline, should it be necessary, by the session of my OPC.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Gforce9 (Dec 27, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> There is a biblical balance to be maintained on this issue though, a son one extreme, there are Christians who feel no accountability to anyone other than Jesus Himself, and on the other extreme, there are groups such as in the so called Shepherding Movement that pretty much told you who to marry, what job could have etc.



Most certainly, there are abusers of the authority given them. Shame and judgment await them. This does not negate God's authority via church officers, however...


----------



## fredtgreco (Dec 27, 2017)

Gforce9 said:


> Most certainly, there are abusers of the authority given them. Shame and judgment await them. This does not negate God's authority via church officers, however...


abusus non tollit usum, "abuse does not preclude proper use."

Reactions: Like 7


----------



## Gforce9 (Dec 27, 2017)

SolaScriptura said:


> Many would suggest that church leadership have no business in a member's "personal life" unless they are invited in.



Ben,
This is what I regularly witnessed in my time (20+ years) in evangelical circles. What a sad commentary on both parties... I have a good and open relationship with my session; they know my foibles and my joys and they still love me....


----------



## Gforce9 (Dec 27, 2017)

fredtgreco said:


> abusus non tollit usum, "abuse does not preclude proper use."



Fred,
I'm not ready for educated Latin yet; I'm still working on my pig Latin


----------



## RamistThomist (Dec 27, 2017)

Here is an issue that often comes up in the Gothard/Vision Forum type circles: if the session finds out you and your spouse are using birth control (NFP, condoms, etc; not even "the pill") can they discipline you?

*Note: I am not arguing for or against birth control in any or all of its forms. Just using it as an example


----------



## Scott Bushey (Dec 27, 2017)

Jacob,
I don't believe the church at large is solid on this issue; I recall a pastor telling me years ago that if we didn't use any wisdom in planning a family, it could result in disaster. He said, " Do you think that it would it bring God glory if you were on state support, couldn't provide adequately for your family, etc. after having 9 kids?"

My personal opinion is that it is a church issue and yes they can discipline. This brings up things like Coitus Interuptus and could the church as well, discipline someone admitting to using this method? I believe most churches don't get involved here because most times, information like this is kept in one's pocket.


----------



## Username4000 (Dec 27, 2017)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Here is an issue that often comes up in the Gothard/Vision Forum type circles: if the session finds out you and your spouse are using birth control (NFP, condoms, etc; not even "the pill") can they discipline you?



An appropriate line would seem to be that a church can discipline for sin, but not for their own additional preferences. In the PCA, for instance, BCO 29-1 spells this out. If I take a job with a certain company that wronged them somehow, they can advise me about this, but not put me under discipline to get me to quit. If that job requires me to sin (do unnecessary work on the Lord's Day, or it's a job at an abortion mill), then they would be able to discipline me.

In your example, a wise church would understand this to be vague enough that there is legitimate disagreement over it. Scripture doesn't conclusively prove that these are sin, and our subordinate standards do not speak to the issue at all. Therefore, it would be very unlikely to come to the level of discipline. If you're at an abusive church, then you have your presbytery and GA as additional courts of appeal at which to raise this same objection.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Alan D. Strange (Dec 27, 2017)

I quoted as I did above from the OPC Form of Government to highlight the spiritual nature and exercise of church power.

Where the debate will come in for those exercising church power in a ministerial and declarative fashion (which is what we, particularly as Reformed, over against Romanists, believe) is on issues like Jacob cited: are Christians free to practice (non-abortive) forms of birth control? How detailed should inquiry into such be made (should household visits investigate such and other issues--like all the specifics of one's viewing and listening habits, for instance?)?

It seems to me that a good deal of wisdom and discretion should be employed here. We are not lords over one another (Romans 14), but we are properly accountable to one another (and this is broader than just to the leadership--there is a proper one-anothering aspect here). It seems to me that even in this we tend to focus on certain things more than another (sins that seem lurid) as opposed to pride, envy, gossip, slander, etc., sins that are as condemned in Pauline catalogs of sin as much as the more seedy ones are.

Peace,
Alan

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Pergamum (Dec 27, 2017)

A church can discipline for sin, but not for their own additional preferences.

BUT....many authoritarian types think that most things fall into the category of sin or not sin and not into the category of personal preferences.

I have heard of Reformed Baptist elders asking for pay stubs from congregants to make sure they were tithing. A normal person would say, "None of your business buddy." But strangely enough, many parishioners are conditioned to believe that such requests do not cross personal boundaries and are not offended when, in fact, they should be.

Reactions: Like 3 | Amen 1


----------



## Gforce9 (Dec 27, 2017)

Pergamum said:


> I have heard of Reformed Baptist elders asking for pay stubs from congregants to make sure they were tithing. A normal person would say, "None of your business buddy." But strangely enough, many parishioners are conditioned to believe that such requests do not cross personal boundaries and are not offended when, in fact, they should be.



Perg,
I agree that there is liberty of conscience and that it should be carefully protected. I would also acquiesce that there is some number of over-bearing folk in office out there. To collect pay stubs at offering time is certainly out-of-bounds. For the Deacons or a Session to ask about or even insist the producing of income/expenditures when someone is asking for financial help would be wholly appropriate, I think. A given situation may dictate the level of "intrusion" and sometimes an "intrusion" (as perceived by the intrusee) is the duty of the office-bearer, no? Let us pray for our officers!


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Dec 27, 2017)

What about the issue of family worship? I've wondered what the standard for inquiry into this would be in the various reformed churches. In churches we have been in, it was left a private matter to the families.


----------



## Pergamum (Dec 27, 2017)

Gforce9 said:


> Perg,
> I agree that there is liberty of conscience and that it should be carefully protected. I would also acquiesce that there is some number of over-bearing folk in office out there. To collect pay stubs at offering time is certainly out-of-bounds. For the Deacons or a Session to ask about or even insist the producing of income/expenditures when someone is asking for financial help would be wholly appropriate, I think. A given situation may dictate the level of "intrusion" and sometimes an "intrusion" (as perceived by the intrusee) is the duty of the office-bearer, no? Let us pray for our officers!



How are you determining what is appropriate and not appropriate? What are the principles involved? 

The Reformed Baptist church-goer who went to this RB Church in Kentucky reasoned, since it was the duty of the elders to ensure holy conduct among the members, then it was totally appropriate for elders to make sure giving to the church was being done because this is one aspect of worship. 

What happens when a lay member believes something is not appropriate but the elder thinks it is perfectly appropriate? Especially in churches where obedience to elders is emphasized?


----------



## jwithnell (Dec 27, 2017)

I am eternally grateful for those who watch over me! 

In Presbyterian circles, we can refer matters to the other courts of the church and this provides protection against going beyond the powers given.

Generally, wisdom suggests careful consideration even when Christian liberty might be invoked. Those better acquainted with the scriptures are an ally against the world

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## timfost (Dec 27, 2017)

Gforce9 said:


> Fred,
> I'm not ready for educated Latin yet; I'm still working on my pig Latin



Emay ootay.


----------



## Gforce9 (Dec 27, 2017)

Pergamum said:


> 1- How are you determining what is appropriate and not appropriate? What are the principles involved?
> 
> 2- The Reformed Baptist church-goer who went to this RB Church in Kentucky reasoned, 3- since it was the duty of the elders to ensure holy conduct among the members, then it was totally appropriate for elders to make sure giving to the church was being done because this is one aspect of worship.
> 
> 4- What happens when a lay member believes something is not appropriate but the elder thinks it is perfectly appropriate? Especially in churches where obedience to elders is emphasized?



1- The principles are laid out in our respective confessions. 
2- This is one area where the independent ecclesiology can fail the saints.
3- It _is_ the duty of the officers in matters faith and practice. If they overstep their bounds, there should be a place to appeal....
4- The session represents the people and one can appeal to the presbytery if the member believes he was not treated properly at the session level. No government is perfect, because people are imperfect, but the mechanism is in place for the presbyterian.

I really don't mean to sound condescending....please hear that. I'm trying to stay with procedures and not be offensive.


----------



## Alan D. Strange (Dec 27, 2017)

Greg is right. 

I cannot imagine one of our sessions/diaconates doing that "let's-look-at-your-pay-stub-to-see-if-you're-tithing" business because it would be perceived as a violation of the proper power of the church. That church power is ministerial and declarative, moral and spiritual, implies that the church has no warrant to exercise force (which pertains to the sword and the rod not the keys) and such an action as "requiring" pay stubs is coercive.

There is no uniform position among us (in the OPC) as to the continuing requirement of the tithe. Even if a particular church thought that there was and that there was an obligation for members to render it (all agree that there is an obligation to give), sessions would not seek to be coercive in ascertaining its payment; if they were, if they did what the Reformed Baptists cited did, which is hard to imagine, such would be subject to appeal to higher judicatories. The church as a whole (through its GA) would never uphold such a coercive action. 

Peace,
Alan

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## Ben Zartman (Dec 28, 2017)

While I think it appropriate for elders to ask, during an oversight visit, "Are you tithing?" It would be inappropriate for them to seek proof. Love believes all things; bears all things. My elders would have to be pretty convinced that someone was lying about it to the destruction of their souls before they began prying that hard.
In half a decade now at our current church (RB), I have never been asked an invasive question by the elders, though they know more of my life and habits than any other elders at other churches I've been at. Their shepherding method is to get involved, to enter into the burdens of their members, to know each one personally, and to exhort privately where necessary. I think they do it quite well, and I'm grateful for it.
I also know as much or more about them and their private lives as they know of mine--we are all marching heavenward together, bearing one another's burdens, praying for one another and sharing our joys and sorrows. There is not much about my private life I'd not be willing to share, if they asked: but they don't care to ask unnecessarily.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Scott Bushey (Dec 28, 2017)

Are financial offerings/church support, compulsory? If they are, what means does the church have at it's disposal to make sure the flock is not sinning by not contributing? Envelopes?


----------



## Gforce9 (Dec 28, 2017)

Scott Bushey said:


> Are financial offerings/church support, compulsory? If they are, what means does the church have at it's disposal to make sure the flock is not sinning by not contributing? Envelopes?



Giving is the Christians joy and duty....according to the Scripture. I think a session should "think the best" of a member unless there is good reason not to. Any corrective action should not be putative, but restorative in nature. There may be unusual circumstances that may require an unusual response, but that would not the norm and I know with joyous certitude, that my session would treat any unusual circumstance gently and with much prayer.......


----------



## Scott Bushey (Dec 28, 2017)

Greg, 
Not that I disagree w/ anything you have written, are any sins outside of the over sight of our church elders? If not giving is sinful, wouldn’t it follow that some type of consideration be given in regards to giving?


----------



## Gforce9 (Dec 28, 2017)

Scott Bushey said:


> Greg,
> Not that I disagree w/ anything you have written, are any sins outside of the over sight of our church elders? If not giving is sinful, wouldn’t it follow that some type of consideration be given in regards to giving?



I think I understand your question better now. Giving, unlike infighting, for example, may be more complex a matter for the session to navigate. Certainly giving falls under faith and practice, but probably needs much prayer if a session is to engage. 

My gut reaction would be that, unlike infighting that may require immediate oversight and correction, a lack of giving may be occasion to ask how they (session/diaconate) may help the individual, even if it is merely in financial counsel. Maybe the individual (new believer) is unaware of his/her duty. 

I would like to her from our seasoned officers how they have handled this in the past......

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser (Dec 28, 2017)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> Rest assured, *if* you are abusing your wife, abusing your children, and or selling drugs as a job, I am confident your local church should have something to say and do in the matter.
> 
> In other words, there is more elaboration needed to your statement than what you have claimed.


I was not speaking towards what would happen If I was abusing my wife or sons, or acting in a non Christian way as in known habitual sinning and not accepting discipline by the elders or the church though. I was speaking more towards the church leadership not being involved with telling me how to act towards my wife and family part from what the scriptures tell me how to behave, nor to be able to tell me what job I must take, who to marry. I am reacting towards what was exposed to early on in Charismatic circles under the so called Shepherding Movement, as elders there did exercise so much control that people were told who they could marry, what jobs could have, what churches had to attend, for examples.


----------



## Dachaser (Dec 28, 2017)

koenig said:


> An appropriate line would seem to be that a church can discipline for sin, but not for their own additional preferences. In the PCA, for instance, BCO 29-1 spells this out. If I take a job with a certain company that wronged them somehow, they can advise me about this, but not put me under discipline to get me to quit. If that job requires me to sin (do unnecessary work on the Lord's Day, or it's a job at an abortion mill), then they would be able to discipline me.
> 
> In your example, a wise church would understand this to be vague enough that there is legitimate disagreement over it. Scripture doesn't conclusively prove that these are sin, and our subordinate standards do not speak to the issue at all. Therefore, it would be very unlikely to come to the level of discipline. If you're at an abusive church, then you have your presbytery and GA as additional courts of appeal at which to raise this same objection.


I think this is a balanced approach, as we would want to have the church able to speak into and address known areas when they arise that are problematic. If I was known as a Christian in my community, but also well known to partake of drinking to excess a lot, or known to have affairs, that would bring reproach to Christ and must be addressed. I just wish to avoid situations when preferences and convictions are what is used to exercise authority over us, or when leadership claims toi have heard the voice and will of God for whom to marry. or what job must take for examples.


----------



## Dachaser (Dec 28, 2017)

Pergamum said:


> A church can discipline for sin, but not for their own additional preferences.
> 
> BUT....many authoritarian types think that most things fall into the category of sin or not sin and not into the category of personal preferences.
> 
> I have heard of Reformed Baptist elders asking for pay stubs from congregants to make sure they were tithing. A normal person would say, "None of your business buddy." But strangely enough, many parishioners are conditioned to believe that such requests do not cross personal boundaries and are not offended when, in fact, they should be.


Leadership is charged to be over the spiritual condition of their flock, and so should exercise authority over areas that fall under that umbrella, but not in areas that fall under preferences and convictions, under the freedom in Christ latitude the scriptures allow for us all to have and exercise.


----------



## Dachaser (Dec 28, 2017)

Gforce9 said:


> Giving is the Christians joy and duty....according to the Scripture. I think a session should "think the best" of a member unless there is good reason not to. Any corrective action should not be putative, but restorative in nature. There may be unusual circumstances that may require an unusual response, but that would not the norm and I know with joyous certitude, that my session would treat any unusual circumstance gently and with much prayer.......


In my church, those involved in official ministries such as pastors and Elders and deacons are required to be tithing , and need to show that they are doing that.


----------



## Gforce9 (Dec 28, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> In my church, those involved in official ministries such as pastors and Elders and deacons are required to be tithing , and need to show that they are doing that.



I think all Christians are "required" to give, by God's word, according to station.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser (Dec 28, 2017)

Gforce9 said:


> I think all Christians are "required" to give, by God's word, according to station.


True, as that is in the scriptures, but was just saying that those in official positions seem to be under a greater financial responsibility.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Dec 28, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> I was not speaking towards what would happen If I was abusing my wife or sons, or acting in a non Christian way as in known habitual sinning and not accepting discipline by the elders or the church though. I was speaking more towards the church leadership not being involved with telling me how to act towards my wife and family part from what the scriptures tell me how to behave, nor to be able to tell me what job I must take, who to marry. I am reacting towards what was exposed to early on in Charismatic circles under the so called Shepherding Movement, as elders there did exercise so much control that people were told who they could marry, what jobs could have, what churches had to attend, for examples.


David,

Would have been better that you prefaced your original post with all these underlying assumptions rather than assuming we all would understand what you actually intended. Try doing this more often and avoid the confusion that results when you do not. We are not mind readers, so take some time to ensure what you _intend _to say matches what you _actually _say.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Dachaser (Dec 28, 2017)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> David,
> 
> Would have been better that you prefaced your original post with all these underlying assumptions rather than assuming we all would understand what you actually intended. Try doing this more often and avoid the confusion that results when you do not. We are not mind readers, so take some time to ensure what you _intend _to say matches what you _actually _say.


I will try to be more mindful of being more explicit on what I am attempting to post and say here on the Board.

Reactions: Like 1 | Rejoicing 1


----------



## Ben Zartman (Dec 28, 2017)

Scott Bushey said:


> Are financial offerings/church support, compulsory? If they are, what means does the church have at it's disposal to make sure the flock is not sinning by not contributing? Envelopes?


I'm guessing this was directed at my post just above: Yes, tithing is considered compulsory, and the membership vows include a promise to support the church financially as well as otherwise. So far as I know, they trust us as members to live up to the vows....though come to think of it, being on time is also in the vows and precious few bother to do that. Hmmm.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Nomos (Dec 28, 2017)

I have a question on a note that relates to the involvement of the elders in the lives of members. Have any of you experience (first-hand, or second) with what might entail appropriate disciplinary action for those that are unrepentantly unequally yoked in a dating relationship? If so, could you share what this might look like (or what you think it should look like). 

Thanks,
Ryan


----------



## Scott Bushey (Dec 28, 2017)

I would expect that this would follow Matt 18; practically speaking, if it got to the elders, there would be counseling. Interview of both parties (if possible), to validate.


----------



## Ryan&Amber2013 (Dec 28, 2017)

Dealing with this subject, this is why I think it's important for the leaders to be close to the members, and to do home visits for spiritual check-ups. Also, so the elders are held accountable, it is good for them at the home visits to ask the members if they see any sin in their own (the elder's) life.


----------



## Pergamum (Dec 28, 2017)

Ryan&Amber2013 said:


> Dealing with this subject, this is why I think it's important for the leaders to be close to the members, and to do home visits for spiritual check-ups. Also, so the elders are held accountable, it is good for them at the home visits to ask the members if they see any sin in their own (the elder's) life.


This all creates an atmosphere that is not free and relaxed (home check-ups on their members). I once heard of a man who, upon visiting a home unannounced, checked the fridge and cabinets for alcohol. Such an environment creates members who are always sizing others up in the name of "discernment" and encourages a critical spirit instead of love.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Ben Zartman (Dec 29, 2017)

^^ Perg, our elders schedule visits, rotating through the membership in I suspect alphabetical order. So I always have plenty of time to hide the contraband behind my 16-volume set of John Owen before they show up....

Although they would not be offended to be offered a glass of wine, anyway.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Gforce9 (Dec 29, 2017)

Pergamum said:


> This all creates an atmosphere that is not free and relaxed (home check-ups on their members). I once heard of a man who, upon visiting a home unannounced, checked the fridge and cabinets for alcohol. Such an environment creates members who are always sizing others up in the name of "discernment" and encourages a critical spirit instead of love.



Perg,
Unscheduled or surprise "check ups" for the purpose of "catching" someone would probably elicite your cited results. Our session schedules visits and asks some of the more difficult questions. It is ministerial and shepherding. Some of the guys may share a glass of Woodford Reserve with me!

Some background on me: up to age 10ish, I was raised R.C. at 16ish, I heard a poor form if the gospel and believed what I was taught. I didn't get into a church until 20 and that, a pop evangelical mix of attempted friendly and palatable "gospel". I made the jump from an EFree congregation (as a soteriological Calvinist) to a Reformed church about 5 years ago. The ecclesiology in the OPC could not be further from pop-E ecclesiology (if one could demonstrate pop-E even has an ecclesiology). My officers really care about my health. They are willing to make the hard call to intervene in my family's life if necessary. Not check for booze behind my Hodge books, but real care and shepherding. This is a good thing, but it is not an American-friendly thing. Someone mentioned earlier the "not unless invited" idea that has no place in the mind of a child of God under authority. If there is abuse, take it to the courts. If the said ecclesiology has no courts, the only two (and horrible) choices left are 1-put up and shut up or 2-leave. These are not good choices by anyone's definition and, at best, the lesser of two evils. Certainly, God has better in mind for His bride.......


----------



## OPC'n (Dec 29, 2017)

The church has a right into your personal business if you're habitually breaking God's laws. For example, they have the right to discipline me if I decide to live with a man I'm not married to. However, they don't have the right to tell me which town I can live in and if it has to be in an apartment or a house. They have the right to discipline me if I'm watching p0rn but they don't have the right to tell me that I can't go to the movie theater to watch a PG movie. They have the right to discipline me if I decide to partake in Mardi Gras for a vacation, but they don't have the right to tell me if and when and where I can go on vacation when it does't involve sinful entertainment. They have the right to discipline me if I decide to become a pole dancer but they don't have the right to tell me I can't be a nurse and have to be janitor. They also don't have the right to my finances and tell me how much to give to tithe, but they do have the right to teach about tithing and admonish me to tithe.....etc etc. Basically, it comes down to common sense. Are you practicing sin in what you're doing or not?

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Dec 29, 2017)

Pergamum said:


> I once heard of a man who, upon visiting a home unannounced, checked the fridge and cabinets for alcohol.


This sounds like an example of cult-like effort at control. It is an_ in loco parentis _treatment of adults, who presumably 1) have an adult mind, and 2) didn't invite this level of accountability. It may be that a person_ would like_ or appreciate such levels of scrutiny, but the parameters should be established along with proper justification.

Pastors and elders are first responsible for policing public (that is, of the church) sins. So, to reference Sarah's comment above, a member who shacks up with someone to whom he/she isn't married is committing a public scandal. The presence of a bottle of alcohol (in addition to the question of whether it's even sinful to drink) shut up in a fridge or cabinet is at least a private matter.

People who have been secularly convicted of crimes, and put on parole, are subject to invasive, surprise searches and the like; their release from confinement is not new freedom, just a different burden of constant monitoring. What sort of strange shepherding is it, if the elders act like they are parole officers who expect to send back to prison 80% of their caseload?

Neither the parent model nor the warden model is suitable for shepherding. It is possible sessions might feel compelled to slip into those roles "in cases extraordinary," but they are not the best parents or prison/parole-minders. An habitual drunk, who doesn't want "helpful" intervention from the elders (even if he'll take it occasionally from his AA sponsor) is probably ripe--not for escalation of control, but--for relinquishment of the services the church is equipped to offer. Prv.26:11; Jer.48:26.

That is, there's a limit to what shepherds should do to maintain a member in his "good standing." Let him go, and later (if possible) pursue him; perhaps the Lord will let you bring him back (as he would go out to secure his lost sheep). Christ knows his own sheep, and he will go to amazing lengths to retrieve them; but he doesn't collect every wandering sheep--because they aren't of his flock, Jn.10:26.

Likewise, there is a balance to be struck between caring for the spiritual needs of the sheep, watching over them not carelessly, increasing the discipline where appropriate; and acknowledging personal/familial freedom, individual responsibility before the all-seeing God, and letting people go their willful self-destructive way. It is acknowledging our own limits as men, albeit ones who must give account, Heb.13:17.

Reactions: Like 1 | Edifying 1 | Amen 1


----------



## Dachaser (Dec 30, 2017)

OPC'n said:


> The church has a right into your personal business if you're habitually breaking God's laws. For example, they have the right to discipline me if I decide to live with a man I'm not married to. However, they don't have the right to tell me which town I can live in and if it has to be in an apartment or a house. They have the right to discipline me if I'm watching p0rn but they don't have the right to tell me that I can't go to the movie theater to watch a PG movie. They have the right to discipline me if I decide to partake in Mardi Gras for a vacation, but they don't have the right to tell me if and when and where I can go on vacation when it does't involve sinful entertainment. They have the right to discipline me if I decide to become a pole dancer but they don't have the right to tell me I can't be a nurse and have to be janitor. They also don't have the right to my finances and tell me how much to give to tithe, but they do have the right to teach about tithing and admonish me to tithe.....etc etc. Basically, it comes down to common sense. Are you practicing sin in what you're doing or not?


Where this can get really overboard is when a Christians freedom in areas of preferences and convictions is being threatened, as in the so called Shepherding Movement , that had Pastors/Elders deciding for their members who could marry, what jobs to now have etc.


----------



## Gforce9 (Dec 30, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> Where this can get really overboard is when a Christians freedom in areas of preferences and convictions is being threatened, as in the so called Shepherding Movement , that had Pastors/Elders deciding for their members who could marry, what jobs to now have etc.



I'm not familiar with this particular departure, but some goofballs departure does not negate the authority (God-given, mind you) of the offices. EVERY Christian should be willing to submit to the authority over them. If the authority is heavy handed, appeal it. If you have no means of appeal, then you will have to leave. Anyone not willing to submit to God's authority via the church officers, is a Christian who needs discipline. I think one could have had truly unrighteous things done to them and be gun shy.....that is one thing. To have an attitude of non submission is rebellion..

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## OPC'n (Dec 30, 2017)

Gforce9 said:


> I'm not familiar with this particular departure, but some goofballs departure does not negate the authority (God-given, mind you) of the offices. EVERY Christian should be willing to submit to the authority over them. If the authority is heavy handed, appeal it. If you have no means of appeal, then you will have to leave. Anyone not willing to submit to God's authority via the church officers, is a Christian who needs discipline. I think one could have had truly unrighteous things done to them and be gun shy.....that is one thing. To have an attitude of non submission is rebellion..


I agree with you until a person in authority steps outside of Biblical authority. Once they do that I have no need to appeal for they are the one in the wrong. They are the one who needs to take it up with the session.


----------



## Gforce9 (Dec 30, 2017)

OPC'n said:


> I agree with you until a person in authority steps outside of Biblical authority. Once they do that I have no need to appeal for they are the one in the wrong. They are the one who needs to take it up with the session.



If procedures are working well, the person in authority in question (presumably an elder) has already discussed this with the session and they agree. Our OPC, Presbyterian polity would warrant that you would have to initiate the appeal process. If the rouge officer is indeed way out of line, I would not anticipate or expect him to take the initiative (nor could he? Dr. Strange?) to appeal your case. 

I'm not nor have I said there aren't officers who are unfit for office or there are not abuses. There is a stated process in Presbyterian polity. I think this might be more an issue in one of our sister denominations where even confessional subscription seems up for grabs.... I may have a different view if I was on the receiving end of injustice.......


----------



## Dachaser (Dec 30, 2017)

Gforce9 said:


> I'm not familiar with this particular departure, but some goofballs departure does not negate the authority (God-given, mind you) of the offices. EVERY Christian should be willing to submit to the authority over them. If the authority is heavy handed, appeal it. If you have no means of appeal, then you will have to leave. Anyone not willing to submit to God's authority via the church officers, is a Christian who needs discipline. I think one could have had truly unrighteous things done to them and be gun shy.....that is one thing. To have an attitude of non submission is rebellion..


Agree with you on this issue , but still think that as long as functioning in a scripture allowed fashion, ones family and work decisions should be left between us and the Lord Himself.


----------



## Dachaser (Dec 30, 2017)

Gforce9 said:


> If procedures are working well, the person in authority in question (presumably an elder) has already discussed this with the session and they agree. Our OPC, Presbyterian polity would warrant that you would have to initiate the appeal process. If the rouge officer is indeed way out of line, I would not anticipate or expect him to take the initiative (nor could he? Dr. Strange?) to appeal your case.
> 
> I'm not nor have I said there aren't officers who are unfit for office or there are not abuses. There is a stated process in Presbyterian polity. I think this might be more an issue in one of our sister denominations where even confessional subscription seems up for grabs.... I may have a different view if I was on the receiving end of injustice.......


I am just wondering if how Presbyterians and Baptists handle this issue differs at all, as my church does hive discipline and oversight over its members in regards to sin issues and theological issues, but that follows from the Matthew passage regarding church discipline towards a sinning and not repenting Christian.


----------



## Gforce9 (Dec 30, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> I am just wondering if how Presbyterians and Baptists handle this issue differs at all, as my church does hive discipline and oversight over its members in regards to sin issues and theological issues, but that follows from the Matthew passage regarding church discipline towards a sinning and not repenting Christian.


Yes.....very differently, past the local session. The Evangelical polity has no authority outside the 4 church walls. Once you've gone to the local elders, your done. Now you have to choose to keep your mouth shut or leave. Presbyterianism has the local session, the Presbytery and the GA for appeals.


----------



## Dachaser (Dec 30, 2017)

Gforce9 said:


> Yes.....very differently, past the local session. The Evangelical polity has no authority outside the 4 church walls. Once you've gone to the local elders, your done. Now you have to choose to keep your mouth shut or leave. Presbyterianism has the local session, the Presbytery and the GA for appeals.


Yes, for in the Baptist churches, local church handles locval issues, unless it involves pastors/Elders, than goes to the group over the local churches, in our case the Great lakes group.


----------



## ZackF (Dec 30, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> Where this can get really overboard is when a Christians freedom in areas of preferences and convictions is being threatened, as in the so called Shepherding Movement , that had Pastors/Elders deciding for their members who could marry, what jobs to now have etc.



Sounds cultish.


----------



## Herald (Dec 30, 2017)

There are a lot of good comments in this thread. One thing I have taken out of it is the need for good fellowship and accountability in the local church. The question in the OP may tend to be superfluous if more local churches acted this way.


----------



## Dachaser (Dec 30, 2017)

ZackF said:


> Sounds cultish.


Yes, as it was part of the Charismatic Movement, and some looked upon that Movement as having modern day Prophets, so that was why able to order people around.


----------



## ZackF (Dec 30, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> Yes, as it was part of the Charismatic Movement, and some looked upon that Movement as having modern day Prophets, so that was why able to order people around.



What I've tried to understand are the people that derive pleasure in such things like those that thrived as _Stasi. _Seriously, showing up to your 'brother' or 'sister' pushing your way in and checking cabinets.


----------



## Pergamum (Dec 30, 2017)

Among Reformed Baptists one of their firebrands was recently arrested for child abuse. It was revealed that for years he had been "disciplining" children alone in his office and spanking them. He has admitted to such.

...And then there are further allegations that the courts will have to decide upon...

I cannot imagine an environment where such things would be considered normal, parents handing over their young kids for private 1-on-1 "discipline" with a male pastor alone in his office, especially when he often took upon himself the prerogatives of a parent in spanking other people's children.

When there is a church environment where it is normal for the pastor to ask to "tutor" a 9 or 10 year old alone for hours each week in his church office, a practice which includes physical spankings, something is off with their view of authority and church discipline. 

I have concluded that this is not an occasional occurrence, but that many Reformed Baptist churches hold a view of church discipline that allows such things to happen. In other words, there is a theological error at play....an overemphasis on the high authority of the pastor and on the submission of the congregation to him.

I went to another RB church of the same mindset and the pastor suddenly put my son on the spot and began to quiz him on the catechism. The pastor then smiled and told me he was "checking up" on me to make sure I was teaching my son. My wife was livid. You don't pull other kids aside or begin to quiz them like that....normal people know this...unless you've been taught all your life that such things are not normal in a church where the pastor is regarded as an authority above the mother and father or where church discipline is practiced in such a manner that it intrudes upon private and family affairs.


----------



## jwright82 (Dec 30, 2017)

I would say that great wisdom needs to be taken into consideration. I personally like horror movies and gangster movies. But I don't tell many people at church because it might offend. But if they came to me about it I would respectively say it's not there business.


----------



## Pergamum (Dec 31, 2017)

The Westminister Larger Catechism
Q145: What are the sins forbidden in the ninth commandment?

The sins forbidden in the ninth commandment are, all prejudicing the truth, and the good name of our neighbours, as well as our own, especially in public judicature; giving false evidence; suborning false witnesses, wittingly appearing and pleading for an evil cause, out-facing and over-bearing the truth; passing unjust sentence, calling evil good, and good evil; rewarding the wicked according to the work of the righteous, and the righteous according to the work of the wicked; forgery, *concealing the truth*, *undue silence in a just cause*, and *holding our peace when iniquity calleth for either a reproof from ourselves, or complaint to others...hiding, excusing, or extenuating of sins...*


----------



## Pergamum (Dec 31, 2017)

KMK:

I have edited my post. But because you quoted my post the original post can still be seen. Please delete my quote.

Yes, pastors are sometimes falsely accused. But where there is smoke there is often fire. And if a man is indicted and has 5 witnesses against him, and has admitted to at least a portion of the indictment, we ought not to blindly urge silence but instead press for justice to be done.


----------



## KMK (Dec 31, 2017)

I agree that justice should be pursued, especially when the vulnerable are involved. 

Learn to do well; seek judgment, relieve the oppressed, judge the fatherless, plead for the widow. Isaiah 1:17


----------



## jwright82 (Dec 31, 2017)

Didn't part of R.C. Sproul jr's defrocking have to do with over extending the church's "authority" into the private lives of his church members?


----------



## Dachaser (Jan 2, 2018)

Pergamum said:


> Among Reformed Baptists one of their firebrands was recently arrested for child abuse. It was revealed that for years he had been "disciplining" children alone in his office and spanking them. He has admitted to such.
> 
> ...And then there are further allegations that the courts will have to decide upon...
> 
> ...


There must be a balance in spiritual authority, as there have been many so called love cults that have pastor have his own sex slaves and wives due to Him being a prophet or messiah, like David Koresh held himself as being.
And Christianity has seen several pastors and otehrs in authority also doing alleged acts like that, remember Bishop Paulk and even some famous pastors gone into homosexual affairs, so there is a definite need to have the local spiritual authorities to been supervised, and to have accountability all around within the local church.

In my mind, there should never be a time when a pastor would be alone with an underage child in their office without parents around to oversee it is all above board.


----------



## Dachaser (Jan 2, 2018)

KMK said:


> I agree that justice should be pursued, especially when the vulnerable are involved.
> 
> Learn to do well; seek judgment, relieve the oppressed, judge the fatherless, plead for the widow. Isaiah 1:17


Especially if it involves child predator.


----------



## Dachaser (Jan 2, 2018)

jwright82 said:


> Didn't part of R.C. Sproul jr's defrocking have to do with over extending the church's "authority" into the private lives of his church members?


Any known examples?


----------



## RamistThomist (Jan 2, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> Any known examples?



make of it what you will. My own hunch is that it was a long line of issues that finally culminated. See page 3
http://hushmoney.org/RPCGA-judgment.pdf


----------



## Dachaser (Jan 2, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> make of it what you will. My own hunch is that it was a long line of issues that finally culminated. See page 3
> http://hushmoney.org/RPCGA-judgment.pdf


Looked like a very long list indeed.


----------



## Moses Costigan (Jan 3, 2018)

Jeri Tanner said:


> What about the issue of family worship? I've wondered what the standard for inquiry into this would be in the various reformed churches. In churches we have been in, it was left a private matter to the families.


In my experience here in Australia, in reformed Anglican circles, it (family worship) is encouraged but generally not emphasised significantly. 
I would speculate that in more confessional reformed bodies (the Presbyterian Church of Australia and the Presbyterian Church of Eastern Australia) it would given greater attention. 

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk


----------



## jwright82 (Jan 3, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> Any known examples?


I don't know? That's why I was asking.


----------



## ZackF (Jan 4, 2018)

I think Dr. Strange hit it. The biggies, to great scandal, may go sinfully unaddressed by leadership. However, it's the everyday churchy sins like gossip, backbiting and pettiness that can also bring down a church if not confronted by leadership and rooted out.


----------

