The sins of "Concealing" and "Isolation"

Status
Not open for further replies.
It seems that they want to look out for his spiritual good.

No, and this highlights the distinction:

Our elders would inquire

If they were interested in his spiritual well being, they would have a couple of elders meet with him to find out what was going on, and what were his concerns. They would, as Mr. Zartman suggests, have inquired.

The fact that they jump to dragging him before a disciplinary hearing with charges of having violated man-made rules suggests that the issue is one of control, and does bring to mind how cults operate.

I can't see where this is likely to have a good outcome. It probably isn't worth the expense of showing up with a lawyer and a court reporter. If I was the friend, I'd probably contact the church visited and ask if they were willing to take me into membership despite the pending disciplinary proceedings for having committed the sin of having visited their church for worship.

I wouldn't be surprised, however, if his present rulers ordered friends and family remaining in their church to shun him going forward.

In short, the leaders of his present church have probably taken a situation which they should have properly addressed, and escalated it to a point where there is no good outcome.
 
I think that Edward's analysis of this situation is very much to the point. If these elders were truly interested in this person's spiritual well-being they would not have escalated the situation so quickly. Spiritual authoritarians are not interested in being helpers of our joy, but in lording it over the flock of God. I hope that I am wrong, but I honestly do not see this situation ending well.
 
p.s. the Stillwater Revival folks seem a bit on the fringe.

There used to be a rule on PB that you couldn't reference SWRB. For good reason, as they are/used to be schismatics. Of course, that made it somewhat ironic for some people on the board back in the day.
 
"...our constitution requires attendance at all meetings."

Is this the norm? Wednesday nights, too?
They do not require attendance at non-Lord's Day meetings, though members are strongly encouraged and exhorted to attend Wednesday prayer, and no one to my knowledge has been disciplined for missing Sunday evenings. We have a lot of people who come from very far away, and people with medical issues, so much grace and understanding are given.
If a member misses services several times in a row, the elders will call them to see what's up, but always with concern for their well-being.
 
It just seems strange that they'd flex in that manner after 2 Sunday night visits to another church.
Indeed. And that may be because you don't have the full picture. And without getting their side of the matter, that really isn't possible. If things are as you have described them here, they may be guilty of being heavy-handed in this matter. It certainly isn't out of the realm of possibility. But it also may be the case that the two evenings away were a part of a growing number of things that have caused them concern. You said yourself that he is considering leaving the church. If they sense his disaffection, they would be wrong not to speak with him in an effort to understand his situation.

Experience has taught me not to be hasty to pass judgment or meddle in such matters. They are almost always more complicated and nuanced than they appear. We must remember "The first one to plead his cause seems right, Until his neighbor comes and examines him" (Prov. 18:17). And "He that answers a matter before he hears it, it is folly and shame unto him" (Prov. 18:13). That seems like the best counsel in matters where only one side can be given a fair hearing.
 
Last edited:
If they sense his disaffection, they would be wrong not to speak with him in an effort to understand his situation.

If one really wanted to understand his situation, he would start by asking questions, not by dragging him in front of the elder board on charges of confected sins.

While Matthew 18 is not infrequently misapplied, in this case following the graduated steps set out there would seem to be appropriate.

While the person in question does appear to be guilty of the shocking crime of attending an evening worship service, the rulers of his current church don't seem to be taking the high ground here.
 
If one really wanted to understand his situation, he would start by asking questions, not by dragging him in front of the elder board on charges of confected sins.
You assume that's not their intention. You seem to be sensationalizing the situation. The elders of the church want to speak with him. Pergamum said nothing of him being formally charged with anything. I would recommend a more measured approach and caution against drawing too many conclusions on nothing more than the information that is available to us here.
 
You assume that's not their intention. You seem to be sensationalizing the situation. The elders of the church want to speak with him. Pergamum said nothing of him being formally charged with anything. I would recommend a more measured approach and caution against drawing too many conclusions on nothing more than the information that is available to us here.
One elder has already said that my friend could be causing the Body of Christ to "stumble" by his absence and by not telling them, and that this might indicate the sins of concealing and isolation. This seems to set the stage so that any meeting is now like a trial to either prove or disprove those characterizations. My friend is upset by it and feels accused. If it was merely some "neutral" questions, I don't think he would have been upset. He is frustrated with "the assumption that sin is present."
 
You assume that's not their intention. You seem to be sensationalizing the situation.

I believe I'm giving a fair reading to the following, given the setup the church leaders have chosen - instead of a delegation meeting with him on his home turf or on neutral territory, they've summonsed him to meet with the body on their turf.

now want a meeting and mentioned that, since he did not tell them beforehand about visiting these other churches that this might be the "sins of concealing and isolation."

They also brought up that he might become a "stumbling block" to others by those who witness and notice his absences.

I realize that I'm coming at this from a Presbyterian perspective where we have (sometimes excessive) due process and multiple levels of church court, rather than a Baptist church where the deacons can wield much more power.
 
Last edited:
One elder has already said that my friend could be causing the Body of Christ to "stumble" by his absence and by not telling them, and that this might indicate the sins of concealing and isolation. This seems to set the stage so that any meeting is now like a trial to either prove or disprove those characterizations. My friend is upset by it and feels accused. If it was merely some "neutral" questions, I don't think he would have been upset. He is frustrated with "the assumption that sin is present."
You've said multiple times what things seem like to you. And you may be right. But that's the problem. Given our distance from the situation, there is very little chance of any of us knowing what facts of the situation are sufficiently well to competently pass judgment on the matter. Nor would the situation be at all helped by any of our pronouncements here, be they never so just and right. I believe it would be more profitable for us to discuss the policy per se, than to attempt delving into the case of your friend.
 
The church meeting happened. Both sides talked. My friend will still visit other churches. Before he leaves, if he leaves, he agrees to talk to the elders about it. The elders expressed love towards the couple. No mention of any sins of isolating or concealing at the meeting, however. They avoided those issues. The elders said they were "shocked" that they would visit another church. That seems a bit over-wrought really and doesn't deserve shock, but okay.
 
The church meeting happened. Both sides talked. My friend will still visit other churches. Before he leaves, if he leaves, he agrees to talk to the elders about it. The elders expressed love towards the couple. No mention of any sins of isolating or concealing at the meeting, however. They avoided those issues. The elders said they were "shocked" that they would visit another church. That seems a bit over-wrought really and doesn't deserve shock, but okay.

Glad to hear your friend met with the elders. Did your friend explain to them the reason(s) why he started attending another church? (What does he feel is "lacking" or "missing" in his church by the way?)

With regards to the elders expressing "shock" that he would attend the worship services of another church, what was it that evoked this response? Was it due to their surprise at learning about your friend's discontentment? Could it have been they were genuinely surprised and perhaps feeling the hurtful sting of having a family they love and care for feel this way?

With regards to your opinion that the elder's reaction ("shock") was extreme/excessive, can you share more about why you feel this way? You're closer to the situation than the rest of us obviously. What do you believe an appropriate response should have been?
 
Last edited:
Glad to hear your friend met with the elders. Did your friend explain to them the reason(s) why he started attending another church? (What does he feel is "lacking" or "missing" in his church by the way?)

With regards to the elders expressing "shock" that he would attend the worship services of another church, what was it that evoked this response? Was it due to their surprise at learning about your friend's discontentment? Could it have been they were genuinely surprised and perhaps feeling the hurtful sting of having a family they love and care for feel this way?

With regards to your opinion that the elders reaction ("shock") was extreme/excessive, can you share more about why you feel this way? You're closer to the situation than the rest of us obviously. What do you believe an appropriate response should have been?
Yes. The pastor is a nouthetic counselor and I've listened to a sermon on Sermonaudio where he just dogs on feelings and emotions. We must think and believe, not feel or emote. But this struck my friend wrong because he's been reading Jonathan Edwards on the affections and came across Edwards' famous "Honey Analogy" (it is not enough to know that honey is sweet...you must taste it and "know" it experientially) and so my friend has seen this nouthetic imbalance in treating the affections as negative. And I think he wants out.
 
I've listened to a sermon on Sermonaudio where he just dogs on feelings and emotions. We must think and believe, not feel or emote.
We live in a very feelings-driven culture. The need to address the problems with approaching life governed entirely by one's feelings is needed. Though this may be done in a more or less helpful way. Perhaps you could share the sermon with us so we could gain a better sense of what you are talking about.
 
We live in a very feelings-driven culture. The need to address the problems with approaching life governed entirely by one's feelings is needed. Though this may be done in a more or less helpful way. Perhaps you could share the sermon with us so we could gain a better sense of what you are talking about.

I don't want to reveal who the pastor or church is. But, yes, there is balance. When we read the psalms, there's lots of feelings there. God sticks a lot of poetry in the bible, too. From the sermon I believe the message is one-sided.
 
The church meeting happened. Both sides talked. My friend will still visit other churches. Before he leaves, if he leaves, he agrees to talk to the elders about it. The elders expressed love towards the couple. No mention of any sins of isolating or concealing at the meeting, however. They avoided those issues. The elders said they were "shocked" that they would visit another church. That seems a bit over-wrought really and doesn't deserve shock, but okay.

I am relieved to see that this meeting worked out better than I thought it would.
 
Ugh, I was relieved, too, until my friend told me more of how the meeting went. I think he was initially relieved they didn't push the issue further, BUT...

"He asked me where and why I was visiting. And I told him plainly. Then we spent ten minutes or so in the meeting telling me how I did it was wreckless and unwise. That I should have approached it with more of talk like a discussion, instead of deciding to check out other churches...And it’s unloving to my pastors and a punch in the gut spiritually that I would do that like that. And compared it relationally to marriage."

Reckless and unwise for visiting another church? When asked my advice, I told him this sounds very strange. Normal folks don't talk like this. Taking drugs or playing Russian Roulette is reckless and unwise, not visiting another church twice during evening services.

Then the pastor said that if he wanted to visit another church he should tell them and they could call a meeting of the missions committee to discuss this.
 
Then we spent ten minutes or so in the meeting telling me how I did it was wreckless and unwise. That I should have approached it with more of talk like a discussion, instead of deciding to check out other churches...And it’s unloving to my pastors and a punch in the gut spiritually that I would do that like that. And compared it relationally to marriage."

Man, what would the leaders do if they ever had a real problem?
 
My friend has decided to find another church and leave this one. This whole episode has rubbed him the wrong way.
 
My friend has decided to find another church and leave this one. This whole episode has rubbed him the wrong way.

Paul gives us the right way to exercise elder oversight.

2 Corinthians 1:24
Not for that we have dominion over your faith,
but are helpers of your joy: for by faith ye stand.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top