A Shame?

• Messages sorted by:[ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

On Sat, 12 Sep 1998 21:53:33 -0500 lyohnk@juno.com (Lynne A. Yohnk)
writes:

>We have not rejected technology, but some forms of it. 

But on what grounds SPECIFICALLY?  Why one form but not another?  Why
video games and not computers (where you can play better games than those
at the arcade these days)?

Shouldn't there be a rational explanation on why such a stand is being
made?

>First she said, " You cannot do homework with a TV on.  You can have a 
>radio on low, preferably with no words, but you simply cannot do your 
>homework with a TV on."  She was emphatic about it. 
>She did not go into detail, but I thought "Okay, why?"  Well, TV takes 
>up more of our senses than radio.  It gets our attention better.  

And?  That is merely a BENEFIT of the medium.  Of course, using your
analogy, I would agree that people shouldn't watch TV while praying or
reading their Bible.

>Also, scripturally the lust of the eyes is a big thing to watch out 
>for.

But do we ABSTAIN from everything that has the potential of feeding the
lust of the eyes?  Do we abstain from going to a mall, or out in public
where people can be scantilly dressed or cussing, etc.?  

>>I agree.  The ironic part is, that had these experiences (plural) not 
>>happened, I would still be an ignorant follower of a Pastor.
>
>Yes, so God used those experiences to make you a better person.

Yes, although I don't believe God caused any of them.  

I believe that in His mercy, He made the best of a bad situation.

>The difference between pastors and saints is authority.  

Specifically, what BIBLICAL (that means that I would like Chapter and
Verse showing each claim) authority is given a Pastor?

The call a Pastor is given is to preach the Word and to edify the saints,
right?  Do you know of even ONE Pastor who was called to preach his own
personal convictions?

Actually, as Brother Frank mentioned, a Pastor is not specifically
mentioned in the Bible; there are Elders, Bishops and Deacons.  I would
equate a Pastor with a Bishop.

>It's like husbands and wives.  

I disagree.  The Bible CLEARLY says "The head of the woman is man; the
head of man is Christ".  The head of man is NOT the Pastor.  The Pastor
is an example and a guide, a minister to the saints. 

>Husbands are not better than wives or smarter.  Husbands can learn 
>alot from their wives if they will listen.  But the responsibility for
the 
>family is on the husbands shoulders.  Likewise, the responsibility 
>for saints is on the pastors shoulders.

I disagree.  Again, the Bible doesn't say that the head of the man is the
Pastor; it specifically says the head of man is Christ.  Also, the Bible
says that there is ONE mediator between man and God, and that is the man
Christ Jesus, not the Pastor.  I believe Pastors are called to be guides,
ministers and examples (1 Timothy 4:12, 1 Peter 5:3, Phillipians 3:19)
and we are to follow them AS THEY FOLLOW CHRIST.  That is, when they are
in the Word, they are to be followed as unto Christ.  OUTSIDE of the
Word, though, I do not believe that a Pastor's words carry the same
authority as scripture, nor should they be falsely portrayed as such.  

Why?  It is dangerous.  The Word IS God.  The Word doesn't change for
customs or eras or cultures, yet local standards change at nearly every
wind or whim.  It is not stable enough to build a spiritually responsible
congregation on and can be damaging to the growth of a congregation.

For instance, in the mid 1980's, I was literally sit down from playing
bass guitar for the Church Choir because I wrote a song that was not
Southern Gospel.  The song was then and would still be considered HIGHLY
tame (It's quite a slow and almost somber song entitled "He Cares") and I
don't know of a Church where it could not be sung today.  

But the Church that made a standard so locally powerful that it removed
me from the platform (and don't think it wasn't embarrassing) now allows
Contemporary Christian music that is far faster and with a harder beat
than my song.  It wasn't the lyrics, either.  I was told the lyrics were
fine, but the music was what was wrong.
The standard changed but the damage was already done.

Bottom line: By promoting localized standards to the point where they
influence either position in the Church or the congregation's attitude
toward someone (if they were prayed up, they wouldn't do so-and-so), it
is wrong.  
Such a stand will necessarily ALSO promote prejudicial treatment of
members who act outside of this standard, would easily be considered
members in good standing, branding them as "rebellious", "uncaring for
the man of God", "nearly backslidden", etc., thus harming their walk with
God.

But I again say that we shouldn't be shy about proclaiming Biblical
Doctrine, which does NOT change.

>The beautiful thing about submission is that when we see other choices 
>we *choose* to submit.  

Then why can't the Pastor ALSO submit to ALL of the congregation's
personal convictions?

Please explain that to me.

Do his personal convictions outweigh every other congregational member's?

>We recognize the God given authority and when 
>we disagree we trust God ( not man) to work it out.  

Kind of convenient for those in charge, is it not, to place such a
standard at a level that must be obeyed along with the Bible.  There is
no inconvenience to them at all, but there is to the ENTIRE congregation.

Consider the opposite; if a saint (choose one at random) decided that his
or her standards should be placed as the Church's default standards. 
Doesn't make sense, does it?

The problem I have is that a personal conviction is just THAT: a personal
conviction and it is personal because it is measured against that
individual saint's strengths and weaknesses.  It would be USELESS to
another saint, so why do we think that a Pastor's personal convictions
would apply to EVERYONE?

His strengths and weaknesses do not match every congregational member and
placing such a determination into effect that basically regulates a test
of fellowship is unscriptural and dangerous.

It is a new type of LAW, but instead of being God made for the people, it
is God made for a person, and then the man making it for the people.  I
can almost understand it, really.  The Pastor is used to listening to God
and then repeating it to the congregation as "Thus saith the Lord", but
the Pastor needs to make sure he knows what God is telling him to tell
the congregation and what God is just telling him!

Paul says in Acts Chapter 15:

vs 28 : "For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay on you
NO GREATER BURDENS THAN THESE NECESSARY THINGS

He recognized that anything that they (leadership) add is a burden to the
saints.

vs 29: That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and
from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep
yourselves, ye shall do well, Fare ye well."

This type of teaching is CLEARLY being ignored by the vast majority of
leadership in the Church OR the organization these days.  

>Really, saints who follow blindly are hard on a man of God because he 
>feels an extra weight.  It's easier when people are personally 
>responsible.

But that weight is a result when a man of God ASSUMES the authority to
place the additional weight there to begin with.  You simply CANNOT get
in trouble if you preach Jesus Christ and Him crucified.  It's when you
ADD and preach against beards, styles of music, entire realms of
technology, etc. that get you in trouble and damage people's lives.  The
preaching of the Word doesn't do that, but the preaching of standards can
and DOES.

And there is NEVER an apology for the people who have been damaged by the
standard before it changed.

And it is too late for some of them, who backslid because they wore a
beard or listened to Sandi Patti...they've either left the Pentecostal
ranks and went to another type of Church or they have abandoned God
altogether.

>>Some are, I'm sure, but to blanketly assume that your congregation is 
>>ignorant and/or uncaring is a false assumption.
>
>I don't think many pastors would assume this.

Then why are they not allowed to follow the Doctrines of the Bible and
their own personal convictions?  Why MUST the Pastor's personal
convictions be ADDED?  And I have heard many a Pastor preach against
something and later when asked privately say that it is not mandatory,
but the congregation doesn't look at it that way.  The Pastor said it
behind the pulpit; it must be Doctrine.  Also, as you probably know, the
congregation uses the proclaimed standard as a "yardstick" of sorts to
determine the spirituality of various members, and that is wrong.

>>But WHY?  If you'll remember, (I don't, but I have read about it) 
>soap operas started on RADIO, not television; television started out as 
>>local talent shows and the sort; no real programming at all...
>
>Television is a more powerful medium.

So it would have been a more powerful medium to use for God!  We're
looking at it backwards!  Would we stay with the horse and buggy because
it is LESS powerful than a car?  Or, if the goal is travel, shouldn't we
USE the most powerful medium?  

I would be so bold as to say that the Christian mission is merely one of
using mediums to proclaim the gospel.  Why should we attempt to use
anything less than the most powerful medium to get our message across?

And television was an entertainment medium when it first appeared. 
Mostly local talent shows and news.  Nothing that would be questionable,
but the fact that when a choice to be involved or to abstain came, the
leadership chose to abstain.  Why?

>>Then contradict my theory with something solid.  The premise of my 
>>theory is this: 
>>
>>That ANY arena that the people of God purposely withdraw from totally 
>>will by definition be controlled by unGodly people.
>
>Things like this are very hard to measure.  

Don't you agree that if the people of God abandon a given area that only
UNGODLY people rule?  And regardless what that arena is, it would hardly
be glorifying to God?

>We can only compare to what we have.  

Do you see my point?  I can only thank God that computers aren't frowned
on (although I know of some people who teach against them because they
are "the beast" or they have crystals in them, so they must be related to
the New Age movement)

>For example:  Many apostolic children go to public 
>schools.  Are the schools less wicked because of it?  How do we 
>measure this?  I see them having dances, drugs, gangs etc.  They may 
>not be any less wicked at all.  

Then we'll have to compare that after vouchers get passed and wait to see
what schools are like when the apostolic children leave...because the
world is going to have some troubles after the Holy Ghost is removed from
it and it looks pretty bad right now!  It would be hard to imagine how
much WORSE it will be when His Presence is removed.

>>Then why isn't there a confirmation of sorts to an individual when 
>>they are basically commanded to obey a new standard?  Are saints 
>>expected to obey such a standard merely because it has been spoken 
>>behind a pulpit or should they seek God and see if it applies to 
>>them?
>
>I think a saint should obey and seek God. A saint should obey the 
>pastor.  

Where is the line that a saint should NOT obey a Pastor outside of God
literally speaking from Heaven?  

Did you read my example where I was fired from my job (for refusing to do
something wrong), and God opened a door to buy a business in another
town?  I was told by my Pastor that I should find as many burger flipping
jobs as I can in order to stay there.  The ONLY two people I know that
were given an official "Godspeed" send off were the Pastor's son and
daughter.  

Should I have obeyed?

>If the standard is so grossly off a person should pray to the 
>Holy Ghost for release from that church and only leave if they get 
>one.

I couldn't even get that from the Pastor!  

>I believe the younger prophet full well knew he shouldn't listen to 
>the old prophet.  Do you really think God would have slain him with a 
>lion if he was innocently following and had no knowledge?  I don't.
>
>Lynne Yohnk

The same goes with saints today, wouldn't you think?  

Jerry Welch
ICQ: 18489712
www.geocities.com/Athens/Aegean/2810/

_____________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]