A Shame?

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

On Tue, 15 Sep 1998 09:08:31 -0500 lyohnk@juno.com (Lynne A. Yohnk)
writes:

>>I would also ask you that if you believe that the Bible is telling us 
>>to BLINDLY OBEY IN EVERY SITUATION.  I would think that you do not 
>>believe that, so you give room for DISOBEYING the Pastor.  Our 
>>differences are merely in where that line is.  
>
>Yes, you are correct in this assessment.

MY LINE is that as long as the Pastor exercises SCRIPTURAL Authority, he
has the leadership of the local congregation, but as soon as he starts
making things up OUTSIDE of the Bible, then it is not a salvational
expectation from God and most assuredly should NOT be taught as such,
since that would be a lie.  

>>If it is TOTALLY their responsibility, then do they go to Hell if a 
>>saint falls?  Of course not.
>
>It is totally their responsibility to lead.  It is totally the 
>responsibility of the saints to follow.

Again, not blindly it is not.  I don't know if a good Pastor would want a
bunch of blind and dumb sheep.

>>You are comparing THIS to preaching personal convictions as 
>DOCTRINE?
>
>You yourself said they will have "blood on their hands".  Where are 
>you getting this idea? Heb 13:17 says." They will watch for your 
>souls".  It does not specifically say "watchmen", but they are men 
>that watch.  It says "As they that must give account". Like the verse 
>I quoted above that says God will require the blood at the watchman's 
>hand if he fails to warn the wicked. I do feel it is a fair comparison.

The scripture you quoted was if the Watchman did not preach God's Word
that he would be in trouble, not that if he didn't teach his own personal
preferences that there would be blood required.

There is a difference if the Pastor refuses to preach what the Bible
says, vs if he refuses to preach that the color of your socks is going to
send you to Hell.

>>So while you recognize the damage that the promoting of such Pastoral 
>>authority causes, it is not to be challenged or even questioned?
>
>I think the statements I have made indicate that I would challenge 
>something that I felt was necessary to challenge.

By taking your posts into context, I would assume that you are meaing a
DOCTRINAL issue that was promoted before the whole Church that would
affect the entire congregation, but what about the promotion of personal
convictions that only affect a few saints badly?  

How many saints is it okay to spiritually hurt or run out of Church
before the promotion of a personal conviction would be deemed wrong by
you?

Is one enough?

>A husband also has limited authority.  Do you realize how difficult it 
>is for a wife to submit to her husband when he is wrong?  She can't 
>just leave him like you can leave a church. ( Off the subject, but 
>good material anyway.)

Agreed and I try my best to be open to my wife's suggestions.  But my
point is that a husband has more scriptural authority over his wife than
a Pastor does the Church.

I look at the Pastor as a kind of guide to help keep the Bride of Christ
pure until His return.  The Groom has given the Pastor specific
instructions on what to tell the Bride.  Those instructions are found in
the Bible.  That is why I have a problem with a Pastor forcing his own
personal beliefs on the Bride of Christ, and where would the Pastor stand
if he ran off the Bride because he was forcing his own PERSONAL beliefs
on the Bride instead of The Groom's?

How then can he answer to the Groom for running off ANY saint by
promoting his own personal beliefs as the Word of The Groom?  

>>Point blank: Do you believe that local Church standards are a SIN 
>>before God?
>
>Not always.  

This is a yes or no question; if the standard is not in the Bible (let's
take the color of socks since that was recently put to me), and the
Pastor states that the color of your socks will determine whether you go
to Heaven or Hell, is he right in putting that burden on the saints?  

I believe that at that point, he has clearly overstepped his scriptural
bounds and is attempting to make HIS word at the same level of God's and
to claim GOD'S authority is near-blasphemy in my view.  I also believe
that it would not be considered rebellious if a saint wore the color of
socks that is being condemned.

>But rebellion is.

Rebellion against GOD is, that's for sure.  Why does it seem like we are
attempting to place Pastors on such a pedestal?  Did I read Jesus wrong? 
Were ministers supposed to...minister?  They are supposed to teach,
edify, not establish familial dynasties that hinge on the observance of
personal beliefs over scriptural doctrine.  

When did their word become equal with God's Word?  Is it within the
scriptural authority of Pastors to add even ONE burden to the saints?

if so, then please show me where the Bible says this?

>> How many saints need to be 
>>abused to the point of backsliding or leaving to another Church 
>before leadership realizes that THEIR word is not GOD'S word? 
>
>I don't think anyone can be made to backslide.  

I believe that you can be made so unwelcome that you can't grow.  Saints
HAVE BEEN severely hurt in instances like these, you can't deny it, and
some to the point where they can't go to that Church anymore and it will
even effect the next Church they go to.  

Was it worth that saint going off to another Church that perhaps doesn't
preach the truth because the church they were going to DID preach the
truth, but added many things that were unscriptural?

>If people go to another church, maybe then someone will have to think
about why.

But most likely, the Pastor won't, because he will already have told
several of the Church members that Bro. So and So backslid.  (I lived in
a Pastor's home for eight months; sometimes it was shocking, to say the
least.)

>But for the message to be sent, and I cannot state this strong enough: 
> If you want to help a pastor to see any type of error, you must not 
>be any form of rebellious!  

Surely you would recognize that SOME Pastors consider any type of
questioning as rebellious...

>Even if the pastor is wrong, if you are wrong in your attempts to change

>the situation in any form, he will only see your wrong. 

Then he would be guilty of willful spiritual blindness and I don't
believe that such a man is in the Will of God.

The Bible speaks against preferential treatment, and I would assume that
Pastors are included within that scriptural frame.

And in this paragraph, I would assume that as long as the saint used the
Biblical mandate on going to a brother who has wronged you that they
would not be wrong or out of the Will of God.  

The Bible is FULL of examples where Prophets were saying things contrary
to the Word of God and God sided with people who stood against them.  

>This does not mean if you are completely right he will see his error 
>but there is a much better chance of it.  

So if we're wronged by the Pastor then we have to watch out so that we
don't hurt his feelings?

He can condemn anything he wishes with whatever volume from the pulpit
(God's pulpit, btw) without regard to any saint's feelings, and if his
personal standards run off saints, that's okay because "he can't make
anyone backslide" but then we are to assume that the Pastor is so
emotionally fragile that he cannot be questioned?

>You must be impeccable. 

Why doesn't the Pastor have to be?

>( Remember about the mote in the eye and the beam in 
>the eye.  The Lord said first take the beam out of your own eye and 
>then you will see clearly to help get the mote out of your brothers 
>eye.)

Let me give you a scenario and you tell me who has the beam.  The Pastor
says that the color of your socks will determine if you go to Heaven. 
You as a saint personally don't believe this and one Sunday you wear the
condemned color to Church.  As a result, you lose your position in the
Church.

Who has the mote and who has the beam?

>How do I know these things, Brother?  Well, I have a little 
>experience.  I didn't just get saved and everything was peachy from 
>there on out.
>
>>There was virtually NO risk when the technology first appeared.  
>
>This is only your opinion.

Then try to prove me wrong.  Tell me SPECIFICALLY what risk was involved
when television first came out.  I know for a fact that the programming
consisted only of talent shows, news reporting and such.  There was no
such thing as real programming at any serious level until well after
television was ten years old.

I also know that at that same time, RADIO had soap operas on them.

So, why not speak out against RADIO?

>Yes, I have an opinion.  But my opinion doesn't make one bit of 
>difference here.  What God's opinion is is what you need.  If I gave 
>you my opinion, I would have to deal with God who might not agree with 
>me.

What's the difference between your opinion on one subject and your
opinion on another?  

One deals with a Pastor and the other doesn't, so you therefore cannot
comment on it?

>>I do think, however, in his mercy, he will 
>>help  >open their eyes. 
>
>  As He opened mine.  Selah.
>
>And mine, Brother, and mine.
>
>Lynne Yohnk  

Then why all the Pastoral Pedestal talk then?

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]