(picture courtesy of www.cpt.org)Boundaries; Where are the Boundaries? It’s seams as if boundaries are all the talk of the media these days. Actually, one cannot speak of human life without speaking of boundaries. Even the Postmodern thinker must finally affirm that there are at least physical boundaries to human life and that those physical boundaries must necessarily effect how society views metaphysical boundaries. People like Jacques Derrida and Michel Foucault would speak of boundaries in terms of subjectively formed communities. They would suggest that what is important is that communities leave the boundaries open enough to allow new ideas to filter through and change the boundaries and the very nature of the community.
Nevertheless, we are not here to discuss how postmoderns view boundaries but how boundaries should be viewed in relation to the interrelational character of the Body of Christ. Brian McLaren takes a stab at boundaries for the Church in his latest book, The Secret Message of Jesus. Brian tries to define his idea of what the “Borders” of the church should be; “The kingdom of God, then, seeks a third way: not exclusiveness and rejection on the one hand, and not foolish, self-sabotaging inclusion of the other hand, but rather purposeful inclusion.” (pg. 167) This idea of “purposeful inclusion” is the central point of Brian’s ecclesiology. I will not break his whole argument down here but he certainly points out some relevant Biblical principles, while also overlooking some as well. Is Brian’s terminology of “purposeful inclusion” sufficient to faithfully explain the Biblical boundaries of the Body of Christ? Do we speak of two different things when we speak of inclusion in the Body of Christ and inclusion in the local church?
I would like to suggest that, at least when speaking of inclusion within the Body of Christ, the terminology of “conditional inclusion” is more faithful to Divine revelation than Brian’s “purposeful inclusion.” Purposeful inclusion sounds as if we are the ones controlling the inclusion rather than God. I think it is the Body’s obligation to image Christ in such a way that the boundaries and the gates are plainly portrayed to a watching world, a world desperately in need of discerning that they are on the wrong side of the Boundary and in need of seeing that there is but one Way through.
Where do you see the boundaries lying? Are we the gate keepers of a “purposeful inclusion” or are we ambassadors with a message of “conditional inclusion”?
37 comments:
Wow...I had to read that a couple of time to pick up the terminology. I have not done much reading in the area of the emerging, or as you call it, interrelational church. Having not read McLaren I can't definatively say I am in agreement with you. But if your treatment of McLaren's idea of "purposeful inclusion" is correct, and I am pretty sure it is knowing you, then I would agree that we are instead ambassadors with a message of "conditional inclusion".
I think as Christians our power to include reaches only as far as we have the ability to touch the heart, mind and soul of another being. While we can build deep, intimate relationships with people it is not possible for us to fundamentally change the condition of their heart. That work lay exclusively in the realm of the Holy Spirit. As such we include on the basis (i.e. condition) of the Holy Spirit changing that person's heart.
...Just my two cents :)
Good to hear from you Jason. I need to send you an update on where God is taking me... (still in Houston).
I am looking for an RSS feed for your blog so I can add it to my aggregator., However, I don't see one listed on the right side menu. Do you have to enable that feature with blogger? If so, I would appreciate you adding an RSS feed so my aggregator can check your blog for new posts and tell me about it.
I kind of like the idea of "Purposeful Inclusion", not having read McClaren's book. It helps me believe that God has a purpose for me in His Kingdom. As I walk with Him day by day, He develops that purpose in my life and then reveals it to me.
Conditional Inclusion makes me think that I might not be included, and in some way I'm not good enough for God's family.It is true however that walking with God does have certain conditions, such as salvation and sanctification, if that is what you are thinking.
Believing in "Once Saved, always Saved," I would never believe in "Conditional Inclusion." That makes me think that there is a possibility of being booted out of the Kingdom.
I'm not a Calvinist, so I believe that everyone does have a choice in this matter of being included into the body of Christ. It most certainly is within God's power to make the choice for me, but I believe He gives each of us the privilege of choosing whether we want to be included.
Well, now is certainly a time for more clarity. Here is another snippet from McLaren's book, "The kingdom's purpose is to gather, to include, to welcome everyone who is willing (children, prostitutes, tax collectors) into reconciliation with God and one another--but if the kingdom included people who rejected this purpose, the kingdom, "divided against itself," would be ruined. This purposeful inclusion is the better path, even though it isn't an easy one either to understand or to follow."
I know that this quote doesn't give you to much more to go one but it reveals a little more about McLaren temperament. He is saying that if one is seen as an "excluder" then they are against the Kingdom of God. Now, let”s say that one is deemed an excluder if one believes that homosexual activity is a sin. All of a sudden, the "purposeful inclusion" principle has purposefully left out those who might draw "to strict" a line of what is or is not sinful behavior.
Brian isn't talking about the "purposeful" life that God has for each one of us, he means more that people should purposefully go out of their way to include everyone into the church. To be fair, he does speak generally of individuals being reconciled to God, but what are his standards? What are his boundaries?
I had to break up the comment so it wouldn't look so long.
I am not referring here to works salvation. Nor am I suggesting that one can lose their salvation. I am suggesting that "conditional" means just that; there is one condition that must be met in order for one to be interrelated into the Body of Christ. The scriptures are so numerous and familiar it would be an insult to list them all, but a few will suffice. Matthew 7:12-14 speaks of the boundary that I speak of. It suggests that the way through the wall is a narrow one, and that there are many paths that lead to a dead end. Of course McLaren would agree with me on a surface level. But what would start happening when I would start pulling out scriptures that suggest that certain lifestyles are not reflective of Christ. I certainly am not suggesting that perfection will be reached this side of death, but isn't there something to be said about how we describe Jesus to others? If belief in Jesus is seen as the only door into the interrelated Body of Believers then does it matter how we describe Jesus? Can we say that the Mormon Jesus is a sufficient enough explanation? How about the Gnostic Jesus? Or what about the homosexual version of Jesus? The DaVinci Jesus maybe? Things get a little more complicated than just suggesting we go out there and tell people that Jesus loves them. Don't they?
You have got me thinking about boundaries. I woke up this morning thinking about types of boundaries -fences - barriers -glass ceilings - distances - self imposed - other imposed - immagined - language - Color - physical - mental - spiritual - emotional - perceived - unaware of - sense.One could continue on but what is the point? A boundary is a boundary.So, I think if we are going to perambulate boundaries, we need to focus our discussion perimeters. I believe I did that when I became a Christian. I became "In Christ Jesus". He is my boundary, barrier, hedge, fence. He is our all in all.He is our "Outer Limits" as well as our inner limit.
I completely agree dad. That is the purpose of this post; to suggest that Christ is the boundary and the door. He is the very tissue that that encloses the parts of the Body. But, to go back to my prior statement, how we define Christ is crucial to deciding who is allowed into the sheep pen. I have conversed with many a Mormon who have shown the same sort of zealousness and faith in "Jesus" that I have seen in the most faithful of Southern Baptists. But I think we can all agree, at least those informed on Mormonism, that Mormon's do not describe Jesus in the same manner as Evangelical Christians.
It is not up to you or I who is allowed into the kingdom of God. If a Mormon gets in he will have to know Jesus Christ as his personal Savior and have a changed heart that will enable him to renounce Mormonism and the lies therein.Just like a Catholic has to renounce there beliefe in slavation through being Catholic and belonging to the Catholic Church.
Well, you have just defined what is inherently connected with the Gospel and what is not. You have just professed that there is a way of viewing Jesus that will not get you to Heaven, that will not allow you to be a member of the Body. One has to profess boundaries around who Christ was and is in order to faithfully express the Gospel in a way consistent with God's revelation to us. Is it enough to say that Christ was Love? Is it enough to say He died for our sins (even if this notion is connected to a view that He was the physical son of a former human being, and the brother of Satan)?
I think some categorization may be helpful in this discussion, for starters, what beliefs or doctrines (conditions) must one ascribe to to be included in an interrelational church? What areas are not flexible, and which areas can one error and still be meet the conditions of inclusion (c.f. Wayne Grudem systematic theology, major and minor doctrines). Even before we can say what these are, we must acknowledge that these are not placed by the church, but by God, it is his church, therefore we are all in submission to these conditions, not submitting outsiders or perspective members to these conditions. This is not a club that holy looking people set their standards for, this is a work of God that none of us are worthy of in and of ourselves.
Anyway, back to my point, there are obviously some things that would render a person excluded from the interrealtional church, both doctrinally and in regards to lifestyle choices, which cannot be viewed as completely independent of doctrine (what one believes will influence how they live.) These are definitions that must be sought out from scripture, not invented for purposes of discusion.
Also, assuming that a interrelational church is a community seeking truth (dare I pose such a thing in a postmodern world), minimal standards for orthodoxy and orthopraxy should never be the focus of the group, but rather how close in knowledge, belief and practice can we as a body come to what God has intended for us. In a sense, while a person may be admitted barely meeting a standard for orthodoxy, after a time, they should be well past that point in thier search of truth, leaving what would earlier have been questionible behind, being made new in the image of God (sanctified).
I welcome your thoughts.
This is very difficult to discuss without knowing the doctrinal beliefs by which the Interrelational Church Body adhere to. I might wonder if a T.U.L.I.P. Calvinist and an Armenianist could co-exist in the Interrelational Church's boundaries or doctrinal statemedent. Or are we making up this belief as we go along. Understanding that we always must draw our doctrinal beliefs from God's Word. But, then we have to deal with the different interpretations of God's Holy Word. Are the inclusive boundaries of the Interrelational Church in agreement with my interpretation of God's Word. I feel that the Interrelational Church boundaries must be stated.
Phil & Dad,
Both of you have certainly brought up the point that needs to be brought up. But before getting into the intricacies of debatable doctrine I suggest that we all bring forth solid scriptures that make it clear that there are legitimate boundaries lines by which we can articulate whether someone is within the Body or not. So, our discussion should be more about finding the frame of the "boundary" rather than the material that fills the frame.
If the Bible is to validate my use of the term "Interrelational" then it must also validate the use of the term "boundary" in designating a legitimate quality of the Body.
So that said, the Interrelational Church is a way of viewing how the church functions more than it is a formulation of doctrines. Certain doctrines will certainly point to the "interrelatedness" of the Body of Christ but there will also be times when an "interrelational" view of the church will cause one to rethink the way they view certain verses.
Does this clarify our task a little better?
Well, J-dawg. Sunday School answer: scripture.
"We're" creating an evangelical "emerging" church. Though at this point, i rather dislike that word.
do we not want to just go ahead and say it? That's our foundation that the mainstreaming emerger is ignoring?
What is the enemy? using experence as our basic hermenutical principal?
untamed mysticism with a jesus flavor?
christian existentialism?
coolots and leisture suits?
so short version:
"purposeful inclusion" is a cute buzzword for "pussy-footing"
"conditional inclusion" does sound a bit like a (my?) theology of election,
but if what we're getting at is the fact that Christ's body does have parameters, then it is sensible to use a phrase more like this than "purposeful..."
Good points Will. I am thinking about the term Contingent as a replacement for Conditional. What do you think? It does not carry the narrow meaning but it does get the point across I think.
Also, there needs to be some clarification that I am not suggesting that a local gathering of believers should not invite non-Christians to join them in listening to the Word being preached and discussed among them.
There is certianly room for a "purposeful inclusion" when it comes to inviting the the curious to come and taste the Lord and see that He is good. There is a difference, however, between that sort of physical inclusion and the seemingly spiritual inclusion that some Emergents are suggesting, such as accepting as members of the Body of Christ those who don't hold to Christ as the only way to the Father, or those that approve of the Homosexual lifestyle. A important aspect of the interrelational church is to discern where that boundary is located.
Hmmm... this has me thinking, and I'm not even sure what it has me thinking. haha! But, I'll just throw some stuff out there.
I guess one key point that has been stated is that the boundary of the Church is Christ. I have never expressed it in those words (boundary), but I can definitely agree with that statement. Afterall, He is our advocate, our unblemished/sacrificed lamb, our king, and our groom. We are found in Him, and He is in us.
So, along those lines, I think it is important to keep that focus of boundaries on Christ.
After the couple of comments on homosexuality, it just made me think a bit more. Can someone be a practicing homosexual and Christian? I know this might sound horrible, but I think the answer might be yes. Let me unpack this just a bit.
In how many ways do each of us sin and approve of our sinning? I will refrain from giving examples. If we spend some time reflecting, we will see that we all do in some respects. I think that God has given us minds that are being renewed, but I do not believe that He has given us minds that are completely renewed until the consummation of his Kingdom.
Hence, can someone approve of sin (in ignorance) and still be a believer? I think the answer is yes, because we are imperfect. Can someone know they are in sin and still be a believer? I think the answer is yes, again... Of course, when we introduce Church discipline into the mix, I would expect that the believer would repent. Then, if we consider a believer attending an apostate fellowship, oh, it gets a little hairy...
Those who continue in sin after discipline are to be treated as unbelievers, but I think God is gracious in our ignorance... afterall, we are all ignorant.
If we struggle with the concept of sin or obedience as the boundary of the Church, we eventually end up pointing the finger at ourselves and getting voted off the Interrelational Church island.
And for that reason, I think it's even more important to identify Christ alone as the boundary of the Church. It is HIS Church, afterall.
Couple Biggies.
J-Glen just threw out something huge. "Exclusivism" I think this may be the most fundamental tennet of the church. And of course it's packed, but here's the basics: "Jesus=Messiah". This permits some theological wiggling. Maybe there's free will, maybe Jesus is a Cabernet man. But, we have to go with a Judeo version of the creation/fall and promise, and a NT sinless sacrifice solution. And that only.
Fair? (there's so much more...)
Clearly, EM is barking up the right tree in the "...go on sinning" yard.
I mean, should I be booted from the church for eating too much? Well, no. Mentored? Obviously. Should I think gluttony is acceptible? NO! The HOly Spirit in me and in the rest of the body of believers should weep at my sin, make me/us hate the sin with true passion.
If either me, or the rest of the body doesn't have a problem with a sin as outlined in scripture, however...be it gluttony, wrath, lying, homosexuality, or say, disrespecting my parents...then I question whether the H.S. is in either me or the body - not in a "loss of salvation" sort of way. Rather, a "proof of salvation
in the first place" kind of way.
Now, on the particulars of what are sins, and what must be done...I, being more evangelical than I ever thought I'd excitedly admit, would look to the Bible.
Jason,
I am by no means a scholar, and I have not read any of the books you have listed/quoted other than the Bible. With that understanding of my feeble mind, I would like to humbly submit a comment/opinion on postmodernism "boundaries".
It is my understanding that the postmodern way of thinking is basically that anyone and everyone can come to Christ (which goes against many scriptures..."...the is none that seek Him.." and "...not by the will of man but the will of God"... to paraphrase) anyone can come to Christ if we only approach that person with their felt needs in mind...and that there are many different interpretations of how to get to Christ and many interpretations of scripture...and we as Christians cannot put a boundary on what is right and what is wrong because of personal interpretations.
I get this description of postmodern from discussions with postmodern friends. One friend in particular (and I mention this as it pertains to the boundaries question) has a "ministry" to the Hooters girls and Strippers in the Atlanta area. He has "discussion" time twice a week at these various venues where they pick a topic and all talk about how they feel about it and what others feel about it. His idea is that if he can talk to these ladies then he can one day convince them that Christ is the Way and they will be saved. Now, there are many moral implications here with the places he is going, and I assume we agree on the touchy nature of that subject...so to move past that into the idea that he has is what I am doing. Can a stripper be saved? Yes! Should we witness to her? Yes! Should we send single or married men into her place of business to witness to her? No! The boundary here is obvious.
What about a friend who you know and love lives in sin (a non-Christian) and you want to witness to him...so you invite him to church. Is that scriptural? Is the church here to disciple believers and for fellowship with the saints or to invite in the lost world hoping they will see how cool God is and change their way of thinking? Scripture is obvious when it talks about wolves in sheep's clothing...and inviting the non-saved into the church is just asking for trouble. One will end up with a "mega" church...full of people, kids, young people, adults....all who are not living for Christ because they were not really saved. I can speak from experience because I grew up at First Baptist Woodstock with Johnny Hunt as pastor. I was very close to his family (daughter) and went on vacation with their family and spend a lot of time with them. I saw how they approached "ministry" and the church, and unfortunately you can see the end result of the postmodern way of getting people to Christ. A church full of corruption, unbelief, arrogance and sin. Allll that to say....I highly disagree with postmodernism. In a sense it says, "The Christ of scripture is not good enough for this day and age. We must add/subtract things from the Bible to appeal to the unbeliever".
Now, I know I am all over the place here, but I feel I must comment on a comment made earlier by Em.
Can a homosexual be a believer? You said yes and I would like to comment.
Based on scripture, we are a new creation after salvation. The old is gone. Sanctification changes our life, thoughts, intentions, motives and what drives us to do the things we do. If a HS becomes a Christian, his life will change. We will know them by their fruits. If we love God we will keep His commands. A life defined by sin is not loving God and obeying His word. If a person is saved from his sin, why must he still be a slave to it? Any sin, not just HS, that is so prevalent in our life that it defines who we are is NOT acceptable and NOT in the character and nature of Christ. Scripture has told us how to tell the wheat from the tares, and unrepentant, habitual sin is a clear indication that Christ is not dwelling in a person.
Can a HS become a Christian? Of course! We should, by the witness of our life, point him to Christ. We should speak truth to him, in love, and call him to repentance. But should we invite him to church to get him saved? No.
What about a person who claims to be a believer and then falls into homosexuality? (I have a dear friend who I grew up with at church who just last year fell in HS after being a "Christian" for many years). Is the sin unrepentant? Has there been elders called....prayer/fasting...over this person? Is he making excuses for his sin? Has the church done church discipline to call him to repentance? All these things must be done to determine the salvation or lack of in this persons life.
There are boundaries. If there are no boundaries, then what you stated could be true...Mormons, Jehovah's Witness, Baha'i....anyone who claims Jesus as their savior would be truly saved...no matter what their "Jesus" stands for. And may I add....their Jesus is no more the Christ than the postmodern Jesus of today's church.
When the real Jesus called the religious leaders of His day "a brood of vipers" He was drawing clear boundaries. The boundary is God's Word. There are not many different interpretations of scripture, there is what Christ said. We must follow His words and allow them to be the boundaries. We will not scare away potential believers. Christ Jesus is able to bring them to Himself without our help, programs or movies. Standing firm on Truth is what others see and what the Lord uses to call a person. Wishy-washy Christianity is being like the world...lukewarm...having a form of Godliness but denying the power thereof...thinking we can improve on the gospel by removing boundaries set by Scripture. Since our righteousness is a filthy rags, I dare say we are hindering the gospel when we try and do these things.
Okay, I think I am done :) unless I think of something else to ramble about!
Oh, I just thought of something else. :) Your shocked, I can tell.
We give our kids boundaries. Why? For their protection. To point them to Christ. For our sanity. ;) There are certain people we do not allow the kids to play with. There are certain shows we do not allow the kids to watch. There are specific rules we make our kids follow.
Why would we as Christians not have boundaries in our church as well? There are certain things we as Christian do NOT do. There are rules to govern our life. Adherence to these things allows us protection as well as freedom.
Concerning postmodern behavior: When we use our carnal minds to "improve" on the Gospel, we are going against the verse, "Not by might, nor by power, but by MY SPIRIT says the Lord." His spirit does not need our help and "power" of mind.
Tiffany,
I hope you don't mind me referring to you as Tiffany. I just don't feel quite comfortable referring to you as Mommy. Anyway, I certainly appreciate your comments. Hopefully you were able to read the prior postings so that you could have good understanding of where this particular blog is headed.
I hope that no one led you to believe that we are trying to necessarily speak of boundaries in a postmodern sense. If you noted my initial post on the topic I stated, "Nevertheless, we are not here to discuss how postmoderns view boundaries but how boundaries should be viewed in relation to the interrelational character of the Body of Christ." You have made some very good critiques of the "Seeker Sensitive Church," which many of us would surely agree with, but we are really trying to discern here how to identify the boundaries of the Body of Christ. You might say, "Well the Bible, of course," but then I would suggest that there are different constructs of community within the Bible that could, and do, serve as one traditions template for how to define the Body of Christ, or even the local church.
Your comment about parenting was very valid to our discussion and could be gleaned a little more for some fruitful analogies. Thanks again for commenting. Keep them coming. Please encourage anyone who has an opinion on the matter to weigh in.
Jason,
I do not feel comfortable with you calling me Mommy either! I honestly did not know that name would appear when I signed up for a blog....anyway...
I see now a bit clearer where you are going with the questions. Glad to know you were not suggesting a postmodern, seeker sensitive church.
With the idea of boundaries in the church, what exactly do you mean? Boundaries in dress...actions...beliefs...words..etc? Or all of the above?
Tiffany:
One comment to your comment on my initial comment. (hehe!)
I definitely agree with where you are going related to hs in the life of the believer. At the same time, I think it's important for us to use wisdom and humility when we are talking about sin in the life of the believer. A couple of points that I'd just like to share (you may agree with these, but I think they are important to ponder, because though I may attest to these with my mind, my life does not consistently imitate my thoughts):
1 - We ARE made new creatures, and we still have sin in our lives. Paul makes this perfectly clear a number of times... doing what we don't want to do and not doing what we want to do. Also noting that sin lives in this wretched body of death. I think it's important that we feel that Godly/sinful tension in our everyday and see what is truly happening. We will always live with sin in this corrupt world. But, a time is coming when we won't.
2 - When we talk about "other peoples'" struggles, we should critique ourselves, first. What I am saying is this... if I want to comment on someone else's sin, I should definitely look at myself clearly before trying help them. If anyone spends enough time considering their own faithless acts, they'll quickly see that they are often as faithless as the other party. So, I don't commit hs acts, but do I lust in my mind? Am I greedy? Do I hate my brother? Do I lie about things? Do I have no patience for those who are not-so-bright? The list can go on and on... eek! ;-)
The Church has spent a fair amount of time pointing to others... and we've forgotten the mandate to take the plank out of our own eyes first. I forget that the vast majority of days. When I read your post, I agreed with you; I just wanted to place an asterisk at the bottom for us to humbly consider the situation and find ways that we might empathize with those struggling with or giving into some of the "hard" sins.
Thanks for sharing! Good stuff. :-)
I'm trying to assimilate some of these points in my mind, and this question came up, which I'm hoping will sum up a few of the previous points. What are the scriptural marks of one who is abiding in Christ? Granted, we all have sin, but as mentioned above, we are also new creations, something that is the work of the Holy Spirit. I realize that I will struggle with sin as long as I am in this body. Here's the point I want to bring out: One mark of a Christian (those are the people we want in the church right?) is that they abide in Christ, and by this abiding sanctification takes place. We can always ask what behavior can or can't be permitted for those in the church, there may be a place for that, but what I wanted to bring out is that part of the function of the church is for people struggling to be more like christ to come together and be encouraged. When I go to church and see my friend who I know struggles with homosexuality, and they are fighting it with all they have, I am encouraged to press on in my struggles with sin. When people see that there is a such thing as victory over sin, it is like a breath of fresh air, sin need not entangle us, as believers who are abiding, we will be changing. We're trying to find marks or behaviors that will keep people in or out of this interrelational church. I sugguest that rather we ought to look for a direction: if they are headed toward Christ, they are in. We are all in different points in that journey, but this common journey of becoming christlike gives every person something that they can interrelate about.
Great points Phil. Good to hear you survived your mad trip into the West. I certainly agree with you on the "headed toward Christ" comment. What is truly in question here I think is can you affirm a homosexual lifestyle, or an adulterous lifestyle, or a life as prostitute and still be heading in the direction of Christ. Not too many supposed Christians that I know of would affirm the last two propositions, but the is a growing number who are beginning to suggest that the first lifestyle stated, homosexuality, can be affirmed as a legitimate lifestyle while "running after" a relationship with Christ. Will you allow such a view in your church? Or will affirming, and actualizing, a practicing homosexual lifestyle prompt one to be the recipient of church discipline (i.e. remove the perpetrator from among you)? Your thoughts?
Let me share some scriptural boudaries if I can, "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God?" Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers norswindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. (1 Cor. 6:9-11)
Also we read, "Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows. The one who sows to please his sinful nature will reap destruction; the one who sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life. (Gal. 6:7-8)There is a definite difference between our sinful nature and the Holy Spirit given in this scripture and a different place we end up. Don't you think?
The question I have to ask then, is are we saying that a true conversion experience MUST be marked by an immediate release from the "will not inherit" sin list?
I see the point, but I'd be worried that every time I greedy thoughts, I was proving my salvation false. Dig?
Yeah, funny thing. A pastor I know recently was telling a story about a visitation experience the previous week where he'd met a woman who claimed that because she was a single mom providing for her kids, she could glorify God by being a stripper.
I think most of us give that a healthy knee jerk roll of our eyes. But would you kick her out of the ekklesia? Could you say that her job proves that she doesn't believe in the resurrected Christ? And if so, what of the golden corral cook or waitress? If his or her job is a place of continuous gluttous sinning, should he or she not work there?
Or do we skirt the issue by taking the Baptist view that gluttony must be a far lesser sin than lust?
In the end, my question is basically whether this is a practical nightmare inherent to all 21st century religious connectivity?
Dad, great scripture passages. The Corinthians passage has certainly been on my mind throughout this discussion.
Will, I think what we must all agree on here is that the desire to repent of sins that are clearly labeled as such in scripture must be present for a person's involvement in the local congregation of believers to continue. If repentance is not present, the Body is supposed to practice church discipline, which means withdrawing fellowship with them. The process does not need to include (as in RC practice) proclaiming that they have lost salvation or never had it. That is not our business; it is the business of the Father.
We, however, are to conduct church discipline so that if the person is not a Christian they might come to understand what it means to be a Christian, and if they are a Christian they might understand what it is to strive after obedience to Christ in all things. Of course we all continue to sin, but we do not all brag about our stumbling. That, essentially, is what many homosexuals who are claiming to be Christians are doing. They are bragging about the fact that their lifestyle is acceptable unto God and that they can be just as obedient to Christ in that lifestyle as a heterosexual. That mindset will bear false witness to a watching world and lead other Christians to possibly stumble in that area as well.
ok, so do we draw one of our boundries so that people who unrepentently parade flagrant sins fall outside of the ecclesia?
Sounds Biblical Phil, let's run with it. In this whole affair one must discern what is uniquely culturally motivated within the Word of God, and what is contextually given for our current edification. I am certainly an inerrantist, but I don't have my wife wear a head covering while she prays among the congregation of believers, nor do I practice the Sabbath on a Saturday. Anyway, I believe that the whole church discipline outline is still very relevant for our context and will never cease to be until there is no need for it.
Hold on guys, you're surely not going so extreme as to say we should be demanding repentance or practicing discipline on all the gluttunous and/or greedy SBC heavy-hitters?
surely that's not flagrant unrepentance, they're pastors!(?)
Amen Will, gluttony is a sin that should be confronted. The problem is that we do not have a mechanism within the SBC, or a any other denomination for that matter, that is able to identify when gluttony is taking place. Having another bite is not like having another man's wife. The latter speaks for itself, the former does not. But, your point still stands, and I have collected much data on the preponderance of obesity among SBC pastors and would desire that the SBC take steps to confront the life and testimony threatening condition.
Post a Comment