Do we need standards?

May 18, 2005

Quote:

So we must ask WWJD? But we don't have the relationship He did, and every situation is unique, so by your reasoning the answer gives us no practical guidance.

That is YOUR reasoning, not mine. I don't see it that way at all.

Quote:

If every situation is unique, it necessarily follows that we cannot apply the action of one situation to a another one, since they are all different.

Again, that is your reasoning, not mine. I see no problem with gleaning principles from similar and parallel situations and applying those principles, once they have been grasped.

Quote:

That means that every situation we face will be different than the ones that Jesus faced, so we cannot apply what He did in those unique situations to our different and unique situations.

Fallacious reasoning again. The fact that each situation is unique does not mean there are no parallels or general principles from Jesus' dealings with people which can be applied.

Quote:

We must have faith that we know what He would do. What if different people sincerely believe, have faith, that they know what He would do, and they are very different things? Which, in fact, is the case we are faced with.

It is what we are faced with in Revelation 13, too. Guess we all have to make our choices, huh?

Quote:

We can't rely on His recorded actions, since they were to unique situations different from our own.

That is not anything I have stated. That is again a product of your mind, not mine.

Quote:

It appears that you have, in fact, effectively eliminated WWJD since His unique situations always differ from ours.

It does not appear that way at all, except as you are striving to pretend to make it appear that way. Nothing you have stated in this post is even remotely accurate as far as what I am saying goes. Since I basically respect your intelligence, even if we do disagree, I cannot believe that this is so over your head that you cannot grasp it. I am therefore forced to conclude you are playing some sort of semantic game with me, because you keep twisting what I say into something it is not. I don't see any productive dialogue arising from this exercise of yours at all, so I'm done with trying for now. If you decide you are really interested in understanding what *I* actually think or see about the matter, kindly let me know and I'll be glad to share it. But for now I'm done with this bait-and-twist game.

May 18, 2005

Neil, you declared that you weren't going to interact with me.

If you really want to talk about restoration or reconciliation, try reading the two books I recommended to Michelle (as a start) first.

Otherwise, please honor your promise.

May 18, 2005

Quote:

So we must ask WWJD? But we don't have the relationship He did, and every situation is unique, so by your reasoning the answer gives us no practical guidance.

That is YOUR reasoning, not mine. I don't see it that way at all.

Well, so far, all I know is a vague description of what you don't like, and an even vaguer one of what you do. I supplied reasoning because it is in fact inherent in your premisses.

May 18, 2005

Quote:

I have rejected the punitive model (imposition of artificially constructed consequences by erring mortals upon other erring mortals) and rejected your attempt to use two examples -- God in Eden and the parental model -- as a means of validating the punitive model.

I concur in your rejecting the punitive model. I too reject is as well. Since you have redirected all these questions to the WWJD, I would suggest that He would have relied upon the OT examples and would have resorted to the restitution/rehabilitation model. Concider the woman brought before all the pharasees and declared to be caught 'in the very act'...This woman was shamed and humiliated beyond belief. I tend to believe that she was truely sorry for what had happened. When Jesus asked her, where are all your accusers, she demonstrated her humility and repentance. "They all left." "And neither do I condemn thee." I would tend to think that she decided never to do prostitution again....

She was given the opertunity to repent, and she did. She was given the oppertunity to restore her trust....She took it.

Do you think that the concept of restoration is a valid one?

May 18, 2005

Quote:

But for now I'm done with this bait-and-twist game.

I simply repeated your own conclusions. If they are vague, that is not my fault.

I'm not twisting what you write. Nor am I playing a game. I'm simply trying to reduce your long post to a few affirmative statements, and draw conclusions from them.

It appears to me that you know what you're against, but don't have an alternative that you can explain clearly.

May 19, 2005

Quote:

As I have said, there are consequences to a moral failing. As such, each moral failing needs to be evaluated on a case by case senerio. The teacher child molester, who had truely repented, nevertheless, will never teach children again...but he can be a teacher of adults....? right? This same sinner can enter a church again, but will never be left in a bathroom again ALONE with children coming in and out of the bathroom. [i hope!]

Okay--we're on the same page here. I remember an editor of the Review stating once that if a child molesting teacher had been "rehabilitated" that it was nobody's business if that teacher was back in the classroom again because they had been forgiven and we needed to trust that this person wouldn't do it again. I vehemently disagreed!

Quote:

Think of people who you dont trust, but have forgiven them of past sins against you, ie neighbors, aquaintances. Havent you ever said, If so and so would just do this, I would trust him with that? But I can't because of what he has done in the past. Think of the Lawnmower incidence again. You will never trust a neighbor if he brings back your lawnmower broken...right? You will have forgiven him, but never trust him with your equipment. Isn't this correct? Your level of trust has improved if he brings back the lawnmower REPAIRED. But there is this nagging doubt about his care of your equipment. Right? You are hopefull that he doesn't bring it back repaired, because it is worth less after he borrowed it. Right? plus, was the repair job a good repair from a qualified dealer or just a quick thing to get by? Will it start when you NEED it to, or will it be difficult to get started and cause you to wonder about the neighbor's judgment? The doubts about trust are still there.... But when he not only brings it back repaired, but also bring 1/5 the value of a new lawnmower back, ie a hedgetrimmer, is not your trust in this person fully restored?

It's possible. I do have a situation like this, but I'm not sure the person has made "restitution"--apologies, yes, but not restitution. I have forgiven, but I don't trust the person, no. So I would have to say, in theory I would.

M

May 19, 2005

Quote:

But for now I'm done with this bait-and-twist game.

I simply repeated your own conclusions. If they are vague, that is not my fault.

That is patently untrue. You did not "repeat" MY anything. You formed YOUR conclusions from things I stated, and presented them as if they were foregone conclusions FROM what I stated -- which they are not.

Quote:

I'm not twisting what you write. Nor am I playing a game. I'm simply trying to reduce your long post to a few affirmative statements, and draw conclusions from them.

Then at least acknowledge the conclusions you drew were your own. They are not intrinsic to what I am saying and they are not mine.

Quote:

It appears to me that you know what you're against, but don't have an alternative that you can explain clearly.

Think whatever you please. I see it differently. What I cannot explain clearly is what I see going on. I see you so eager to "disprove" my perspective in favor of your own that you are not actually listening to what I am saying, nor are you actually attempting to understand MY perspective. You are only making something of it that it is not, and doing so to your own advantage by drawing conclusions that are illogical and then framing your presentation thereof as though they are foregone conclusions from what I have said and therefore the lack of logic and consistency is mine, when in reality it is a product of the conclusions you drew which have nothing to do with what I'm saying or how I'm thinking.

This creates an atmosphere that for me is not conducive to productive dialogue, and discourages me from attempting to clarify any further where I am coming from because there is essentially no point to doing so, and nothing to be gained.

May 19, 2005

Quote:

Do you think that the concept of restoration is a valid one?

Absolutely.

May 19, 2005

Quote:

I see you so eager to "disprove" my perspective in favor of your own that you are not actually listening to what I am saying, nor are you actually attempting to understand MY perspective. You are only making something of it that it is not, and doing so to your own advantage by drawing conclusions that are illogical and then framing your presentation thereof as though they are foregone conclusions from what I have said and therefore the lack of logic and consistency is mine, when in reality it is a product of the conclusions you drew which have nothing to do with what I'm saying or how I'm thinking.

I'm not eager to disprove it. I'm trying to make sense of it.

Quote:

This meddling about includes the logic of the Beast -- that in order to uphold God's standards of moral conduct we must break God's laws, abrogate Christ's way and teaching of how we are to be with one another, and justify the imposition of economic hardship upon our brother, sister, neighbor. That is what really troubles me about this whole thing. The Bible makes it very clear which spirit originates the desire to impose economic sanctions and penalties against someone else for violating what is deemed to be God's standard. And it is not the Spirit of Christ

You are highly sensitive to what you see as my twisting of your words, yet you are quick to label my application of principle in one instance as a "punitive model," assume that evil motives are behind it, and associate it with Satan. I suspect you would be highly resentful if I even hinted at such things in your posts.

Let's just pause for a while.

May 19, 2005

Quote:

This meddling about includes the logic of the Beast -- that in order to uphold God's standards of moral conduct we must break God's laws, abrogate Christ's way and teaching of how we are to be with one another, and justify the imposition of economic hardship upon our brother, sister, neighbor. That is what really troubles me about this whole thing. The Bible makes it very clear which spirit originates the desire to impose economic sanctions and penalties against someone else for violating what is deemed to be God's standard. And it is not the Spirit of Christ

You are highly sensitive to what you see as my twisting of your words, yet you are quick to label my application of principle in one instance as a "punitive model," assume that evil motives are behind it, and associate it with Satan.

You just don't seem to "get" (understand) me at all, Ed. There was nothing personal in what I wrote. It was a general statement about the punitive model, not a specific statement about your particular view or application. I did not label you at all. I simply stated how I felt about the punitive model in general when I stated my concerns about the logic behind the Beast, etc.

Quote:

Let's just pause for a while.

Fair enough.

May 19, 2005

Quote:

Therefore, where this situation occured, let the local church in conciltation of the conference, work out thier restoration steps. What would it take for that church pastor and the teacher to restore the trust that was broken with the church?

There is more involved than trust. It is not only a trust issue in the first place.

A person in this capacity is a mentor/leader.

The issue is one of example.

Don't you understand the principles in the Timothy text?

There is a difference in excommunicating the person, and socializing with the person, and allowing the person to be in the fellowship with all of the other sinners and former sinners and that of allowing the person to hold an office as a leader.

Always remember the Jer 17:9 and Rom 8:7 asttributes of those this side of translation.

Various levels going on in damage control.

May 19, 2005

One question that is coming up for me in this discussion is this. The concept of restitution and restoration has been brought up. I think in general this is a valid concept. If the teacher had, for example, embezzled school funds, then restitution would be clear: pay back what was stolen at the very least, or even make "good" on it by paying back more than was taken, to demonstrate repentance and a sincere desire to restore trust and make things right.

But she did not embezzle funds. She had unprotected unmarried sex with another consenting adult in the privacy of her own life. Neither of them were married so there is no aggrieved party involved (as would be if, for example, he'd been a married man). How on earth is anyone supposed to "make restitution" for such a thing? What FORM is such "restitution" supposed to take? Should she be expected to run immediately to her supervisors at work the next day and disclose an event from her private life and openly confess a sin of a private nature to them? If so, then where are the lines drawn between a person's private life and public life? Should she have "reported" on herself if she had -- excuse me -- masturbated instead, or engaged only in manual stimulation with her fiance? What if they'd only had oral sexual contact, what then? Not to invoke Bill Clinton here but the spectre arises of what, precisely, is considered "sex" in this context. Obviously in her case they had full intercourse, that's a no-brainer, that is obviously "sex"! But my question has to do with the what-ifs in any potential case scenario and most specifically, (a) how does one make "restitution" for having done a private-life sin and ( where then is the line drawn between private life and public life?

May 19, 2005

Quote:

There is more involved than trust. It is not only a trust issue in the first place.

I am sorry to disagree with you, but the whole issue is one of trust that has been violated. We trust our leaders to lead and set the example. When that has been betrayed, we now have the possiblity of a person moving away from Christ.

My experince with church disapline has typically been dissappointing, with the violator usually leaving the church. There is no chance of the sinner being reconciled to the church. We know that we are all sinners and every one of us have temptations beyond that which we are able to control. Since Christ is our example, and in the case of the woman caught in sin and brought before Him, was merciful and yet maintained the standards of His Father, can we as a church do no less?

Restoration is a way to do that very thing. It is an oppertunity for the sinner to not only repent, but to redeem his broken trust.

Quote:

There is a difference in excommunicating the person, and socializing with the person, and allowing the person to be in the fellowship with all of the other sinners and former sinners and that of allowing the person to hold an office as a leader.

I am not sure what you are refering to here. I agree that while being restored to trust, the sinner should not hold office. I never intimated that a person should be just forgiven by the church and continued to hold the very office that he violated. But there needs to be a way to allow the person to be restored to a position of trust.

Hope that clarifys my position a abit.

May 19, 2005

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

But my question has to do with the what-ifs in any potential case scenario and most specifically, (a) how does one make "restitution" for having done a private-life sin and ( where then is the line drawn between private life and public life?

Good questions Nico. When there is no other "injured" party involved than no restitution can be made. How could it?

In general, and not to address this case, many private sins are between the individual and God. How can anyone understand the circumstances more than God, our only judge? It would seem that our restitution to him is to sincerely and honestly ask for forgiveness. Then accept/believe his forgiveness. Close the door. Go and "sin no more"

Ask, believe and receive.

Just my :2cents:

May 19, 2005

Quote:

Shane said this:

Now bear in mind the Adventist church in this part of the world is growing faster than they can build church buildings.

So high standards obviously do not drive people away or discourage people. Here in the US some of the most rapid growing denominations are the Latter Day Saints and the Jehovah Witness. Both groups with high standards.

I was involved with the JW's for 2 years prior to becoming a Christian. I think the reason that their members stay, regardless of their punitive methods, is because they brainwash their members into believing that they are the only ones who will be saved and that all other denominations are cults. I know this because they did it to me.

I know of several folks who have left the church because of their punitive methods. One lady who smoked was devastated because they turned their backs on her and would not talk to her. And, what about the woman in the back pew, who told others, who did not know of her punishment, not to sit next to her or speak to her. They later found out that she had been unfaithful to her husband and her punishment was that no one go near her or talk to her for one year. After her sentence was up she would be welcomed into the fold again.

It makes me sick to my stomach that Christians could treat their brothers and sisters that way.

Quote:

It is inappropriate for one or more grown adults to treat a peer (another grown adult) as if he were a child and attempt to "parent" him.

Here here Nico

May 20, 2005

Quote:

But we don't have the relationship He did, and every situation is unique, so by your reasoning the answer gives us no practical guidance.

It appears that you have, in fact, effectively eliminated WWJD since His unique situations always differ from ours.

Which is the very reason that context should not be the only and primary baseline criteria to determine principles for counsel. Short of comparing apples with oranges, which reason alone can be put under suspicion for error, the determination of motivation was far more evident in WJWD than any knowledgable debatable conduct observed by those looking on. And since motive is most often not capable of being properly assessed by fallible humans, it is always good to preface decisions about other's conduct with the possibility that we ourselves might not have the "right" answer.

Quote:

It appears to me this leaves us having to cope with differing faith-based claims.

Which allows for God's mercy to be extended to people justly, according to what they as individuals believe to be correct.

[:"red"] "Accept Christians who are weak in faith, and don't argue with them about what they think is right or wrong.

Who are you to condemn God's servants? They are responsible to the Lord, so let him tell them whether they are right or wrong. The Lord's power will help them do as they should. Each person should have a personal conviction about this matter

So why do you condemn another Christian? Why do you look down on another Christian? Remember, each of us will stand personally before the judgment seat of God. For the Scriptures say,

" `As surely as I live,' says the Lord, `every knee will bow to me

Yes, each of us will have to give a personal account to God. So don't condemn each other anymore. Decide instead to live in such a way that you will not put an obstacle in another Christian's path.

For the Kingdom of God is....living a life of goodness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit.

If you serve Christ with this attitude, you will please God. And other people will approve of you, too. So then, let us aim for harmony in the church and try to build each other up. Don't tear apart the work of God.... Remember, there is nothing wrong with these things in themselves...But it is wrong...if it makes another person stumble. Don't..... if it might cause another Christian to stumble.

You may have the faith to believe that there is nothing wrong with what you are doing, but keep it between yourself and God.

Blessed are those who do not condemn themselves by doing something they know is all right

...If you do anything you believe is not right, you are sinning" [/] Romans 14:1,4,5,10,11-13,17-23 NLT

But then if we followed this advice that would probably effectively put these forums out of business except for that which was fruitful for the building up of the body of Christ.

May 20, 2005

Quote:

**We know that we are all sinners** and >>every one of us have temptations beyond that which we are able to control.<<

Re: ** That I agree with.

[:"red"] "...all have sinned and are falling short of the honor and glory which God bestows and receives. [/] Romans 3:23 AMP

Re: >> << That I don't!

[:"red"] "But remember that the temptations that come into your life are no different from what others experience. And God is faithful. He will keep the temptation from becoming so strong that you can't stand up against it. When you are tempted, he will show you a way out so that you will not give in to it." [/]

1 Cor 10:13 NLT

May 20, 2005

Quote:

Neil, you declared that you weren't going to interact with me.

Otherwise, please honor your promise.

To Neil: This is a public forum. I appreciate your ideas, whether I agree with them or not. If you are restricted to responses in a certain way, if correct according to what was referred to, please share the ideas you have as they relate to other ideas presented. You have at least one reader who wishes your input and responses.

No offense intended to you, Ed.

May 20, 2005

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

My experince with church disapline has typically been dissappointing, with the violator usually leaving the church. There is no chance of the sinner being reconciled to the church.

My mother was disfellowshipped for smoking. She was later rebaptised.

My wife was disfellowshipped, as a teenager, for working on the Sabbath. She was later rebaptised.

If church discipline is administered in a Christlike way, it will often result in repentance. When the church does nothing, it rarely results in repentance. The problem is Satan wants us to go to one extreame or the other. Either we ignore the sin or condemn it in a non-Christlike way.

I believe there is a healthy middle ground.

May 20, 2005

Quote:

Which is the very reason that context should not be the only and primary baseline criteria to determine principles for counsel.

This post is impressive, in a strange way, but almost totally opaque.

1) context is not any kind of a criterion

so the three modifiers "only, primary, and baseline" are just padding. This renders the rest of the sentence meaningless.

Quote:

Short of comparing apples with oranges, which reason alone can be put under suspicion for error,

Redundant, but comprehensible.

Quote:

the determination of motivation was far more evident in WJWD than any knowledgable debatable conduct observed by those looking on.

"the determination of motivation was far more evident"

I give up. I confess that I cannot make my way through this syntactic maze. Was the motivation determined, or was it evident? Or was, as strict construction would have it, the determination that was evident? That would make the determination obvious, but the motivation uncertain.

"than any knowledgable debatable conduct"

Was the conduct knowledgable? was the conduct debatable? or was the knowlegability debatable?

"observed by those looking on."

Also redundant (who else would observe but those looing on?), but redundancy is not the problem. What was observed? one would assume the conduct, but was it observed to be debatable? was it observed to be knowledgable? were the observations debatable?

Quote:

It appears to me this leaves us having to cope with differing faith-based claims.

Which allows for God's mercy to be extended to people justly, according to what they as individuals believe to be correct.

Since one statement follows the other, I assume there is supposed to be some connection between the two.

Now, in one way, it makes a strange sort of sense. Since we have no way of choosing between two faith-based claims, they give us no basis for acting at all. So, in that sort of negative sense, it "allows" anything at all.

We'll pass over the concept of "just mercy" which is at least somewhat oxymoronic.

So the first clause is weak, but the sentence founders altogether in the second clause.

"according to what they as individuals believe to be correct."

The only antecedent to "they" in the second cause is "people" in the first clause. But this means that those receiving the "just mercy" are the ones "believ[ing it] to be correct." This gives us the remarkable notion of wrongdoers determining whether they are being treated correctly. In the eschaton, yes. In the meantime, no.

I doubt that was his intent but that's what it says. So I'm completely mystified by the meaning of the post.

May 20, 2005

Quote:

>>every one of us have temptations beyond that which we are able to control.<<

Quote:

Re: >> << That I don't!

"But remember that the temptations that come into your life are no different from what others experience. And God is faithful. He will keep the temptation from becoming so strong that you can't stand up against it. When you are tempted, he will show you a way out so that you will not give in to it."

1 Cor 10:13 NLT

Forgive me for not making this clear and assuming that this was allready understood...What I was attempting to point out was that there were temptations that people do cave into. We see it here everyday, with initial reactions and get into trouble with it. Without God's help, we would automatically go into those temptations and be as the person without a conscious. That is why God does indeed help us and instruct us as to what is the better path to proceed in...IOWs, we do have a choice to live up to the temptations that we experience or to live unto God's way, and reaffirm the 10 Commandment Law.

May 20, 2005

Quote:

If church discipline is administered in a Christlike way, it will often result in repentance. When the church does nothing, it rarely results in repentance. The problem is Satan wants us to go to one extreame or the other. Either we ignore the sin or condemn it in a non-Christlike way.

Shane, What do you think restoration is???

Semantics [sp] aside, Are you just being contrary to be contrary???? Are you insisting that "Church discipline" is the proper terms to use, just to be an "authority"???

The only difference between what I am saying and what you have posted is when repentance occurs. My view has the individual in mind from the moment the church discovers the discrepency and is promoting spiritual growth and reparing trust. Your views come accross as more of a works orientated viewpoint, where the individual jumps thru various hoops, provided he/she recognises the problem. We, as a church, have done this, and generally speaking accross the church experience, it has rarely resulted in rebaptisms.

May 21, 2005

I do not claim to know God's will in the matter of church disapline. What I do know is what I see happening in Hispanic churches and what I see happening in Anglo churches in NAD. Personally I see the two as extreames. In NAD a BOY (I don't want to pick on the ladies) can get his gf pregnant and the church does nothing - well maybe they throw a baby shower. In Latin America the ladies are disfellowshipped for wearing pants to church. I am inclined to believe there is a middle ground.

However my opinion aside, the Church Manual does have standards but since I don't have the most recent copy I better not say much more about that <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/frown.gif" alt="" />

Sign In

Do we need standards?

Recommended Posts

Nicodema

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

there buster

there buster

Neil D

there buster

Michelle

Nicodema

Nicodema

there buster

Nicodema

Guest

Nicodema

Neil D

Naomi

Guest

LifeHiscost

LifeHiscost

LifeHiscost

Dr. Shane

there buster

Neil D

Neil D

Dr. Shane

Join the conversation

Browse

Activity