January 17, 2007
Pre-Nups
At one time the commitment to marriage seemed simple, 'for better or for worse, in sickness and in health ,for richer or poorer, ‘till death do us part…I do.' When the popularity of prenuptials came on the scene things got more detailed and complicated before the ‘I dos’ were exchanged. For almost 100 years our church’s Bylaws were relatively scant and a quick read at two pages in length. However, in a couple of weeks seven and a half pages of new and improved Bylaws will be presented to the congregation for affirmation. In Paul’s day believers wanted to crawl back under the old law...today we just make up new ones.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Gail;
----What an excellent illustration of these proposed bylaws! The marriage agreement is a simple statement of love and submission between two people made legally binding before witnesses. Admittedly, the monotonies of life and problem resolution are left to the chance of the continuation of that love and submission. The pre-nuptual agreement attempts to alleviate this risk by confining the life of the marriage to tighter definitions. Reduced risk is acquired at price of reduced meaning by limitations of added legalities.
----The current bylaws of your church simply place into the elders responsibility the "operation of the corporation regarding business procedures, committees, and election of other officers" and the resolution of conflicts of interest concerning minister/elders. No other enumeration of the elders' authority is made, except for their ability to appoint deacons. Therefore, the church was able to be who it was made of as shaped by a mutual understanding of the Scripture.
----Although confinement to rules was minimized, opportunity for division was maximized. Over the years your church did see division, but amicable resolution always operated eventually through the commitment to love and mutual acceptance. But when the contemporary movement reached your church, the commitment of love and acceptance failed. Division waxed hot until the loosing side was finally conquered and ignored. What good people had built to facilitate their worship was taken from them and used for ideas that were strange to them, all within the legal confines of the bylaws.
----Right on chronological course with the steps to purpose-driving a church, it is now time to sew up the booty into a legally impenetrable bundle. It is time for the Saddlebackish adoption of new bylaws, just as Rick Warren suggested. But be assured, these new bylaws eliminate the risk that the old ones left to the operation of love and mutual acceptance. The monotonies and problem resolutions will be subjected by leagal contract to the control of the elders.
----I assure you from my study of business law at college, from twenty-two years of practise as a CPA, from four years of Bible college, and thirty-two more years living in subjection to the Word of God as I have studied it, these proposed bylaws hand all authority to the elders. Sounds Scriptural doesn't it? Somewhere in the Bible it says to obey the leaders, right? Somewhere else it speaks of elders who rule well, OK? Well, maybe there are some historical connotations of elder rule in Acts, uh-hu. Umm. But Paul told the Romans to each be convinced in his own mind. How can that happen if there is elder rule? Philippians says to look to one another's interests. Gee, if the elders ruled, wouldn't we be looking to their interests? And Paul bids us to agree with one another. How can we do that if we are to agree with the elders who rule? And what does history teach us about elders who rule? How about a period of time when you could not own or read a Bible upon pain of death. Of course, that was only in the Catholic Church. You could own a Bible if you were not in the Catholic Church, right? Then if you weren't in the Catholic Church you were charged with heresy and subjected to torture. O yes, forgot about that. Hmm. Elder rule. Why not Scriptural rule? But if we have Scriptural rule, who interprets the Scripture? Oh yes! The elders do!!!
----Or is maybe this why Paul said to agree with one another? If we agree with one another and put love and mutual acceptance back into operation, would Christ not have more chance to control His body through the operation of His Word as lived in the lives of those involved without the over-control of some clerical structure? Do you think the new bylaws don't present over-control? Let's look and see.
----We all agree that the Word of God is controlling in the church. Find in the new bylaws one reference to the elder's subjection to the Word of God. it is not there. There is a reference to their direction "in harmony with...the Bible." And there is a reference to their "power to oversee...in accordance with the instruction from God's Word." But what is harmony other than to move congruent to or in respect of? Harmony is defferent from subjection. If actual subjection to the Word were meant, why did they not come right out and state their direction as being subject to the Bible. On the other hand, "in accordance with" much closer approaches the meaning of "subject to." But the statement in the bylaws makes reference to "...the instruction from God's Word." Which instruction from God's Word? This document will be scrutinized! Therefore, its intended meanings must show forth upon scrutiny. You and I, being members of the Lord's body, may scrutinize with a mind full of assumptions. But a court will not. When a court reads "the instruction" it will first look within the context of the document for "the instruction from God's Word." That instruction is found in Article Two, and is the Great Commission. This appears Scriptural enough, until it is understood that the Great Commission has no inherent meaning within a court of law. The court will not unpack from that one passage all of the other Scriptural imperatives relavant to the authority of the elders, such as, be servant to all, do not be domineering, submit to one another, and rightfully handling the Word of God, for just a very, very few. Again, if the elders envisioned their powers to oversee being subject to the Scripture, then why did they not straight-forward state that?
----Why is it important? The elders are laying claim to authority to adopt policies and issue directives to the membership. Some restaurants set policies concerning what you must wear to gain entrance. Movie theatres set policies governing the admission price. Radio stations set policies concerning what style of music they will air, or whether they will even air music as opposed to talk. You need to understand folks, "policies" is a much too broad word for elders who are unable to directly state their submission to the Word of God. And what directives do you think they might want to issue to you? I can understand the trust you have in your current elders, but you must realize, this document will live beyond their terms, involvements, or lives, and others whom you do not know today from Adam will have these unrestricted powers over you or your children, tommorrow! Might these directives come to include an admission price to attend Sunday service (don't scoff, It has happened in churches using this model of bylaws). Maybe they will desire to direct you to the use of only those translations which refer to God as "Her"! Wanna see? Roll the dice!
----But there are some intentions in this document we don't have to gamble on to know where they go. The elders reserve for themselves the authority to add to or alter the membership qualifications. Of course the obvious question is, "Why?" If the Bible has not added to or altered its qualifications for membership in the body, why should the elders? Are they saying they do not yet know what the qualifications for membership in the body of the Lord are, and they may want to figure it out later? Or are they saying that they do not care what qualifications the Bible makes for membership in the Lord, their church requires further qualifications? My guess is that they do not care about either, they just want the ability to define out of the church anyone who is a threat to their ideas or power. Be logical guys, what else could it be? And none of the three options are very magnanamous.
----Look at the designation of membership under Article Four. "...the Board of Elders reserves the authority/power to make final determinations as to...those listed upon that membership roll. The determination of the Board of Elders is final and not subject to review." And have they anywhere in this pre-nuptual document stated their submission to the members of that church, their submission to the Word of God, or their submission to Jesus Christ? No! This document defines your membership responsibilities as being subject to the membership qualifications, rather than to the Word of God. I am sure these elders do not mean these qualifications to be exclusive of those in the Bible. But in ten years will those elders? It also states your responsibility to diligently "preserve the unity of the body at XYZ Church." That is high-sounding until you realize the bylaws are giving the elders the authority to define what that unity will be. Article Five states that the "Board of Elders shall...have final control (under the authority of the Lord Jesus Christ) through the Word of God." Now there is a possible statement of their subjection to the Word, right? Quick conclusions lead to quick ends. "Under the authority" is a parenthetical that in placement modifies "final control." Does that mean "given under the authority" or "restricted under the authority?" And "...through the Word of God" merely restricts to the Bible the origin of that concept of "under the authority." Or at least it might successfully be argued. And you all at that church need to realize that this document will mean whatever it might successfully be argued to mean. You need to understand that these men have not quite been able to bring themselves to say straight up, "Our powers are restricted by all provisions found in the Word of God," or "we are humbly subject to you from our subjection to the Word of God, therefore our power is subject to your needs and for your needs as defined by the Word."
----There are a thousand ways to state your humility before the Lord and your subjection to one another in love, yet there is not one statement of such in this document. That is because this document is about defining the power of the elders. And by purpose or mistake, the powers described in it are frighteningly close to unrestricted. Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to send this document back to the drawing board for the inclusion of the humility and subservience to love the Lord commands of us by including all of the restrictions necessary to bring these enumerated powers back inside the bounds of the Scripture. Should you choose not to accept the mission or fail at it, your leaders might dissavow any knowledge of Scriptural constraints upon their authority, and you will find yourselves in the Twilight Zone.
Gail;
----While rummaging around in the dust bin of your blogspot, I came accross a comment I wrote September 20, 2006. May I repost that comment? I think maybe it is relavent again...
September 20, 2006:
Gail;
----Jesus said that you would know a tree by its fruit. I have read the bylaws that your church elders are crying out to amend. I think they do need amendment, they need it badly. Knowing what bylaws are - an agreement between any number of people to operate as a common entity through specified procedures for specified purposes for a specified period of time that is bonafied by registration with the government - one would expect a church's bylaws to reflect the Word of God. This is only logical. If the Lord expects the church to obey His Word, then its operation is going to be in obedience to the Word.
----I know the basic philosophy of the elders at that church quite well. I know how they make their decisions. I know their reactions when the Word of God is presented to them concerning matters of weakness. I would suggest the folks at that church begin studying their Bibles carefully and prayerfully, then scrutinize any suggested change to bylaws thoroughly. If those bylaws depart from close reflection of the Word, what chance will the church have to bear good fruit. I hope the Heroine will step forward and make Herself heard. If She doesn't do that now, She may be saddly leaving later.
Gail;
----Uh-humm, uh, pardon me. I've been rummaging again, uh, uh-hmm, may I repost September 15, 2006? I wondered what that reference to "Heroine" was:
September 15, 2006:
Gail;
----Who the heroine is and who the villain is is quite simple (sometimes the really simple answers are those that escape us the most). Why did you query who the "heroine" is? Why not who the hero is? Of course Jesus is the hero. All things are broken in this temporal life, thank God for the concepts of death and end. Only Jesus will fix everything, only Jesus can fix anything.
----But I know that is not your context. The parable of the farmer whose field was sown with tares the night after he had sown it with wheat has always been the template through which I see the church. The first appearance of a church is that of an organization. And that organization is run by man. Man always has something goofy to bring into it because he is so goofed up. So the First Church of Appearance is goofed up too, because it is man's church.
----But our Lord's Bride is not goofed up. She never ceases to follow Jesus because He is the head over Her. She is faithful to Him, not in that She never makes a mistake, but like David, in that She always returns to Him from Her mistakes. She loves Him, She knows Him, and She follows Him, not man. Open the Word of God and present it to Her and She will agree with it, not deny it. She is the Heroine.
----She is the wheat in the field. She is the church that is the second apparent, the one that you must be a part of in order to see Her, and in order to know Jesus. She is the fellowship of brothers and sisters who do not command each others' lives, but who exemplify to one another Scriptural godliness by the nature of Christ lived in their lives. By that godliness the things they do for the Lord are done, not by church structure.
----When She has had enough of the First Church of Appearnace, She always comes out of it and becomes apparent herself. She did in the Reformation, She did in the Great Awakening, She has in numerous awakenings of local communities in various places throughout Her age. And She will again.
----Who is the villain? He is the men who want to confine her to a church structure organized by their wily visions. If they were as concerned about Scripturally defined godliness as they are with their own visions, if they were as busy exemplifying that godliness as they are with subjecting their brethren to their own church organizations, then they also would have fellowship with the Heroine.
Post a Comment