Q # 2 - Regarding 1 Cor 5:12

[Sudsy]

1 Cor 5:12 - AMP

For what business is it of mine to judge outsiders (non-believers)? Do you not judge those who are within the church [to protect the church as the situation requires]?

How should a Christian understand this verse especially with regard to judging the actions of politicians ?

[Soloist]

1 Cor 5:12 - AMP

For what business is it of mine to judge outsiders (non-believers)? Do you not judge those who are within the church [to protect the church as the situation requires]?

How should a Christian understand this verse especially with regard to judging the actions of politicians ?

Lost cause here.

The Scripture is clear that we respect the authority and their rule when it does not conflict with the higher law.

[Sudsy]

Thoughts regarding this understanding -https://www.blueletterbible.org/faq/don ... rt_789.cfm

[Josh]

1 Cor 5:12 - AMP

For what business is it of mine to judge outsiders (non-believers)? Do you not judge those who are within the church [to protect the church as the situation requires]?

How should a Christian understand this verse especially with regard to judging the actions of politicians ?

It says we don’t engage in the kind of judgment of outsiders (church discipline, repentance, excommunication, brotherly admonishing) that we do of fellow church brethren.

I can still observe a drunkard and say, “He’s a drunkard.” I don’t think the Bible expects believers to somehow pretend that worldly, sinful people aren’t being sinful.

[Josh]

1 Cor 5:12 - AMP

For what business is it of mine to judge outsiders (non-believers)? Do you not judge those who are within the church [to protect the church as the situation requires]?

How should a Christian understand this verse especially with regard to judging the actions of politicians ?

Lost cause here.

The Scripture is clear that we respect the authority and their rule when it does not conflict with the higher law.

Yes, but with a customary understanding of what “law” is. As much as it aggravates some people, doing things like speeding 4 MPH over or speeding on the way to church Sunday is indeed lawful - and is recognised so by the courts. (This is called an “affirmative defence” in my state.)

[Sudsy]

Regarding the link I provided above. Thoughts on this being an example we should follow ?

It begins -

Jesus was the promised Messiah, the Christ. He had the right to rule over the entire nation of Israel. However, when we look at the public ministry of Jesus, we find that he avoided any involvement in the current political issues of his day.

I suspect many here disagree.

[Soloist]

Yes, but with a customary understanding of what “law” is. As much as it aggravates some people, doing things like speeding 4 MPH over or speeding on the way to church Sunday is indeed lawful - and is recognised so by the courts. (This is called an “affirmative defence” in my state.)

Yup this right here is why seekers struggle to integrate with conservatives. A book of standards that don’t mean what it says.

[Josh]

Yes, but with a customary understanding of what “law” is. As much as it aggravates some people, doing things like speeding 4 MPH over or speeding on the way to church Sunday is indeed lawful - and is recognised so by the courts. (This is called an “affirmative defence” in my state.)

Yup this right here is why seekers struggle to integrate with conservatives. A book of standards that don’t mean what it says.

I would dare say in my church most of the membership complies with our doctrinal statements and our core practices. (Some people have trouble submitting to conference decisions.)

Someone looking for very black and white adherence to a long list of written rules is going to be disappointed by Anabaptism.

[Soloist]

I would dare say in my church most of the membership complies with our doctrinal statements and our core practices. (Some people have trouble submitting to conference decisions.)

Someone looking for very black and white adherence to a long list of written rules is going to be disappointed by Anabaptism.

Doctrinal statements are easy to comply with. That’s never really the issue. You however, point out “most” and the rest are not dealt with because the standards don’t mean what they say.

you also exaggerate what I’m talking about.
For example, if a standard says “possession and use of an instrument is forbidden” the person who is fine speeding will say it doesn’t mean what it says and it’s okay playing instruments.
The rest by failing to address this make a general unwritten standard that becomes common practice and eventually it’s changed to reflect the new standard and the process repeats. The seeker desiring to comply and submit to a “godly” church obeys the rules that they didn’t grow up with and out of concern for others speaks to them by giving counsel. The counsel gets rejected as the seeker doesn’t understand what the actual standard is and is accused of being judgmental. The seeker is hurt and sees hypocrisy everywhere and eventually leaves.
Ultimately, standards or law that doesn’t mean what it says is no law at all. We either teach guidance or we teach law.
Asking why we have standards if they aren’t followed and dismissively responding a very black and white application doesn’t exist… that’s part of the problem.
Change the point and conflate the two as the same.

[Josh]

I would dare say in my church most of the membership complies with our doctrinal statements and our core practices. (Some people have trouble submitting to conference decisions.)

Someone looking for very black and white adherence to a long list of written rules is going to be disappointed by Anabaptism.

Doctrinal statements are easy to comply with. That’s never really the issue. You however, point out “most” and the rest are not dealt with because the standards don’t mean what they say.

None of the stuff I listed in my Sunday dress code list, for example, is even written down. We don't have very many "written standards". Most of our conference decisions are not about specific matters of practice like clothes.

you also exaggerate what I’m talking about.
For example, if a standard says “possession and use of an instrument is forbidden” the person who is fine speeding will say it doesn’t mean what it says and it’s okay playing instruments.

This means that as a general rule, the community would not have instruments, gather to play them, participate in bands, buy expensive instruments, etc.

It does not mean that someone should spend a lot of time worrying about their grandfather's harmonica in the attic or the spending a few minutes playing a friend's guitar if he hands it to you is a big deal.

The rest by failing to address this make a general unwritten standard that becomes common practice and eventually it’s changed to reflect the new standard and the process repeats. The seeker desiring to comply and submit to a “godly” church obeys the rules that they didn’t grow up with and out of concern for others speaks to them by giving counsel. The counsel gets rejected as the seeker doesn’t understand what the actual standard is and is accused of being judgmental. The seeker is hurt and sees hypocrisy everywhere and eventually leaves.

I think part of the problem is that seekers need to learn to think with nuance and adapt/learn the culture they are joining instead of dictating how it should be run.

Holdemans don't have a problem with possession or use of instruments (although my personal view is that things like a sound effects module are pretty much an "instrument", but that's a debate for another thread). But there is not some strict prohibition where I need to fear getting excommunicated if I rest my hand on my parents' piano, and frankly, I don't really want to be part of an institution like that.

Ultimately, standards or law that doesn’t mean what it says is no law at all. We either teach guidance or we teach law.
Asking why we have standards if they aren’t followed and dismissively responding a very black and white application doesn’t exist… that’s part of the problem.
Change the point and conflate the two as the same.

Maybe the issue at hand is that these things are not "law". They are guidance, albeit very important guidance, but guidance. Understanding why you shouldn't have instruments and the particulars of why we shouldn't is much more important than an almost-autistic approach to "I need to make sure I never touch something that could conceivably play a sound". How far is this to be extended? What about children's toys? Is my kid's Fisher Price nursery rhymes "record player" okay? I think it is. What about all manner of toys that if you press a button might play a jingle for a few seconds? One would almost need go out of the world to completely avoid such things.

Some things are basically "law" in scripture, such as death sins. We don't want to do those things as they do indeed bring sudden death. The things we have guidance for are more like things we know are dangerous and excessive exposure could lead to spiritual death some day, much like trans fats can eventually lead to a heart attack.