Joining a church vs Actually obeying the rules

[GoodGirl]

Please don’t be judgey, not saying anyone would be, but just… truly, what would you tell the imaginary wife..?

Is this cause for hellfire, for agreeing to obey church rules & then not, despite what everyone else does?

[RZehr]

If this couple was not raised in any Mennonite church, I would give that husband more time and space to work through these issues. Having said that, I think he may in fact feel convicted on these things if he feels compelled to keep them a secret. Maybe not guilty for the thing in and of itself, but guilty for doing what isn’t allowed. Keeping secrets is a big tell.
I’d like to see him converse with the leaders about what he is doing and go from there. Whatever they say, or whatever he chooses to do then, at least isn’t a secret. Once something isn’t a secret, then you can work out the next step.
Of course this will require trust in the leaders and courage. But if he has neither, he might as well save everyone and leave now, because he will surely leave later.

[Sudsy]

I’m going to try to keep this hypothetical, to protect the guilty people I know & love.

Say a nice family joins an ultra conservative church, with huge coverings tied under the chin, no internet, no music, the whole nine yards, as per the brotherhood agreement.

One spouse thinks what he does in his bedroom privately on his own time (movies, wine, whatever) is none of the church’s business, as long as he conducts himself properly the rest of the time…

The other spouse (who shares the bedroom & so the bedroom activities) feels like they themselves are going to hell for being ‘dishonest’ to the brotherhood agreement they agreed to, but OTOH, they don’t actually believe watching a movie or having wine, etc, is a sin… they just feel dishonest, and so feel like they won’t make it to heaven for being a ‘liar’ & unfaithful to the brotherhood agreement.

To make it more complicated, it seems like ‘everyone’ (at least 3/4 of the church) breaks the brotherhood agreement, so spouse number one argues that ‘why should they practically be the only ones to keep it’?

Basically, if something isn’t a sin (say having a glass of wine), but your brotherhood agreement says no, and you have a glass of wine anyway… you are being dishonest, right? Would you go to hell for the dishonesty?

Sincerely asking.

(And yes, it would be better to just go to a church you can agree with, but assume that’s not happening, due to spouse number one not seeing a problem.)

To the underlined - my salvation is based on my belief in what Jesus did to save me from hell and not my perfect obedience.

[GoodGirl]

[/quote]

To the underlined - my salvation is based on my belief in what Jesus did to save me from hell and not my perfect obedience.
[/quote]

Yes! I agree.

[Soloist]

Please don’t be judgey, not saying anyone would be, but just… truly, what would you tell the imaginary wife..?

Is this cause for hellfire, for agreeing to obey church rules & then not, despite what everyone else does?

The Bible is clear. Jesus said “But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.”

I would think if one joined saying “I’ll follow the rules as much as others do and as little as others do”….
They wouldn’t let you join. Hypocrisy? Yes but it does seem like the ministry doesn’t want to be constantly policing its members and would prefer their members follow due to conviction. One might fairly ask why we even bother with standards if no one follows them.
You have to weigh what you believe God tells us and attempt to follow that faithfully.
I would rather not be a member then a hypocritical member.
If you say “I agree to uphold the standards” and then don’t, either the church didn’t update something commonly understood to not apply anymore or you are a liar. Just because everyone lies doesn’t make it right. We stand before God accountable for ourselves and our actions or inaction.

[ken_sylvania]

To clarify - is it nice family that has the big coverings, no internet, no music, etc or is it the church they joined?
Or both?
Or both only because the family adapted their prior practice to match the church?

I don't think the wife should feel guilty about what her husband does. Nor do I think she needs to feel like she has an obligation to "tell on" him to the ministry.
I would be concerned though about the lack of authenticity in her husband's life, as well as in her own life if she joins in these activities. Regardless of whether it is a sin that will damn her to hell, I'm afraid the pretense and duplicity is going to wreak havoc in her family. The children are going to know. Maybe not specifically everything, but there is no way this is going to happen long term without the children figuring out that what Dad (and maybe Mom) pretends to be is not what they really are.

Does Dad care if his children watch movies in their bedrooms? Does Mom care? Or are they "mature" enough to handle the influence that would be damaging to their children?

[Neto]

I would want to ask each of them why they joined, and specifically if one was "pushing" to do so more than the other. Aside from that information we do not have, I would tell the wife that she is not responsible for what her husband does. Now if you consider the OT Law (and yes, I think there is a place for that, to draw principles from it, and also because Jesus had a very high view of the Law & the Prophets), then if the situation were the other way around (that is, the wife doing things that the husband knows about, but doesn't approve), then the husband has the responsibility to 'negate' the 'vow' the wife made. According to the Law, this actually makes her not responsible for the vow, if she breaks it. But that context is in general about irrational vows, which is not what this is about. So, I've talked myself in a corner where I have to admit that I don't know if it applies, even by application.

But the "excuses" that they have (especially the husband, it appears) due to the double standards as reflected in the rest of the congregation; that is, I think, the central issue. The congregation needs to either change their behavior, or change their guidelines. As a "grafted in" person myself, I get really disgusted when the guidelines are changed to reflect the actual conduct. That just side-steps the real issue you pointed out - the dishonesty involved in the conduct of perhaps even most of the people. As an outsider who came into this type of setting really gung-ho, I think that an issue should be discussed BEFORE more than a very few have already gone their own way.

If that has already happened, then I think it would be a good idea if the entire congregation would be asked, and consent, to give up the activity in question for some set period of time (say, 6 months), after which a discussion would be taken up again. (I have heard of couples who were "shacking up", when they became Christians and began to be convicted about not being married, being 'asked' by the pastor - required, really - to live separately for a set period of time before he agrees to marry them. Then he uses that period of time, the 6 months, to meet with the couple frequently, giving counsel, and teaching them to honor one another in the proper manner. - Especially for the man to honor the woman.)

Questions should be asked when a question of changing the guidelines first comes up: (That is, before people start doing it.)
What was the purpose of the decision to take that position originally?
Do the reasons no longer apply?
Are the dangers that were to be guarded against no longer there?
Is there a different approach that can adequately deal with the perceived or real dangers of the activity in question?
Can the activity in question be done in moderation w/o the undesirable ill-effects?
Is this an area where those who can "handle" this activity while still maintaining faith with God - living in the gaze of the Father - should give up their "right" to engage in it out of love for those who cannot deal with it?
Is it a situation where certain members are "play-acting" as the "weaker brother" in order to control others - just to exercise power?

EDIT: It takes me a long time to write out my thoughts, and proof read them, so the three previous posts were made while I was doing that.

[ohio jones]

Questions should be asked when a question of changing the guidelines first comes up: (That is, before people start doing it.)
What was the purpose of the decision to take that position originally?
Do the reasons no longer apply?
Are the dangers that were to be guarded against no longer there?
Is there a different approach that can adequately deal with the perceived or real dangers of the activity in question?
Can the activity in question be done in moderation w/o the undesirable ill-effects?
Is this an area where those who can "handle" this activity while still maintaining faith with God - living in the gaze of the Father - should give up their "right" to engage in it out of love for those who cannot deal with it?
Is it a situation where certain members are "play-acting" as the "weaker brother" in order to control others - just to exercise power?

That's an excellent set of questions, Neto. Thanks.

[Josh]

Yeah, said husband probably shouldn’t have joined this particular church in the first place, but he liked the people & the ‘spirit’ of the church~ with good reason.

And he doesn’t think he’s doing anything wrong, since it’s private, on his own time, etc.

The wife doesn’t mind the actual activities necessarily (in moderation)…. she just thinks it might fall under the sin of lying, which opens the door to going to hell.

It’s a hard one.

He is in need of instruction of following a godly life from men who are sincere about following Jesus, including when Jesus is the only one watching.

The hardest is the other people at church who break the rules & act like it’s normal. SO confusing.

Like internet is not allowed, but the Bishop will say off-handed, “Well, when we were in the car lot, I had my wife check the prices online (on her phone)…” and the other wife with the aforementioned husband is thinking like “Um, what? Internet on phones is a huge no-no” (supposedly).

How is this supposed to work?

It doesn't. "How long shall ye halt between two opinions? If the LORD is God, follow him; but if Baal, then follow him." The husband is following the bad example he has seen. It is not godly nor Christian to teach and claim one thing, and then do another. Jesus had harsh words for the religious experts in the law who did this exact thing.

"Beware of the scribes, which desire to walk in long robes, and love greetings in the markets, and the highest seats in the synagogues, and the chief rooms at feasts; Which devour widows' houses, and for a shew make long prayers: the same shall receive greater damnation."

I’m sorry but I saw Pirates of the Caribbean a million years ago, and all I can think is the saying from the movie about how they’re “not so much rules as guidelines”…. Did anyone else see that movie?

I saw the various films in this less than a million years ago, and yes. "Welcome aboard."

[quote[The family is totally from the world, no religious background whatsoever. And the husband does not ever think his children know what goes on in the bedroom, but the wife (who is closer to the children) knows better.
[/quote]

I will levy an even greater responsibility (and condemnation) on the false teachers and lax leaders who allow this kind of thing to go on: "Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers and sisters, because you know that we will be judged more strictly."

The church's primary function should be to instruct those who were "unchurched" and did not grow up in a godly home, or have not lived Christian lives, how they may now live in the fear and instruction of the Lord. I would daresay that this institution has failed in its primary directive.

"Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves."

[Josh]

Please don’t be judgey, not saying anyone would be, but just… truly, what would you tell the imaginary wife..?

Is this cause for hellfire, for agreeing to obey church rules & then not, despite what everyone else does?

I would probably advise her to seek counsel from a godly older woman (perhaps this is you?) From there, frankly, I would find that she may be in a double bind. Normally, someone with an unbelieving spouse has a bit of "leeway" to be around television, movies, etc. and will be rather open about this. When it is introduced to the home (and particularly when the children now), this is quite a bit of a problem.

If I were in her shoes, or advising her for some reason, I would advise her to tell her husband that the issue is weighing on her conscience and eventually she needs to talk to someone about it, but it would be better if he could go discuss it with a trusted advisor first.