Transition to a more *liberal* church??

[Valerie]

If being and dressing conservative is directly related to being legalistic and therefore dead spiritually, then it must correspondingly follow that being extremely liberal in thought and dress makes one more spiritual and closer to God.
Is this what we see? I don't think so. So the rule, is not a rule at all. There is conservative people who love the Lord and walk in his way and are not blindly legalistic.

Isn't the concern being conveyed here- that it's possible to put one's faith into the 'fences' or 'standards' instead of in Christ, and the Holy Spirit doing the work in one's life? At least that is the feeling I'm getting- the shift off of THE foundation of Christ onto other ways of maintaining our walk & growing in the Lord, by the work of the Holy Spirit. Perhaps the Lord is trying to open eyes to this- it seems- if it takes extra rules to do this, isn't that what happened with the Pharisees? And yet, the Holy Spirit was poured out on the New Testament Church- the Apostles preached Christ and Him crucified- as our salvation- maybe He is trying to return us to this. We were at the Haiti Benefit Auction- the singers there "The Garment of Praise" seemed to be trying to convey this need to focus on the Cross- (while they were speaking, not just their singing). I had a feeling, they have a burden to see some change in Anabaptism, while being Anabaptist themselves.

[Neto]

I think I can identify with those statements. My own desire is to see people move away from depending on someone else to tell them what they cannot do (top-down standards), and develop the spiritual life that will lead them to set standards themselves, as a group (like a covenant agreement, where the statement of conduct for the congregation says things like "We believe that..." instead of "Members will not ...", or "... is not approved.").

I guess I lean toward what this guy says about this topic. Why not challenge this tradition altogether .

http://www.wordofhisgrace.org/wp/church ... -policies/

A couple of his excerpts that makes me question what man has done to further define what the New Covenant 'really means' in practise.

A church covenant or church membership policy, then, is a legalistic usurpation of the grace of the New Covenant. Quite frankly, I believe these covenants/policies to be attempts by the leadership of local churches to control the behavior of members with laws because the leadership does not have the faith to believe that Christians can be left to the care of the Holy Spirit and God’s Word (or, as Paul put it, commended “to God, and to the word of his grace” Acts 20:32). It seems to come down to a matter of control. Church covenants and membership policies are a means to exercise control over the members.

A church membership policy is, in essence, saying that the grace of the New Covenant, the in-dwelling of the Holy Spirit, and faith are insufficient. To these, we must add a law, called a church membership policy or church covenant. In response, I say with Paul, “This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh? Have ye suffered so many things in vain? if it be yet in vain. He therefore that ministereth to you the Spirit, and worketh miracles among you, doeth he it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?” (Galatians 3:2-5); and, “I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain” (Galatians 2:21).

However, I doubt few will back away from this practise or if they do they will likely be labelled 'liberal' to think Christianity can operate without these things. Looking forward to heaven when we all shall be like Him and none of this extra explanation on what this amounts to will be over.

I think that a statement of conduct standards written and used in a top down approach MAY be expressing a lack of trust on the part of the leadership toward the members (but not necessarily always). But a covenant statement of conduct is an expression of agreement in the voice of the congregation (or brotherhood, if you will) stating that each person who has chosen to fellowship as a part of that congregation is CHOOSING to live by this certain expression of their FAITH. It is an expression of Faith, made visible by conduct. I do not want to do away with the expression of chosen conduct standards - that would deprive me of brotherhood, of the support of others to live the Christian life. In a way this is not far from my experience in the Jesus People. I never had the experience of living in a commune, but living in close relationship with others gives one the benefit of others' strength when my own strength is weakness. I do not think that is indicative of no longer depending on God's grace to carry me through - it is through our relationships in the body that he empowers us to live as we should. Christian freedom is not, as some of my Bible college friends said, an obligation to do everything that the Bible does not forbid, so as not to be 'the weaker brother'. (Besides, I do not mind admitting that I am weak, or that I "have issues". I do. But I know where to go to get help. Yes, sometimes it is directly to God without any other person involved, but often it is through fellowship with other members of the Body of Christ.)

[RZehr]

If being and dressing conservative is directly related to being legalistic and therefore dead spiritually, then it must correspondingly follow that being extremely liberal in thought and dress makes one more spiritual and closer to God.
Is this what we see? I don't think so. So the rule, is not a rule at all. There is conservative people who love the Lord and walk in his way and are not blindly legalistic.

Isn't the concern being conveyed here- that it's possible to put one's faith into the 'fences' or 'standards' instead of in Christ, and the Holy Spirit doing the work in one's life?

That may be the concern, sure. And if what I said is true, then it is still possible to precisely address that concern and remain conservative. This concern may certainly be more valid and prevalent with conservatives than liberals.

I'm not really saying that steve-in-kville needs to stay and fix the church he is at. I know nothing about him or his situation. Although that might be an option.

[Sudsy]

I think that a statement of conduct standards written and used in a top down approach MAY be expressing a lack of trust on the part of the leadership toward the members (but not necessarily always). But a covenant statement of conduct is an expression of agreement in the voice of the congregation (or brotherhood, if you will) stating that each person who has chosen to fellowship as a part of that congregation is CHOOSING to live by this certain expression of their FAITH. It is an expression of Faith, made visible by conduct. I do not want to do away with the expression of chosen conduct standards - that would deprive me of brotherhood, of the support of others to live the Christian life. In a way this is not far from my experience in the Jesus People. I never had the experience of living in a commune, but living in close relationship with others gives one the benefit of others' strength when my own strength is weakness. I do not think that is indicative of no longer depending on God's grace to carry me through - it is through our relationships in the body that he empowers us to live as we should. Christian freedom is not, as some of my Bible college friends said, an obligation to do everything that the Bible does not forbid, so as not to be 'the weaker brother'. (Besides, I do not mind admitting that I am weak, or that I "have issues". I do. But I know where to go to get help. Yes, sometimes it is directly to God without any other person involved, but often it is through fellowship with other members of the Body of Christ.)

Regarding what I underlined - My rambling thoughts - To me, this is what Paul was speaking against in the Corinthian church. In the family of God (those born again) we have split up, not only over secondary doctrines, but in our specific expressions of how we want our faith group to practise their Christianity. Some of us choose to follow what we call conservative ways while others not so conservative ways. I suspect this is thought to be necessary to create unity in a local fellowship if we all live according to a selected way of living. So, we end up with this wide array of Christian practise within the family of God that I doubt was ever intended to happen and must be very puzzling to those outside the family of God. I think this, in itself, reflects the carnality of Christians. And the more we separate ourselves from others in the family of God (other born again churches) the more carnal or worldly minded we have become.

I really don't see this being supported in the NT. To me, this division is a man created thing and fellowship should be possible within the family of God allowing for spiritual growth to take place and accepting that we don't need to try to force our version of conduct on others to be in fellowship with them. I believe Romans 14 and this text in 1 Cor 3 says we shouldn't go there but we did. And I think a text like 1 Cor 5 is used to support some of this standard conduct creation to keep the leaven out of the church. So, each little group of Christians develop their own list of required conduct to keep the church pure. And more carnality shows up when one group looks down their noses at another group, sometimes even questioning their Christianity over their conduct.

I think brotherhood was never meant to be as segregated as we make it. We do need fellowship within the Church that God has created and to some degree we have that here in this forum. One thing I have enjoyed and still do enjoy is the fellowship I have with Christians with various faith labels. I really don't see all this segregating to occur in heaven where we all will be one as the Bride of Christ.

Anyway, unless convinced otherwise, I likely will not officially commit to a set of common practises but will join in as much as allowed with a group of believers in Christ for fellowship.

[Neto]

.... But a covenant statement of conduct is an expression of agreement in the voice of the congregation (or brotherhood, if you will) stating that each person who has chosen to fellowship as a part of that congregation is CHOOSING to live by this certain expression of their FAITH. ....

Regarding what I underlined - My rambling thoughts - To me, this is what Paul was speaking against in the Corinthian church. In the family of God (those born again) we have split up, not only over secondary doctrines, but in our specific expressions of how we want our faith group to practise their Christianity. ....

I really don't see this being supported in the NT. To me, this division is a man created thing and fellowship should be possible within the family of God allowing for spiritual growth to take place and accepting that we don't need to try to force our version of conduct on others to be in fellowship with them. I believe Romans 14 and this text in 1 Cor 3 says we shouldn't go there but we did. And I think a text like 1 Cor 5 is used to support some of this standard conduct creation to keep the leaven out of the church. So, each little group of Christians develop their own list of required conduct to keep the church pure. And more carnality shows up when one group looks down their noses at another group, sometimes even questioning their Christianity over their conduct.

I think brotherhood was never meant to be as segregated as we make it. We do need fellowship within the Church that God has created and to some degree we have that here in this forum. One thing I have enjoyed and still do enjoy is the fellowship I have with Christians with various faith labels. I really don't see all this segregating to occur in heaven where we all will be one as the Bride of Christ.

Anyway, unless convinced otherwise, I likely will not officially commit to a set of common practises but will join in as much as allowed with a group of believers in Christ for fellowship.

Please note my choice of words: choosing, not requiring, or expecting. Certainly not forcing.

I do agree that the Body of Christ has become fractured over various issues. And it pains me, too. (I have that much Jesus Freak left in me, that I still desire to see what the chorus said: "We are one in the Spirit, we are one in the Lord, ... and we pray that all unity may one day be restored, and they'll know we are Christians by our love,...") Peace, Brother.

[Josh]

My former fellowship, with a member church a mile down the road from me, nowadays preaches from the pulpit that Jesus could be merely a man, or a prophet, or an idea - that it's not important if he is God or not and that what matters is his teachings.

Simultaneously they also fellowship with full hearted acceptance of practicing homosexuals in ministry positions.

I do not think I am being "divisive" when I choose not to live in close fellowship with them. Yet I do focus on judging those within instead of without. But at some point boundaries must be drawn.

[haithabu]

My former fellowship, with a member church a mile down the road from me, nowadays preaches from the pulpit that Jesus could be merely a man, or a prophet, or an idea - that it's not important if he is God or not and that what matters is his teachings.

Simultaneously they also fellowship with full hearted acceptance of practicing homosexuals in ministry positions.

I do not think I am being "divisive" when I choose not to live in close fellowship with them. Yet I do focus on judging those within instead of without. But at some point boundaries must be drawn.

I couldn't see myself in good conscience becoming a member of such a church because I would feel that simply becoming a member would be to implicitly affirm what the church affirms and hence my membership might become a stumbling block to a seeker or a new believer.

At the same time I would probably be able to fellowship with many individuals in such a church because there always seems to be life that lingers on in the grass roots even after the leadership has become unmoored spiritually.

As far as other differences are concerned such as church standards, I look at it as a lay Catholic might look at various religious orders that each have a different rule of life. The standards are a form of spiritual discipline which may vary between groups but the objective is the same, and in Christ and in the Holy Spirit we have a common communion.

[Hats Off]

.... But a covenant statement of conduct is an expression of agreement in the voice of the congregation (or brotherhood, if you will) stating that each person who has chosen to fellowship as a part of that congregation is CHOOSING to live by this certain expression of their FAITH. ...

Please note my choice of words: choosing, not requiring, or expecting. Certainly not forcing.

I do agree that the Body of Christ has become fractured over various issues. And it pains me, too. (I have that much Jesus Freak left in me, that I still desire to see what the chorus said: "We are one in the Spirit, we are one in the Lord, ... and we pray that all unity may one day be restored, and they'll know we are Christians by our love,...") Peace, Brother.

[/quote]
That is a point that I always try to make - must of our standards are not top-down impositions that we reluctantly bare (bear?) - we have chosen to fellowship with this brotherhood. We take part in church counsel where we make our concerns known. I may not always agree with all of the standards - sometimes preferring something more "conservative" and in other areas something more "liberal" but I have chosen to accept the standards.

[Sudsy]

Please note my choice of words: choosing, not requiring, or expecting. Certainly not forcing.

I do agree that the Body of Christ has become fractured over various issues. And it pains me, too. (I have that much Jesus Freak left in me, that I still desire to see what the chorus said: "We are one in the Spirit, we are one in the Lord, ... and we pray that all unity may one day be restored, and they'll know we are Christians by our love,...") Peace, Brother.

Noted, thanks Neto. Personally, I would support being allowed to be a member of a church even though one does not sign a standard covenant of conduct ? Some may believe Jas 5:12 "But above all things, my brethren, swear not, neither by heaven, neither by the earth, neither by any other oath: but let your yea be yea; and your nay, nay; lest ye fall into condemnation." would apply to not committing to a church covenant of conduct. In that case I would think Romans 14 applies.

Here is the kind of conduct covenant I am most familiar with. I would have no problem with something similar (with a couple alterations) if it was referred to as something other than a covenant. Perhaps replacing the underlined in the first paragraph with ' and understanding that we all have our failings in living the Christian life, we will strive where applicable to work out our salvation with other believers as follows'.

“Having been led, as we believe, by Spirit of God, to receive the Lord Jesus Christ as our Savior, and on the profession of our faith, having been baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, we do now in the presence of God, angels, and this assembly, most solemnly and joyfully enter into covenant with one another, as one body in Christ.

“We engage therefore, by the aid of the Holy Spirit, to walk together in Christian love; to strive for the advancement of this church in knowledge, holiness, and comfort; to promote its prosperity and spirituality, to sustain its worship, ordinances, discipline, and doctrines; to contribute cheerfully and regularly to the support of the ministry, the expenses of the church, the relief of the poor, and the spread of the gospel through all nations.

“We also engage to maintain family and secret devotion; to religiously educate our children’ to seek the salvation of our kindred and acquaintances; to walk circumspectly in the world; to be just in our dealings, faithful in our engagements, and exemplary in our deportment; to avoid all tattling, backbiting, and excessive anger. To abstain from the sale and use of intoxicating drinks as a beverage, and to be zealous in our efforts to advance the kingdom of our Savior.

“We further engage to watch over one another in brotherly love; to remember each other in prayer, to aid each other in sickness and distress; to cultivate Christian sympathy in feeling and courtesy in speech; to be slow to take offense, but always ready for reconciliation, and mindful of the rules of our Savior to secure it without delay.

“We moreover engage that when we remove from this place, we will as soon as possible unite with some other church, where we can carry out the spirit of this covenant and the principles of God’s Word”

In churches I have been part of with something similar to this, this covenant was seldom referred to after initial acceptance. I suspect most who agreed to it, never went back and checked out how they were measuring up to it later on. I know I didn't.

[ken_sylvania]

I would have no problem with something similar (with a couple alterations) if it was referred to as something other than a covenant. Perhaps replacing the underlined in the first paragraph with ' and understanding that we all have our failings in living the Christian life, we will strive where applicable to work out our salvation with other believers as follows'.

“Having been led, as we believe, by Spirit of God, to receive the Lord Jesus Christ as our Savior, and on the profession of our faith, having been baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, we do now in the presence of God, angels, and this assembly, most solemnly and joyfully enter into covenant with one another, as one body in Christ.

How what does James 5:12 have to do with covenants? I've never heard of a person being asked to swear to or by the church standards...

And are you suggesting that a promise (we will strive ... as follows) is less binding if it is not called a covenant? Or is it the "where applicable" that lets a person off the hook? I'm a bit confused...