|
Post by DumSpiroSpero on Sept 15, 2010 1:43:55 GMT -5
I'm new here - been registered as a member for a while...
Just become aware of a situation in Qld Australia where a lady who has married an 'outsider' has been directed by the workers not to take part in the meetings. She's not taking it lying down and has insisted that they have no right to prevent her from partaking in the Lords Supper, but has stopped taking part.
It seems that as she's made 'an error of judgment' in marrying a non-professing man that her testimony is of no value. Also reeks of a punishment.
I've studied the 'unequally yoked' verses and it seems to be about a lot more than marriage. There is reference to Christ vs Belial and Light vs Darkness - is this more about who we are more than who we are married to? More about conflict within ourselves - not serving "two masters" - not going to church on Sunday and to the pub on Friday - there seem to be a lot of "religious" connotations there about temples and idols etc - Paul was not given so much to talking with riddles - he hits on stuff in a pretty direct manner. Any clues as to the actual context of his words to the Corinthians?
Anyway - I've been looking for some passage that says "Thou shalt not marry a non-professing person, and if thou dost, thou shalt not have thy part in the meeting" - Jesus said seek and ye shall find, and that is always very true, however, in this case, I can't find any scriptural reference that supports the way this lady is being treated.
Could this be because there is no scriptural basis to the workers direction about her situation?
|
|
|
Post by JO on Sept 15, 2010 2:12:28 GMT -5
I don't know of any sound scriptural basis, but I'd be interested to know what scriptural reason the workers would give.
I think the workers have enough immorality within their own ranks to attend to, without hassling this poor lady.
|
|
|
Post by someguy on Sept 15, 2010 9:47:02 GMT -5
As far as I am aware, this is nothing more than legalism. I had a good friend who wrote me sometime ago telling me of this situation and it wasn't long before the workers asked him and his wife to no longer come to meetings.
Good luck finding the verses...they don't exist. Talk about alienating your flock.
|
|
|
Post by JO on Sept 15, 2010 14:36:38 GMT -5
Its amazing how today's ministry is destroying what the early workers built through blood, sweat and tears.
|
|
|
Post by DumSpiroSpero on Sept 15, 2010 16:24:32 GMT -5
Thanks guys for your responses - this case is pretty recent - your thoughts pretty much reflect mine.
I'm really hoping for some explanation(s) from one of the friends or workers who can speak with authority on the matter. As it doesn't seem scriptural, there must be some doctrinal or legal basis to it which would seem at odds with claims of 'no book but the bible'.
This lady is extraordinarily strong in her faith, her parents are good, hearty, faithful folk but some of the 'have nots' that have never had the Sunday morning meeting allocated to their home, her siblings left the 'way' years ago, but she's stayed strong through her own convictions and love for God. She's also wanting to show a good example to her husband, however I think the workers have made it fairly difficult for him to see the 'way' to be any more than a cult that emotionally abuses and controls its adherents.
I'd appreciate a solid scriptural explanation of this position.
|
|
|
Post by JO on Sept 15, 2010 17:25:30 GMT -5
I expect the only verses you'll get from workers is the "unequally yoked" ones. They conveniently forget the "do not judge verses".
If necessary they'll pull out the "authority" verses, claiming to be Jesus in the flesh.
In the last several decades I've seen more people come into the fellowship and remain from romantic relationships than all the efforts of workers to reach outsiders.
If workers stopped condemning this poor woman and instead embraced her and her husband there would be a greater chance of good coming from it.
They'd be better to leave the 99 who have no need for repentance and put more effort into seeking lost sheep.
|
|
shushy
Royal Member
Warning
50%
Posts: 8,009
|
Post by shushy on Sept 15, 2010 17:45:42 GMT -5
I'm new here - been registered as a member for a while... Hi and welcome Just become aware of a situation in Qld Australia where a lady who has married an 'outsider' has been directed by the workers not to take part in the meetings. She's not taking it lying down and has insisted that they have no right to prevent her from partaking in the Lords Supper, but has stopped taking part. This is a typical response to control people. They do not have the right to stop her from partaking of the emblems. She is married. What about the scripture that says 'let no man put asunder what god has joined together. She has a legal document and is married in the eyes of the law.It seems that as she's made 'an error of judgment' in marrying a non-professing man that her testimony is of no value. Also reeks of a punishment. Whether this is true only time can reveal that. Not a worker. What say the man accepts christ in 20yr time. what will they say then? I've studied the 'unequally yoked' verses and it seems to be about a lot more than marriage. There is reference to Christ vs Belial and Light vs Darkness - is this more about who we are more than who we are married to? More about conflict within ourselves - not serving "two masters" - not going to church on Sunday and to the pub on Friday - there seem to be a lot of "religious" connotations there about temples and idols etc - Paul was not given so much to talking with riddles - he hits on stuff in a pretty direct manner. Any clues as to the actual context of his words to the Corinthians? I heard a bit of preaching about being equally yoked in marriage and it will work while the husband is treating the wife as he should, loving and cherishing her as Christ did the church. Sadly a lot of marriages do not reflect this. Nor does the wife love and cherish her husband. Why dont the workers see that if this husband is loving her as he should then that is a good thing.I do believe you can have a good marriage if the love factor is operating properly the unequallying could be through unfaithfulness, betrayal, no trust. This is far worse for a christian to bear inside the church than to be married to a faithful non christian. Personally I would prefer the second. Anyway - I've been looking for some passage that says "Thou shalt not marry a non-professing person, You wont find itand if thou dost, thou shalt not have thy part in the meeting" - Jesus said seek and ye shall find, and that is always very true, however, in this case, I can't find any scriptural reference that supports the way this lady is being treated. Could this be because there is no scriptural basis to the workers direction about her situation?
|
|
|
Post by open mind on Sept 15, 2010 17:59:53 GMT -5
Does the husband believe in God and Jesus dying for our sins? If so the "unequally yoked" verses are void..
Also maybe refer to these verses:
1 Timothy 4:2-4 (English Standard Version)
2 through the insincerity of liars whose consciences are seared, 3 who forbid marriage and require abstinence from foods that God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth. 4 For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving,
|
|
|
Post by rational on Sept 15, 2010 19:41:33 GMT -5
Just become aware of a situation in Qld Australia where a lady who has married an 'outsider' has been directed by the workers not to take part in the meetings. She's not taking it lying down and has insisted that they have no right to prevent her from partaking in the Lords Supper, but has stopped taking part. You (and your example) are looking at this from the wrong point of view. Imagine the F&W as a club that has rules. One rule of this club is that you cannot sit on the merry-go-round if you drink Ginger Ale. When you join the club they tell you the rule. You think it is stupid but for some reason you want to be a member of the club. 12 years, 5 months, 18 days, 7 hours, 14 minutes, and 12 seconds later you mistakenly pick up a drink and consume it. It is ginger ale but it tastes so good you quickly finish it. After you toss your plastic cup out you fail to see a figure in a dark coat retrieve it using sterile hemostats and place it in a sealed evidence bag. The cup is flown to Kuala Lumpur for initial testing and then back to Salmon Arm in Canada for DNA testing before being sent on to Kamloops for ginger ale testing in its state of the art laboratory. Your DNA - Ginger ale. You are off the merry-go-round. There is a club. They have rules. You became a member. You broke the rules. They have no right to keep you off all merry-go-rounds but they have every right to keep you off theirs. What is she thinking? It is their religion. Their rules. She has every right to start her own religion based on her current one with the exception that you can marry outside of your species faith. Trying to show biblical verses is useless. You broke a rule.
|
|
|
Post by DumSpiroSpero on Sept 15, 2010 21:24:09 GMT -5
rationalSo it's legalism, pure and simple? Where is the rule book?
|
|
|
Post by rational on Sept 15, 2010 21:57:32 GMT -5
rationalSo it's legalism, pure and simple? Where is the rule book? Oh that. Let me know the situation and I will create locate the rule.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 15, 2010 22:00:32 GMT -5
rationalSo it's legalism, pure and simple? Where is the rule book? Oh that. Let me know the situation and I will create locate the rule. And this will be in: The Authorized Rational Version, the New Rational Version or the Living Rational Version?
|
|
|
Post by open mind on Sept 15, 2010 23:51:38 GMT -5
Just become aware of a situation in Qld Australia where a lady who has married an 'outsider' has been directed by the workers not to take part in the meetings. She's not taking it lying down and has insisted that they have no right to prevent her from partaking in the Lords Supper, but has stopped taking part. You (and your example) are looking at this from the wrong point of view. Imagine the F&W as a club that has rules. One rule of this club is that you cannot sit on the merry-go-round if you drink Ginger Ale. When you join the club they tell you the rule. You think it is stupid but for some reason you want to be a member of the club. 12 years, 5 months, 18 days, 7 hours, 14 minutes, and 12 seconds later you mistakenly pick up a drink and consume it. It is ginger ale but it tastes so good you quickly finish it. After you toss your plastic cup out you fail to see a figure in a dark coat retrieve it using sterile hemostats and place it in a sealed evidence bag. The cup is flown to Kuala Lumpur for initial testing and then back to Salmon Arm in Canada for DNA testing before being sent on to Kamloops for ginger ale testing in its state of the art laboratory. Your DNA - Ginger ale. You are off the merry-go-round. There is a club. They have rules. You became a member. You broke the rules. They have no right to keep you off all merry-go-rounds but they have every right to keep you off theirs. What is she thinking? It is their religion. Their rules. She has every right to start her own religion based on her current one with the exception that you can marry outside of your species faith. Trying to show biblical verses is useless. You broke a rule. I disagree (not a good thing to say to Rational, I know!) The workers have preached (in our area anyway, cant speak for globally) that they dont have any rules, so how could this lady have broken a rule, when according to the leaders of the church there is no mandated rule. Also with the club analogy, you would sign an agreement with the club to abide by written rules of which you would be given a copy, as far as I know there is nothing of the sort given out when you profess. All you are told is the bible is your guide.... (I am sure you will come back and hammer me somehow Rational)
|
|
|
Post by ronhall on Sept 16, 2010 8:03:34 GMT -5
I'm new here - been registered as a member for a while... Just become aware of a situation in Qld Australia where a lady who has married an 'outsider' has been directed by the workers not to take part in the meetings. She's not taking it lying down and has insisted that they have no right to prevent her from partaking in the Lords Supper, but has stopped taking part. It seems that as she's made 'an error of judgment' in marrying a non-professing man that her testimony is of no value. Also reeks of a punishment. I've studied the 'unequally yoked' verses and it seems to be about a lot more than marriage. There is reference to Christ vs Belial and Light vs Darkness - is this more about who we are more than who we are married to? More about conflict within ourselves - not serving "two masters" - not going to church on Sunday and to the pub on Friday - there seem to be a lot of "religious" connotations there about temples and idols etc - Paul was not given so much to talking with riddles - he hits on stuff in a pretty direct manner. Any clues as to the actual context of his words to the Corinthians?Anyway - I've been looking for some passage that says "Thou shalt not marry a non-professing person, and if thou dost, thou shalt not have thy part in the meeting" - Jesus said seek and ye shall find, and that is always very true, however, in this case, I can't find any scriptural reference that supports the way this lady is being treated. Could this be because there is no scriptural basis to the workers direction about her situation? If you go to the commentaries available in the Blue Letter Bible on line, or other places that have commentaries they will give the social/political background for the Corinthian letters. The situation at that time that caused this comment was much greater than being married to an outsider. To me, it is really interesting what was generally going on in Corinth. Paul goes into marriage to outsiders in other scriptures, if you are interested. Probably most conversions of the day were where one marriage partner believed and that other didn't. Of course, he didn't restrict believing because the believer was married to someone who didn't yet believe. He encouraged them to live a Christian life before their non-believer mate in the hope that the non-believer would desire to also believe. Seems like a win-win combination to me!
|
|
|
Post by hope on Sept 16, 2010 17:50:00 GMT -5
In theory if someone is truly passionate about their faith - it consumes them (I'm talking about faith in God, not just the habit of going to church/meeting). As you search for deeper meaning you want to be able to discuss, debate, live it out. If you are with someone who is not like minded there is going to be a clash.. and misunderstanding. I was engaged and we broke off the engagement because we just couldn't connect spiritually. I loved him and everything else was great, but him not being able to understand and connect with me on something this important really left a hole in the r'ship. Now... that said... I think its good to advise people looking for a partner to pick someone like minded. However if someone has already married someone who is not a believer, then the command say - remain as you are (married) and show by your good deeds and words that you are a christian that they might also believe.
Once the marriage is in place the church needs to stop its "in theory" talk and stand behind their member. This woman already is at odds with her husband spiritually she needs the church to support her and spiritually provide support to her that he husband is not able to do yet. Also to pray with her that he has an encounter with God so that they can share in the Joy of life with the Lord together. the church should be a loving, open minded, welcoming place for him - by default because she is part of them = she is a "member" and no one harms their own body but takes care of it.
Giving advice about not being unequally yoked is all very well BEFORE the marriage, but afterwards not so much. We need to not let legalism get in the way of making loving, good choices with what we have.
Also - the unequally yoked can be about business partners too - a godly business partner being yoked with someone whose tendency it is to cheat. the godly one may get dragged into that by joining with someone whose idea of doing business is less straight shooting.
|
|
|
Post by open mind on Sept 16, 2010 18:28:25 GMT -5
This woman already is at odds with her husband spiritually she needs the church to support her and spiritually provide support to her that he husband is not able to do yet. You are assuming that the husband is an unbeliever...i dont think that the OP indicated that the husband doesnt believe, it only indicated that he didnt "profess" in the F&W way..
|
|
|
Post by emy on Sept 16, 2010 19:07:29 GMT -5
The description of this woman would indicate that she would clearly have known that her marriage would result in what happened. Proceeding with the marriage clearly shows which was most important to her. (Note how Hope chose when faced with a similar decision.)
This is NOT to say that I agree with shutting out someone who marries a person outside of the fellowship.
|
|
|
Post by DumSpiroSpero on Sept 16, 2010 19:47:20 GMT -5
Thanks to all for the responses. As far as I understand, the husband is Catholic, and therefore, while not 'professing' apparently not an unbeliever. I have asked for an explanation and advice from friends or workers, and not being familiar with, or knowing any of the members posting responses, don't know your background. There are some who I can safely assume are ex's (as am I), and some who may be... emy, I referred to her as a lady, not a woman. Somehow you've put her down a little by referring to her as "this woman". You've also made some assumptions about what she knew to be "the rules" and that she made a decision between one and the other. Why make these sort of generalisations? hope, openmind, shushy, jesusonly and ronhall - you have shown some kindness in your assessment of this situation that demonstrates an attitude of love and empathy. Thank you all for that
|
|
|
Post by emy on Sept 16, 2010 21:17:06 GMT -5
Thanks to all for the responses. As far as I understand, the husband is Catholic, and therefore, while not 'professing' apparently not an unbeliever. I have asked for an explanation and advice from friends or workers, and not being familiar with, or knowing any of the members posting responses, don't know your background. There are some who I can safely assume are ex's (as am I), and some who may be... emy, I referred to her as a lady, not a woman. Somehow you've put her down a little by referring to her as "this woman". You've also made some assumptions about what she knew to be "the rules" and that she made a decision between one and the other. Why make these sort of generalisations? hope, openmind, shushy, jesusonly and ronhall - you have shown some kindness in your assessment of this situation that demonstrates an attitude of love and empathy. Thank you all for that I did not intend any disrespect by referring to her as a woman. In fact, some women consider "lady" to be less respectful! Jesusonly also referred to her as a woman - "poor woman." Also I did not mention rules. I'm at a loss to know why you chose to single me out for rebuke.
|
|
|
Post by DumSpiroSpero on Sept 16, 2010 22:12:10 GMT -5
Sorry emy - wasn't meant as a rebuke:)
Your words "The description of this woman would indicate that she would clearly have known that her marriage would result in what happened" is suggestive of rules or consequences to actions." "Would clearly have known" and "would result in" indicate some rules or laws or code where the actions had consequences. It's a vague and circumspect reference that is deserving of a little mor explanation.
Also, "Proceeding with the marriage clearly shows which was most important to her". What is your meaning to the reference "which was most important to her"? As above, a little more explanation would help...
Thanks again
|
|
|
Post by emy on Sept 16, 2010 22:37:59 GMT -5
It's my understanding that most Australians know that if they marry someone not in meetings, they will be unable to take part. I have gotten that impression from correspondence with other Australians over several years. Maybe my impression is mistaken. It's a tradition for that part of the world, if so, because no such thing happens in places I am familiar with. Do you know whether her parents or any workers spoke to her about this before the marriage?
IF she knew she would be asked not to take part, her marriage was apparently more important than her taking part. JMO, of course. I guess I don't understand forcing the issue after the fact, unless your intention is to change policy.
I still appreciate Hope's courage in putting her relationship with God first. Incidentally, I don't know if Hope is one of the f&w or not. I'm thinking not, but apologies to her if I am mistaken.
|
|
|
Post by DumSpiroSpero on Sept 16, 2010 23:41:18 GMT -5
Thanks emy for expanding on that.
To my knowledge, in parts of Australia, there is no 'punishment'. In parts, it is on a case by case basis. In parts, apparently, you can't take part in meetings if you marry or are married to someone who is not professing.
I'm not sure that she was warned, or even believed that this could happen. She has spent some years around Sydney, and also in Canada where this 'policy' [good term] is apparently not in place, and believed, from that experience that the 'policy change' was a little more widespread. Indeed, in speaking with her, she mentioned a number of situations virtually identical to hers, however, in one case, the father of the lady who married outside is a bishop with a meeting in their home, so I guess policy may be different for them [tongue in cheek]
But, we're getting off my original question, and that is the scriptural basis for the 'policy', 'tradition', 'custom', 'rule', 'law' [insert appropriate term] of not allowing a person to take part in meetings as a punishment [if punishment is too harsh, there may be a more appropriate term]
Is this 'tradition' to send a message to others considering the same error?
Is this 'tradition' a "no confidence" vote on the persons ability to provide any worthwhile input to the meeting?
I really don't understand what the purpose of the action is.
Also, in Hope's circumstance, she indicates that she was not able to connect spiritually. I understand from the case in discussion, that there has been considerable talk between she and he, and that he has attended fellowship meetings with her, so I assume there is not only belief on his part, but also a spiritual connection between them.
|
|
|
Post by fred on Sept 17, 2010 4:24:14 GMT -5
Not singling you out emy, ....but....... it seems to me that you are implying that this lady did not consider what God wanted but that hope did. Perhaps this lady did what God wanted, ie. she made a stand for what she felt was right hoping that the workers might reconsider what to most is a very unsound policy. The workers have made several housekeeping decisions in recent times to "to bring us into line with other countries."
|
|
|
Post by JO on Sept 17, 2010 15:48:09 GMT -5
The workers have made several housekeeping decisions in recent times to "to bring us into line with other countries." Wow, coming into line with Jesus or the bible is no longer the main consideration? How do we know its not the blind leading the blind?
|
|
shushy
Royal Member
Warning
50%
Posts: 8,009
|
Post by shushy on Sept 17, 2010 17:33:25 GMT -5
Not singling you out emy, ....but....... it seems to me that you are implying that this lady did not consider what God wanted but that hope did. Perhaps this lady did what God wanted, ie. she made a stand for what she felt was right hoping that the workers might reconsider what to most is a very unsound policy. The workers have made several housekeeping decisions in recent times to "to bring us into line with other countries." The bolded words are so relevant. At the end of the day we need to look at what God really is all about. Love, humanity, poverty, famine, abuse.....etc etc Im sure..in fact convinced that His plan and purposes are far more important than any petty thinking and arguments man puts up to create trouble in the ranks. Leaders if they are truly called wont be so concerned with anything other than Gods plan and purpose. He cares about people. So should we.
|
|
|
Post by DumSpiroSpero on Sept 17, 2010 19:25:38 GMT -5
Sorry guys - appreciate your debate around this issue, but I'm still waiting for a qualified explanation, scripturally based, for not allowing someone to speak in the meetings because they have married an "outsider".
The debate is good stuff though:)
|
|
|
Post by hope on Sept 17, 2010 20:45:26 GMT -5
if you are wanting scriptural basis for not taking part -there is none.
In my case I was professing when I started dating my ex-fiance. they asked me not to bring him to gospel meetings (he was also catholic). I said how will he know the truth if we don't let him come *still thinking the mtg were the only truth. They said they didn't want the other young girls to think dating outside was ok. I was asked to stop taking part and I asked for scriptural evidence. None was given (not even the unequally yoked) instead the very sweet worker who had been asked to talk to me said those fatal words for my professing walk "Tommie said..." haha! its funny now, but its wasn't then.
I ended up rebelling for about 6mths and then became a christian through meeting Selah on this board - she was the only christian I "knew".
once my faith was real to me, was something that I needed more of, wanted to go deeper with, I was willing to make choices that would bring me closer to the Lord. In my case... (not a hard fast rule) I knew that this relationship and the demands it placed on me, the restrictions it placed on what the Lord could do with my life meant that I wanted to let it go. - I wanted a radical missional life style.. it wasn't fair for me to try and drag my ex along. he was catholic, but not like some of my catholic friends now... who pray, fast, love Jesus (Though we have our theological difference). He was a catholic because thats what his family were, our lives were going in different directions.
Had we been married I don't think that conviction would have been there. The Lord is gracious enough to work with what we give Him and he honors the prayers of the saints for their loved ones.
|
|
|
Post by DumSpiroSpero on Sept 17, 2010 21:34:57 GMT -5
Wow - thanks Hope - a beautiful testimony
It took me ten years to find fellowship after leaving the 'truth', but find it I did and there is joy and love there! The joy is found in understanding God's promises to us, and not the depression of wondering if I'll be good enough.
The joy in knowing that no matter how great our 'works' are, that nothing can earn salvation - it is a gift from God.
|
|