What's the matter with that?
Often I'm stopped in the church building, and someone will say to me: " I'm so glad that you're coming back to church." As if I have some kind of a character problem--I'm not attending church because I'm backslidden, and I've finally come around to the accepted proper way.
.
Obviously these folks are good people and just being friendly. But I have responded to this statement with an answer: " well I haven't changed anything. I already stated my objections when this change was brought up in the church's assembly, and objected to it numerous times. I have done what I can.
Now I'm just going along to get along."
The problem is that the church has changed. The church did have a baptistic form of government, just as church books say are baptist ecclesiology, but now changed to a presbyterian style with eldership rule.
I did start going to another church, but that raised other problems such transportation etc..
This particular church has good Christian friends who I enjoy fellowshipping with, and. my wife wants to go there.
I don't believe ecclesiology is a small thing, but people are only looking at it now as if by raising this issue I'm just being obstinate and stubborn-- one of my character problems.
This identical problem had been raised before and had been voted down, but that was over 30 years ago in the 1970s. The whole issue was raised that the churches need to become more Biblical with an leadership rule. I've argued that point in another blog, and I prefer to take up another issue with this blog.
To tell the truth, this whole issue was raised different thoughts in my mind about church government. I don't buy the argument about eldership rule-- much of their argument comes from the book of Acts , which before time, I have been taught that the book of Acts was a narrative about the church development-- a transition book and a poor book for proving theological questions.
This idea proving plural leadership use only cherry picking different points out of the book of Acts. What about the house churches that they met in? Their assemblies were far different.
The Ephesus Church normally used as an example-- because of the plural pastors use--did have house churches (Prilcilla and Aquilla's house for one), and the Christian Assembly must have been hundreds if not thousands in Ephesus' population of 250,000 people. There were ruins of large basilicas built after Constantine's time, but none dated during the biblical time.
How biblical is the church(literally "Called Out Ones") today?
So, aside from the fact we're claiming to be Baptist, what's wrong with having a presbyterian style with eldership rule?
We recently were informed that the Eldership Board was considering spending 2,000,000 dollars of the money given to the Lord for--not the church("the called out ones)--but for the building and grounds. All Evangelicals know(they say) the church is the believers not the building, and this is not to enlarge the building for seating of more called-out-ones(the Church), but remodeling inside and the driveway outside. The church (approximately 350-400 members) would be obligated for over $5,000.00 a member to remodel the building and grounds.
Often I'm stopped in the church building, and someone will say to me: " I'm so glad that you're coming back to church." As if I have some kind of a character problem--I'm not attending church because I'm backslidden, and I've finally come around to the accepted proper way.
.
Obviously these folks are good people and just being friendly. But I have responded to this statement with an answer: " well I haven't changed anything. I already stated my objections when this change was brought up in the church's assembly, and objected to it numerous times. I have done what I can.
Now I'm just going along to get along."
The problem is that the church has changed. The church did have a baptistic form of government, just as church books say are baptist ecclesiology, but now changed to a presbyterian style with eldership rule.
I did start going to another church, but that raised other problems such transportation etc..
This particular church has good Christian friends who I enjoy fellowshipping with, and. my wife wants to go there.
I don't believe ecclesiology is a small thing, but people are only looking at it now as if by raising this issue I'm just being obstinate and stubborn-- one of my character problems.
This identical problem had been raised before and had been voted down, but that was over 30 years ago in the 1970s. The whole issue was raised that the churches need to become more Biblical with an leadership rule. I've argued that point in another blog, and I prefer to take up another issue with this blog.
To tell the truth, this whole issue was raised different thoughts in my mind about church government. I don't buy the argument about eldership rule-- much of their argument comes from the book of Acts , which before time, I have been taught that the book of Acts was a narrative about the church development-- a transition book and a poor book for proving theological questions.
This idea proving plural leadership use only cherry picking different points out of the book of Acts. What about the house churches that they met in? Their assemblies were far different.
The Ephesus Church normally used as an example-- because of the plural pastors use--did have house churches (Prilcilla and Aquilla's house for one), and the Christian Assembly must have been hundreds if not thousands in Ephesus' population of 250,000 people. There were ruins of large basilicas built after Constantine's time, but none dated during the biblical time.
How biblical is the church(literally "Called Out Ones") today?
So, aside from the fact we're claiming to be Baptist, what's wrong with having a presbyterian style with eldership rule?
We recently were informed that the Eldership Board was considering spending 2,000,000 dollars of the money given to the Lord for--not the church("the called out ones)--but for the building and grounds. All Evangelicals know(they say) the church is the believers not the building, and this is not to enlarge the building for seating of more called-out-ones(the Church), but remodeling inside and the driveway outside. The church (approximately 350-400 members) would be obligated for over $5,000.00 a member to remodel the building and grounds.
No comments:
Post a Comment