Post by jonmoseley on Oct 17, 2006 15:38:00 GMT
There are a few extremely significant and damaging errors found in Every Nation identified by this Board. HOWEVER, I think it is a serious mistake to ignore the WIDESPREAD nature of these errors, which are found in hundreds of other churches as well, maybe thousands. Just as we should "love the sinner, hate the sin" with an individual, I think that we need to attack the ERROR theologically without personalizing this as an attack on any one church.
Some who have confronted these errors in Every Nation or His People may be very surprised to encounter the same errors in hundreds of other churches. From 1993 to 2003, after Maranatha, I wandered looking for a good church, and was disgusted by ALL of them. I got to the point where I only wanted to worship God during praise & worship and then leave when the sermon began. (And I am talking about ALL the churches I visited, not picking on any one.)
However, one of these serious errors clearly IS the false idea of "Touch not the Lord's anoninted" as justifying absolutely anything by Christian leaders and silencing criticism.
There is absolutely no support for such a concept in the teachings of Jesus or the conduct of the early Church.
Lying to the church was punished with the DEATH of Ananias and Sapphira. (Here the mis-spelling is not my bad typing, but the fact that I don't remember how to spell their names.)
So LYING was serious enough in God's eye to justify DEATH, instantly. A leader who lies in the name of promoting Christianity should reflect on Ananias and Sapphira.
I don't wish death on anyone before their time, but one wonders why God got out of the honesty-policing business altogehter. Oh well. God could at least do a little bit of something to those who lie.
MEANWHILE, we see the elders vigorously debating with Peter and with other leaders. We see vigorous disagreement over theology and practice in the Book of Acts.
Jesus said that Peter would be the rock upon He would build his church (or maybe it was the revelation, but you get the point that Peter is something special, so much so that the Catholics exclude all other churches because of the necessity of apostolic succession from Peter).
And yet HERE we see the elders DISPUTING with Peter in the Book of Acts over whether or not non-Jews can become Christians and many other points.
The dispute was clearly constructive and truth-seeking, not angry and seeking dissension. Eventually, they agreed that Peter was right, but NOT because he was Peter, but because on that one particular occassion he happened to be right.
Many of those who disputed with Peter had BEEN THERE when Jesus had renamed Simon as Peter and said that on this rock I will build My Church.
And yet they demonstrated no hesitation about seeking God's truth in a frank and open discussion, even disagreeing with Peter in the process.
Jesus taught us that leaders are servants, who should wash the feet of the sheep and each other just as Jesus washed the apostle's feet.
So basically we see NOTHING in the entire New Testament, either in word or deed, to support the concept of church leaders having an elite or unquestioned position.
Even the teachings of Paul do not support this idea. He PLEADS with his followers to listen to the truths he is sharing. He DOES INDEED point to his position in the church, but as a matter of PERSUASION and always combined with humility. He DOES indeed say that his followers should listen to his in part because of his position but ONLY IN CONTRAST to those followers be swept away by the teachings of others without also listening carefully to what Paul had to say.
Never does Paul say or suggest "Shut up and sit down, because I'm Paul, d**n it!" to mimic the Saturdy Night Live parody of Gumby.
Those Christian leaders who have such an idea are in deep deception, and headed for error.
Any mechanism which fails to catch, confront, and correct errors is destined to MULTIPLY errors.
A church led by those who believe in "God's anointed" as being beyond question WILL BE RIFE WITH ERRORS.
That is inevitable because, like dust in your house, if you don't continually remove the errors as they appear, they will accumulate. And a careless, sloppy attitude BREEDS errors.
So the idea "Don't Touch the Lord's Anointed" is an ERROR FACTORY just waiting to lead that church into greater and greater problems and more and more errors.
HOWEVER... is it true that rebellion against God's anointed can be harmful for a believer...?
Well..... Clearly if God sees in our heart ANY negative atitude or emotion, God is going to want to deal with it, in His timing and in His way.
If you have a bitter and negative attitude towards a Christian leader (or your neighbor, your dog, your boss, your mother, your spouse, whatever) that is harmful for you inside of you.
But not all disagreement with a Christian leader is accompanied by a bad attitude that God will want to deal with.
Sometimes yes, sometimes no.
It really has NOTHING to do with the ACT of disagreeing with the Christian leader. Zip, nada, neechavo.
It has everything to do with what is inside your heart.
Similarly, is disagreeing with a Christian leader simply a way of resisting or attacking God?
God is saying that you need to change. You don't want to change. So you dispute with or attack a Christian leader. You shoot the messenger.
God knows your heart. Clearly, if you are simply resisting or running away from God, God sees your heart and may deal with.
But, again, that really has little or nothing to do with disputing with a Christian leader. It has everything to do with what is in your heart and what is going on between you and God.
FINALLY, is there a time to sit down, clam it, and wait for later?
Sure. You don't get up in the middle of a funeral and tell a joke or reveal something horrible about the deceased.
Surely there is a right time and place.
There CAN be a wrong time and a wrong place, in which your dispute may harm the work of the Kingdom of God.
But that is simply about using wisdom to know when to take the right opportunity to have a helpful discussion.