Phileoeklogos
Alten Schule Baptist
Oh that saucy winch!............................. never underestimate total depravity
Upvote
0
In a sense, I can relate to some of what you're saying. Certainly we don't have to look very far to find examples of disciplinary abuse. But tell me brother...how do you interpret the Lord's command on this issue [Mt. 18:15-18]?First let me say that I highly respect you and enjoy reading your posts. It wasn't and isn't my intention to be disrespectful in any way. That being said( here comes the bombshell after buttering you up ) A hypothetical instance as given by the OP is pointless. How would a person know if man was lusting after her to begin with? It certainly wouldn't be something a professing believer would do openly. Unless the sinful acts of a believer is actually causing difficulty in the church it is between that person and God. I find nowhere in the Scriptures that tell the elders or pastors to keep a reign on the members or to keep the church pure. The practice of so-called church discipline has done much more harm than good actually in my opinion. Certainly in some cases it must be done but they are rare occasions. A pastor can better deal with the blatant sin of a member from the pulpit by preaching continually on the sin that is being committed without pointing fingers and humiliating a possible brother or sister in Christ. If they remain unrepentant they will soon leave on their own. It works, I have seen it. What many call church discipline is nothing more than self-righteous legalism. It humiliates the one against whom it is enforced and rather than restore it alienates. I have seen that far too many times as well. And no I have never been the object of church discipline.
The key here is "if thy brother trespass against thee". The Lord our Master isn't giving authority to the elders or pastors here He is speaking to how a brother should deal with a situation with a brother. As Paul teaches in 1Cor. 6:1-8 we are to deal with things between brothers between brothers. He also gives another example to us in Matt. 18:18-35 And we are told by our Master to leave the tares with the wheat because we cannot tell which is which. Matt. 13:24-26 It is the natural inclination of men to wish to do what God only can do. The church certainly isn't pure because we ourselves are in it. It is Christ who purifies His church not the pastors or elders. The real problem is that we set ourselves up as judge when we cannot live up to our own standards. If we actually practiced church discipline, according to the standard that many set, we would be the first to go.In a sense, I can relate to some of what you're saying. Certainly we don't have to look very far to find examples of disciplinary abuse. But tell me brother...how do you interpret the Lord's command on this issue [Mt. 18:15-18]?
An interesting perspective. Thank-you for sharing it.The key here is "if thy brother trespass against thee". The Lord our Master isn't giving authority to the elders or pastors here He is speaking to how a brother should deal with a situation with a brother. As Paul teaches in 1Cor. 6:1-8 we are to deal with things between brothers between brothers. He also gives another example to us in Matt. 18:18-35 And we are told by our Master to leave the tares with the wheat because we cannot tell which is which. Matt. 13:24-26 It is the natural inclination of men to wish to do what God only can do. The church certainly isn't pure because we ourselves are in it. It is Christ who purifies His church not the pastors or elders. The real problem is that we set ourselves up as judge when we cannot live up to our own standards. If we actually practiced church discipline, according to the standard that many set, we would be the first to go.
Interesting. I'm yet failing to see where the woman, who was given in the original poster's example would be guilty though. I'm trying to weigh in human beings sin nature and the horribleness of one's heart, but still coming short of seeing how they both have lusted "with" each other. If you care to expound more, I would appreciate it. By the way, your own personal story you gave came close to answering my question. But it still hasn't hit home.Well my friend, aside from the biblical mandate to hold all guilty parties accountable [Lev. 20:10-18], there is a valuable pastoral principle to be observed.
While the following does not speak directly to the OP, it does address your concern:
A few years ago, I dealt with a couple on the verge of divorce. He said "She refuses to have sex with me. No sex, no marriage." She said, "I'm not having sex with this goof. He habitually uses inappropriate content!" Ultimately, she filed for divorce. He left the church voluntarily, even though we asked him not to. She desired to keep her membership, but was refused.
Our leadership took some heat for their approach. Angry comments about the woman being the innocent party, or inappropriate content usage being equivalent to adultery, filled my inbox each morning for days on end. While the Elders and I had told the church about what happened and why the couple were leaving, we had sought to limit the details ---- there are some things people simply don't need to hear. But as tensions continued to climb over the next two weeks, we finally decided to publically explain why we were inclined to offer pastoral care to the highly repentant husband, and not his disgruntled wife.
You see, early into their five year marriage she had decided to reduce (and ultimately eliminate) the physical aspect of their relationship, because she simply doesn't enjoy sex. She had admitted to us that in order to accomplish her goal she had purchased a number of inappropriate content videos for her husband, hoping to redirect his interests. When the split came, she readily acknowledged her part in hooking her husband on inappropriate content, but still insisted that the whole thing was his fault. The man repented. She did not. Were they both guilty? Yes. But their mutual guilt helped to reframe our disciplinary decision.
Consequently, I find the OP's question both valid and helpful.
The OP presupposes that the woman does not consider her clothing to be immodest. However, that does not mean she's right. Ultimately, I suppose it comes down to awareness. If the woman is aware that her outfit is causing a problem for some who look at her, then it seems she has a duty to modify her definition of modesty [Ro. 14:21].Interesting. I'm yet failing to see where the woman, who was given in the original poster's example would be guilty though. I'm trying to weigh in human beings sin nature and the horribleness of one's heart, but still coming short of seeing how they both have lusted "with" each other. If you care to expound more, I would appreciate it. By the way, your own personal story you gave came close to answering my question. But it still hasn't hit home.
Well it certainly ain't the one taught in seminary.An interesting perspective. Thank-you for sharing it.
Regarding Mt. 18:15, your exegesis is reasonable. I suppose part of the issue relates to the textual variant found in this verse. As you know, not all translations render
I think the context makes it pretty clear that the translation "against you" is true. Why else would Peter have asked the question and why would the Lord answer the way He did. Especially considering the parable He gave next. Was Peter really all that concerned with the sin of others at this time?"against you" following "If your brother sins...". The NASB, for example, reads as follows:
15"If your brother sins, go and show him his fault in private...."
Tell me though --- with regard to my previous example text --- does not the Lord authorize us to judge our brother provided we ourselves are not guilty of the same sin [Mt. 7:1-5]? Specifically, I am referring to the closing phrase of the passage:
Verses 3-5 actually explain verses 1-3 The point is that we have no real right to judge the sin of our brothers because they are just like us. The Master isn't telling us that we aren't to judge but that we aren't to judge our brothers. When we are without sin then we can judge the sin of our brothers. When are we ever without sin?"...then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye."
And if we are not to judge our fellow Christians, then what did Paul mean when he said the following:
I am not totally against discipline but I do believe that many take this passage way too far. First Paul was speaking with the authority of an Apostle. We don't have that authority. Second the sin he was dealing with was an extremely grievous one. Third his intention was to restore the offending one. He wasn't using discipline to reign over the members or to keep the church pure. He wanted to lovingly bring the offender back into the fold. We should warn our brothers to not bring reproach on the name of Christ but we cannot, and have no right to, keep them on a leash or to kick them out of the church. It isn't our church it is Christ's.[1 Cor. 5:9-13/NASB]
9"I wrote you in my letter not to associate with immoral people; 10I did not at all mean with the immoral people of this world, or with the covetous and swindlers, or with idolaters, for then you would have to go out of the world.
11But actually, I wrote to you not to associate with any so-called brother if he is an immoral person, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or a swindler--not even to eat with such a one.
12For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Do you not judge those who are within the church? 13But those who are outside, God judges. REMOVE THE WICKED MAN FROM AMONG YOURSELVES."
Is not this passage speaking directly to the matter of church discipline?
If you view my question as pointless, then don't participate in the thread. It's simple, really.A hypothetical instance as given by the OP is pointless.
Did anyone read the OP? How is it the woman's fault if She dresed modestly?
God Bless!
...whose fault is it? What if the woman was dressed in a way she perceived to be modest and was still lusted after?