Hypocrite "Christian" men

[Tony B]

God does not require lack of confidentiality, lack of boundaries, or coercive relationships.

We can't isolate ourselves in the body of Christ. We can be private, yes, but secretive, no.

When we are born again, we are purchased by Jesus, therefore we don't have a right to hide sin in our lives. If we aren't able to pull ourselves out of our sexual sin, we need to feel comfortable approaching our pastoral oversight to enlist their help.

It's obviously not wise to have people disclose all types of sin in public, but they need to be able to go in private to a pastoral oversight for help. This means that a male struggling with sexual impropriety should be mentored by a male elder, and if a lady, should be mentored by the older Christian women. If it's a couple having some sexual issues that need counsel, then the pastor/elder/overseer/bishop/shepherd (they're synonyms) and his wife might be the best to offer them advice.

But if the pastor and his wife got to meet each of the flock they care for regularly, by association they may well find out about what someone is struggling with, and help them mitigate against falling into or continuing with sin.

There's no room for pride and egoism in the church of God.

 

[bèlla]

I think it's important to have boundaries and develop a network of trusted individuals you feel comfortable sharing with. I don't believe the church is the sole source of support or responsible for determining who we turn to.

Oversharing has downsides. Many communities begin with good intentions. But the absence of privacy and limitations usually leads to grave errors and exploitation down the road. That's how cults begin.

Yours in His Service,

~bella

 

[Paidiske]

We can't isolate ourselves in the body of Christ. We can be private, yes, but secretive, no.

When we are born again, we are purchased by Jesus, therefore we don't have a right to hide sin in our lives. If we aren't able to pull ourselves out of our sexual sin, we need to feel comfortable approaching our pastoral oversight to enlist their help.

It's obviously not wise to have people disclose all types of sin in public, but they need to be able to go in private to a pastoral oversight for help. This means that a male struggling with sexual impropriety should be mentored by a male elder, and if a lady, should be mentored by the older Christian women. If it's a couple having some sexual issues that need counsel, then the pastor/elder/overseer/bishop/shepherd (they're synonyms) and his wife might be the best to offer them advice.

But if the pastor and his wife got to meet each of the flock they care for regularly, by association they may well find out about what someone is struggling with, and help them mitigate against falling into or continuing with sin.

There's no room for pride and egoism in the church of God.

But your model does not allow for privacy.

I am not suggesting hiding sin, and I agree that ideally we ought to be able to feel comfortable approaching our ministers for help. But I also realise that building that level of trust and comfort takes time; it is not a given. And for people who are, for whatever reason, vulnerable, it may well take more time or never reach the degree we might like; and that is not something on which we ought to push. That's not about pride, it's about safety and not engaging in emotional and spiritual abuse.

Of course a minister ought to know his/her flock and meet with them regularly (to the extent that the members of the flock wish), but what you were describing up thread was far more intense than that.

I strongly, strongly disagree with the minister treating his/her spouse as an extension of their ministry. That is utterly inappropriate. The spouse does not have the call, the training or the authorisation, nor the accountability, to be treated as an associate minister.

 

[Tony B]

I think it's important to have boundaries and develop a network of trusted individuals you feel comfortable sharing with.

Yes. We all have our boundaries.

For a Christian, their first port of call for advice is scripture and The Holy Spirit, through prayer. If they are having difficulty hearing The Holy Spirit's advice, then the next best go to is a fellow Christian they can trust for advice.

I don't believe the church is the sole source of support or responsible for determining who we turn to.

This in my opinion depends on the issue at hand, the associated risk and the availability of time.

If a solution for a problem is not urgently required, a Christian in spiritual conflict should always go to fellow Christians for help in the first instance, since Christians are being lead by The Holy Spirit, whereas the secular world isn't.

The advice here is similar to the advice Paul gave to some members of the church that were in conflict at the time. He rebuked them for going to secular judges to get them to resolve their conflicts, saying that they should be resolved amongst themselves.

An astute elder will know where the situation is beyond their capability, and refer their Christian fellow on to those that can help, which could be referring them to a service outside the church.

Oversharing has downsides.

Yes, indeed. The consequences could be worse than those if undersharing.

Many communities begin with good intentions. But the absence of privacy and limitations usually leads to grave errors and exploitation down the road. That's how cults begin.

Some people refer to denominations and the like as cults. But it is true, that when a church community selects overseers to look over and care for them, they must be pedantic in their selection, and select men and women that have proven loyalty to Jesus in every aspect of their lives. These are extremely crucial and important roles, and in my opinion it is better to leave the role vacant rather than fill with a second best.

 

[bèlla]

I'm sorry, this feels oppressive. It's a controlling spirit I couldn't submit to. The undercurrent of should's and force would inevitably lead to power struggles and abuses for dissenters.

The authority feels forced. The bonding feels forced. There's no room for authentic connections. Everything seems regimented and structured. It's a militaristic church. I wouldn't join it.

Yours in His Service,

~bella

 

[Tony B]

But your model does not allow for privacy.

Why do you say that?

But I also realise that building that level of trust and comfort takes time; it is not a given. And for people who are, for whatever reason, vulnerable, it may well take more time or never reach the degree we might like

The model of fellowship that your institution, and other denominational institutions I've visited use will never achieve this, because most times your meetings are formal and regimented, or have fixed agendas. These will never promote the personal and social interactions between members of the church that are needed to develop understanding and trust in a timely fashion. I know that from first hand experiences.

Of course a minister ought to know his/her flock and meet with them regularly (to the extent that the members of the flock wish), but what you were describing up thread was far more intense than that.

Not sure what you mean?

A Christian is not to wilfully forsake the fellowship of other spiritually born again Christians. They do so at their own peril, and a pastor should warn a member of the flock that is doing that.
Christianity isn't a democracy, the only rights and freedoms we have, is to please God in everything we do.

I strongly, strongly disagree with the minister treating his/her spouse as an extension of their ministry. That is utterly inappropriate. The spouse does not have the call, the training or the authorisation, nor the accountability, to be treated as an associate minister.

That's your institution's approach, but it is not God's.

The people He selects to serve have gone through the refining fires of His training and equipping. They haven't earned their qualifications from a university, college or seminary, they've earned it through the school of hard knocks, and have proven their loyalty to Jesus and His ways. That being the case, why would you not use the training and equipping God has given to the wife to help fellow Christians?

 

[Tony B]

I'm sorry, this feels oppressive. It's a controlling spirit I couldn't submit to. The undercurrent of should's and force would inevitably lead to power struggles and abuses for dissenters.

The authority feels forced. The bonding feels forced. There's no room for authentic connections. Everything seems regimented and structured. It's a militaristic church. I wouldn't join it.

Yours in His Service,

~bella

I think you may be mistaking my motivation as one of being from an autocratic approach. It isn't. But anyway, we all have the freedom to choose where we fellowship. I'm confident that the kind of Christian fellowship I am promoting is in line with what Paul would say if he was here now.

 

[bèlla]

I think you may be mistaking my motivation as one of being from an autocratic approach. It isn't. But anyway, we all have the freedom to choose where we fellowship. I'm confident that the kind of Christian fellowship I am promoting is in line with what Paul would say if he was here now.

It feels autocratic because you don't account for personal choice in your structure. Throwing strangers together doesn't make them a family, friends, or willing to share their trials and struggles.

The biblical ideal is established in the word. But you can't make them walk it out. You can't make them love, share, or do anything else. It must come from within. Oftentimes in environments like you've described there's an external pressure to conform. You needn't look further than the Amish.

Perhaps the Amish or Mennonites have the structure you're seeking. But it comes at a cost. You don't get that level of agreement without control and compromise. You're living in subjection and your autonomy is limited.

Many Christians like the idea of community. But not at the price of their freedom, ability to say no, or disagree. What you describe sounds like a separatist society. They usually attract loners, the disenfranchised, outcasts, and those with little or no connections. The common denominator is a desire to belong and that becomes their family.

The church isn't my orbit. God is.

Yours in His Service,

~bella

 

[Mountainmanbob]

The-"Christian"-man-who-thinks-its-ok-to-watch-porn-and-have-premarital-sex-with-women-yet-somehow-believes-he-deserves-to-marry-a-virgin




This mold is everywhere, probably in this forum. The arrogance of this behavior Is ungodly. Nowhere in the Old Testament or New did our father, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob tell men to engage in as much premarital sex as possible to whoever will give it to him, but be sure to marry a virgin. Both men and women are to remain virgins until marriage, and if a man chooses not to meet the standard, he has no right to disqualify women for marriage simply because they have done what he himself has also done. Disgusting.

Time and time again we see in the Bible that God hates hypocrites and this area is no different. Study the scriptures and you will find that it turns out that God isn't your 'bro' who wants you to score all the chicks before settling down. Study the scriptures and you will find He holds both sexes to the same standard.

And all you "Christian" porn/masturbation addicts out there, continuously deleting your browser history yet professing to be sexually pure, watching pornography is a sin, too. Pray about it. Look it up.

Probably does not understand what it means to repent. The Holy Spirit will bring the believer to his knees.
M

 

[Tony B]

~bella[/QUOTE]

It feels autocratic because you don't account for personal choice in your structure. Throwing strangers together doesn't make them a family, friends, or willing to share their trials and struggles.

I didn't say that people don't have a choice, of course they do. And I'm not saying that we throw strangers together. If we are Christian, we are already family. That being the case, let us meet that way. Overtime (family like) relationships including trust will develop.

The biblical ideal is established in the word. But you can't make them walk it out. You can't make them love, share, or do anything else. It must come from within. Oftentimes in environments like you've described there's an external pressure to conform. You needn't look further than the Amish.

I'm talking about moral conformity. If people aren't prepared to accept moral conformity in fellowship, then Paul said we should separate from them, he also used the term 'put people out'. This is not some autocratic move, it's a move of love and security.

Perhaps the Amish or Mennonites have the structure you're seeking. But it comes at a cost. You don't get that level of agreement without control and compromise. You're living in subjection and your autonomy is limited.

I'm not sure how you have deduced from anything I said that I would be supportive of man-made religious rules and institutions.

Many Christians like the idea of community. But not at the price of their freedom, ability to say no, or disagree. What you describe sounds like a separatist society. They usually attract loners, the disenfranchised, outcasts, and those with little or no connections. The common denominator is a desire to belong and that becomes their family.

If your want for freedom is a freedom to be immoral, then I won't be part of any fellowship that will be supportive of that. Again, I can't see how you would deduce that I was suggesting any other kind of conformity. Immorality was the topic of the OP.

The church isn't my orbit. God is.

I'm sure you are not meaning this, but what you have said is akin to someone declaring they are not a member of the body of Christ which is the church of God.

The church is a community where faith, hope and love abound, and God is in the midst of that.

 

[bèlla]

I didn't say that people don't have a choice, of course they do. And I'm not saying that we throw strangers together. If we are Christian, we are already family. That being the case, let us meet that way. Overtime (family like) relationships including trust will develop.

Are you close to every one in your family? Were you close to every one in your unit? On the job? You have to see the bible in light of the time it was written. There was greater dependence and less mobility. Survival required togetherness in a manner it doesn't today. We have a choice.

We're not automatons. When someone struggles they may turn to family, friends, counselor, pastor, etc. You can't make the pastor or elder their first stop. That's what @Paidiske's saying. Closeness can't be regimented. Freedom of choice is a must.

Yours in His Service,

~bella

 

[SimpleLiving2019]

A quick thought I had as I read the posts on oversight. As one who has spent much time in the scriptures studying. I have also been to several different churches, and there have been some good teachings...and some quite bad ones, some good doctrine, and some bad. And then I look at some churches doctrines and it looks so bad that I envision the pastor teaching as the emperor with no clothes on. I just cannot imagine how people let that “naked” person be their overseer.

So I do acknowledge there is a biblical church structure for oversight, however, based upon my experience, in these perilous time, a person better study for themselves so they are not deceived. It leaves me wondering a bit how I can integrate church oversight into my life...when I so often do not trust the oversight to help guide me scripturally. I guess that is something I will have to look further into for answers for myself. I suppose for now it is at least integrated in the manner of wherever I go for a service, acknowledging that the current overseer is in that role, in that place, and show them the proper honor.

 

[Paidiske]

Why do you say that?

Because you are suggesting a model where issues are discovered and addressed in informal and group social settings, and where the work is done by a couple rather than one-on-one. There's no privacy in that.

The model of fellowship that your institution, and other denominational institutions I've visited use will never achieve this, because most times your meetings are formal and regimented, or have fixed agendas. These will never promote the personal and social interactions between members of the church that are needed to develop understanding and trust in a timely fashion. I know that from first hand experiences.

My first hand experience is quite different. This level of trust and vulnerability is very common in my church. But it does not come solely out of worship services; it comes out of the whole life of the church. And it comes without requiring people to be in the kind of intense network you describe.

Not sure what you mean?

Were you not advocating a model where a small group of adults were required/expected to meet very often (multiple times a week) and sharing their lives with that group to a significant degree? That's very intense.

A Christian is not to wilfully forsake the fellowship of other spiritually born again Christians. They do so at their own peril, and a pastor should warn a member of the flock that is doing that. Christianity isn't a democracy, the only rights and freedoms we have, is to please God in everything we do.

That doesn't mean we need the kind of model you are advocating, though.

That's your institution's approach, but it is not God's.

The people He selects to serve have gone through the refining fires of His training and equipping. They haven't earned their qualifications from a university, college or seminary, they've earned it through the school of hard knocks, and have proven their loyalty to Jesus and His ways. That being the case, why would you not use the training and equipping God has given to the wife to help fellow Christians?

Constantly accusing others of being ungodly really doesn't further this conversation.

However, while I agree that people God calls need more than a degree, they need real lived experience of the life of faith and all the challenges it brings, I do not believe that someone should be treated as a minister without being tested and affirmed and authorised by the church, just because they happen to be married to someone in ministry. They might not be Christian, they might be deeply immature, they might be unsuitable for other reasons.

If they want to minister, they should go through exactly the same selection and training processes as everyone else, and be bound by exactly the same legal and professional expectations. (For example, if a spouse breaks someone's confidentiality, what recourse does that person have, when the spouse holds no formal position against which a complaint can be made? None. That's absolutely terrible practice and runs counter to creating the safe environment in which people will be willing to share their hearts and struggles).

 

[Tony B]

Are you close to every one in your family? Were you close to every one in your unit? On the job? You have to see the bible in light of the time it was written. There was greater dependence and less mobility. Survival required togetherness in a manner it doesn't today. We have a choice.

I agree that if we are living in a situation where there is a long distance between our Christian neighbours that will present it's own challenges for fellowship.

But most Christians hopefully are able to find a church in the locality where they live, or at least close to it.

So we are talking about Christians that will mostly have other Christians living nearby, whose existence they will know about and vice versa, and that they ideally will be able to readily interact with. This should also including a pastoral oversight they can go to privately for advice and help for any kind of spiritual difficulty they are having trouble dealing with. I'm arguing that the contemporary fellowship model practised by most denominations/churches do a bad job of providing a sufficiently dynamic environment for that to happen, based on my experiences and those of others I have encountered during my Christian walk.

The model of fellowship established by Jesus through the apostles is as relevant to today's Christian church, as it was in the time of the apostles.

We're not automatons. When someone struggles they may turn to family, friends, counselor, pastor, etc. You can't make the pastor or elder their first stop. That's what @Paidiske's saying. Closeness can't be regimented. Freedom of choice is a must.

We are supposed to be giving precedence to interacting with Christian family, even over our own flesh and blood if they are unsaved.

I agree, closeness can't be regimented, but it can be facilitated in the church of God, and better than it is generally happening now. More often than not, when we meet as a group generally it is to attend a regimented church service or a meeting that has a predetermined and fixed agenda, this generally will not give opportunity for relationships/companionship/friendships to develop within an acceptable to God time frame.

 

[Tony B]

Bella, Paidiske, I have absolutely no desire to knock heads with you both and discuss this issue with you any further.

I'm not here to gain friends, or make enemies.

I'm here to do the will of my Father in Heaven, and I am absolutely confident that God approves of what I have said.

Let us not discuss the issue of what is the ideal model of fellowship any further.

 

[bèlla]

@Tony B, you brought it up in post 3. The OP is about hypocrites. Not church oversight. God Bless.

Yours in His Service,

~bella

 

[Tony B]

@Tony B, you brought it up in post 3. The OP is about hypocrites. Not church oversight. God Bless.

Yours in His Service,

~bella

I brought it up as important to help mitigate against sexual immorality happening in the church. But enough has been said.
Shalom

 

[bèlla]

Back to the OP...

I think it's important we avoid castigating groups or throwing anyone under the bus. We all have things we do in secret no one knows about. No one displays their faults with pride. We keep it under wraps.

The sin shaming needs to stop. All have fallen short of the glory. Not just the homosexuals, adulterers, and the big five we usually reference. Everybody missed the mark.

We need to move beyond the act and make a concerted effort to understand the reasons behind our behavior. Consideration breeds compassion. It's difficult to empathize if you believe the 'person' is bad or evil. When empathy takes root you see the person and the struggle. You respond with love (because you have your own) and you want the same.

Yours in His Service,

~bella

 

[Sketcher]

I've noticed there's a specific mold in the "Christian" community:

The-"Christian"-man-who-thinks-its-ok-to-watch-porn-and-have-premarital-sex-with-women-yet-somehow-believes-he-deserves-to-marry-a-virgin

This mold is everywhere, probably in this forum. The arrogance of this behavior Is ungodly. Nowhere in the Old Testament or New did our father, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob tell men to engage in as much premarital sex as possible to whoever will give it to him, but be sure to marry a virgin. Both men and women are to remain virgins until marriage, and if a man chooses not to meet the standard, he has no right to disqualify women for marriage simply because they have done what he himself has also done. Disgusting.

Time and time again we see in the Bible that God hates hypocrites and this area is no different. Study the scriptures and you will find that it turns out that God isn't your 'bro' who wants you to score all the chicks before settling down. Study the scriptures and you will find He holds both sexes to the same standard.

And all you "Christian" porn/masturbation addicts out there, continuously deleting your browser history yet professing to be sexually pure, watching pornography is a sin, too. Pray about it. Look it up.

Well, if any person believes it's OK for them to fornicate, but it's not OK for their partner to fornicate, yes, that is sin. Scripture tells us that no Christian may fornicate, and that hypocritical judgment is wrong.

But I really, really hope you're limiting this contempt to the Christian men who fornicate or commit adultery. If a man doesn't do those things, and has not done those things, why shouldn't he value women who have done the same as him?

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Who thinks pornography and self gratification aren't sins? Men, by in large are probably more sexually active than most women. That is, we tend to think about it more so and we live in an age and era where pornography and licentiousness' are encouraged by elites and tech companies. Without extreme discipline, most men simply don't have the willpower to stop themselves and unfortunately that includes a lot of Christian men to our shame.

When it comes to men preferring virgins for marriage, I wonder what the alternative is. Can men help their preferences anymore than women do? Virgin women are more desirable and have been more desirable than virgin men because female virginity is much more valuable than a man's is. That's just the nature of things. There are studies which show that women who have multiple sexual partners are more likely to end up in divorce. I do no think the converse is true for men. Though I would think Christian women ought be wary of a Lothario.

I think both sexes could do a lot more. Christian men should have to struggle daily with their passion and resist pornography. Male purity is something not encouraged in our society, nor is it expected of them and that is a problem in of itself. Women should be encouraged to hold on to their virginity and not be ashamed of it and be warned about the consequences of casual sex for future romantic prospects.