Complex question on Church discipline

[rmwilliamsll]

this is a complex question.

CED debate at church


just in case the issue comes up on the sermon group.
i intend to delete the .sig link to my blog/ced page/and links list when using the church groups
so i need to use the website to reply to mail, not the email route, too much room for error.
i will not involve myself in any discussions or questions regarding the creation-evolution-design debate
either at church, or on the church related yahoo groups.

to due so violates my promise to uphold the good order and peace of the church.
as a simple church member, versus a church officer, i do not have to subscribe to the WCF.
nor am i expected to. I suspect many in the church are probably pretty unaware of most of the standard's positions.
since i disagree with the standards at the point of 6 24hr day creation, i am obligated to remain silent on the issue and not contradict the clear teaching of the church.
both the WCF and the PCA creation report. the PCA report allows framework interpretation, but expressedly denies its use to TE's.
i've researched the PCA position on CED and the topic of subscriptionism. it does not apply to me, but the promise to uphold the good order and peace of the church does.

5. Do you submit yourselves to the government and discipline of the Church, and promise to study its purity and peace?
from: http://www.pcanet.org/BCO/BCO56-63.htm
essentially i can hold to views contrary to the PCA book of order, but i can not express them, in the context of the church.
this is a weak subscriptionist position, ie subscribe to the body of doctrine as taught in the WCF, which is the wording of the current elders promises.

of course, i can not teach in any way, but that is ok, i am not a teacher just the eternal student.
8 March 2004

It's a complex problem of church discipline and unity.

first, i am not an elder, i am not bound by the confession, but i am bound by the members promise above.

second the general teaching office allows me to discuss issues of theology within the bounds of the church but not to contradict my Pastors. that's clear enough.

the problem becomes one of online behavior.

for example, i do not knowingly contradict or oppose teaching elders in the PCA. i have written one rather strongly worded essay contra an OPC pastor at:
http://www.dakotacom.net/~rmwillia/wimpsgimpsblack.html
i would not have written this to a PCA pastor. and i'm not real sure i should have written it against an OPC pastor, i did send him a copy when i posted it online. the least i could do.

on puritan board for example, i do not defend nor talk about evolution, here i actively pursue the topic.

my question is, where is the boundary of the church online? it is clear, and has been clear for several years that i oughtn't to talk about the issues at the physical church, the people i know in real life associated with my particular church.
but what happens if my friends from church sign into this group? you can google literally 1000's of evolution postings i've made. Is it sufficient to say...i can't discuss that topic with you?

there is an obvious difference between puritan board where a commitment to the WCF is required for posting priviledges
and here where it is not.

Where is the line?
the issues seem clear enough, freedom and discipline, contradicting doctrine leads to church schisms and lack of unity, a serious problem in Protestant history. but the lines, especially with the net seem much less clear.
thanks

 

[CCWoody]

Where is the line?
the issues seem clear enough, freedom and discipline, contradicting doctrine leads to church schisms and lack of unity, a serious problem in Protestant history. but the lines, especially with the net seem much less clear.
thanks

My background: I have been attending the leadership sessions of my own PCA church and we have studied the BCO among other things, but I can tell you that the question of the internet has not come up. I'd say that, just as we are obligated to bring you under church discipline if you were in an adulterous relationship, we would also be obligated to bring you under church discipline for any sin for which you refuse to repent and of which we become aware for your own sake no matter how it is committed. IOW, our care and concern for our fellow members has no line of boundary where they are considered beyond our concern.

This is only my opinion in the matter.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

My background: I have been attending the leadership sessions of my own PCA church and we have studied the BCO among other things, but I can tell you that the question of the internet has not come up. I'd say that, just as we are obligated to bring you under church discipline if you were in an adulterous relationship, we would also be obligated to bring you under church discipline for any sin for which you refuse to repent and of which we become aware for your own sake no matter how it is committed. IOW, our care and concern for our fellow members has no line of boundary where they are considered beyond our concern.

This is only my opinion in the matter.

the issue is what is sin in this context.

If i was an officer of the church, i could not speak as i do online in the CED debate. if i contradicted my Pastors in the context of the church or attempted to convert people in the church to my viewpoint that would clearly be sinful. that is what i wrote years ago. do not discuss the issue within the boundaries of the particular church.

if i know a person is a PCA officer, i do not contradict or argue with that person online, on puritan board i do not discuss the issue (adherence to the confession is a requirement to post to the board). that much seems clear.

the issue is can i express my opinions in a general forum? if i was an officer and identified as such NO, but i am not. nor can i be with my position.

thanks for the posting. however it does not strike to the heart of the difficulties. what are the limits of expression for an ordinary church member?

i promised to love the good order and enhance the unity of the church. i did not promise never to disagree, only not to pursue my disagreements so that they damaged the good order or unity of the church. that is how disagreements which in themselves are not sin become sin, to strike at the unity and good order.

if someone asks me about my beliefs on the issue at church i refer them to my Pastors, to speak of it is outside the general teaching office. however online i am not subject to the general teaching office rules, that is within the confines of the church.

it is going to be a topic in the church. the net is just too important not to solve potential problems like this.

how about my blog?
can i write my opinions there without interference or censorship from the church?
there are at least self imposed limits, i watch my language, am careful to argue nicely as reflects a Christlike attitude. but as to specifics?

it is not the same issue as politicans speaking out for abortion laws when they are RC. but close enough that those issues will bleed through to these. The confession is not our ultimate standard, the Scriptures are, i believe that the confession misinterprets the Scriptures and the mind of God on this issue. is my silence required everywhere? how about my wife, can i discuss the issue with her? she is a member of the church as well?



tied in knots.


is it sin to disagree with the confession?
is it sinful to write about your disagrement with the confession?
-----
it is sin to publically disagree within the boundaries of the church
the church is the people.
the people here are not necessarily within the boundaries of my particular church therefore expression of my beliefs here is not within the boundaries of the church.....


it is complex.
thanks for your help.

 

[CCWoody]

if i know a person is a PCA officer, i do not contradict or argue with that person online, on puritan board i do not discuss the issue (adherence to the confession is a requirement to post to the board). that much seems clear.

I see the point. As far as I'm aware, there is not a singel teaching elder of the PCA here on CF. And, I'm not sure the ruling elders here mean that we cannot discuss/ debate things between us as long as we are both speaking from an accepted doctrinal standard.

I do occationally post on Puritan board, though I do not know who are the teaching elders. Last I checked, it was not a requirement to adhere to the WCF or the PCA BCO. When I signed up, I was a credoBaptist. Even today, though I lean paedoBaptist, I am still chewing on the thing.

if someone asks me about my beliefs on the issue at church i refer them to my Pastors, to speak of it is outside the general teaching office. however online i am not subject to the general teaching office rules, that is within the confines of the church.

I think this a rather severe stand. For instance, out and about in public, if someone asks you about your Presbyterian beliefs, a Baptist, perhaps, do you always simply refer them to your teaching elder? What if the person is an agnostic or atheist?

how about my blog?
can i write my opinions there without interference or censorship from the church?
there are at least self imposed limits, i watch my language, am careful to argue nicely as reflects a Christlike attitude. but as to specifics?

Somehow, I don't think that anyone is asked to refrain from rendering any opinion. Truth be known, there is much more peril for a Roman Catholic, who, if I understand correctly, is forbidden from rendering interpretation, even if they feel free to do it anyway; their own YOPIOS.

I think the key is to ask the question: Is the net more like when two brothers sit down over a beer or coffee to discuss doctrine and what the Bible teaches or is the net more like the publishing of material.

is it sin to disagree with the confession?
is it sinful to write about your disagrement with the confession?

Here, I can answer. When I joined my PCA church last year, I made it clear that I was not required to be completely in agreement with the WCF. As such, I don't think it a sin either to voice disagreement with the confession.

Besides, if we can't discuss things, then how is it that we have any conversation in a Bible study or a home group?

 

[rmwilliamsll]

this is helpful. thank you for both your time and advice

I think this a rather severe stand. For instance, out and about in public, if someone asks you about your Presbyterian beliefs, a Baptist, perhaps, do you always simply refer them to your teaching elder? What if the person is an agnostic or atheist?

my stand to refer to the Pastors is
specifically about questions regarding creation and Genesis.

I think the key is to ask the question: Is the net more like when two brothers sit down over a beer or coffee to discuss doctrine and what the Bible teaches or is the net more like the publishing of material.

this is very useful, there are certainly things i am comfortable about expressing over a cup of coffee where i would not think of blogging or writing up into a more complete researched paper. i think that i have erred in the past by being too comfort over coffee and saying things that i regretted. i have such a high regard for books and the printed word that i seldom have the same experience with what i write.

there is a related question and that is with regard to google and the persistence of things written on the net. people will be able in years to come to find what i have written. how will those things be used then? in ways we can not even imagine now.

i consistently use the same login for years. consciously doing this because it allows people to find out what i have written, i make no attempt to hide my opinions, only to base them on some attempt to research and study the issue.

btw

Boarders:
Upon opting to join PB, the Board Rules were clearly stated. One of the requirements to membership is the embracing of the WCF or 1689 BCF. If one does not embrace either the WCF or 1689 BCF, one should not have considered joining as this would go against the design and managements requests. In the initial stages of formulating this medium, Matt and I felt it important to narrow the window a tad to keep the forum *purer* in regards to the reformation and it's tenets. We have to draw a line; if we don't, where will the blur end?

from: http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=5478
PB's confessional requirements.

 

[inchristalone221]

I do not personally believe the contradicting a confession or clear teaching of a local church is out of line. Obviously you should not argue with teaching elders in classes or sermons, but in local church context, if we lose the free exchange of ideas and arguments, sound doctrine is an impossibility.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

I do not personally believe the contradicting a confession or clear teaching of a local church is out of line. Obviously you should not argue with teaching elders in classes or sermons, but in local church context, if we lose the free exchange of ideas and arguments, sound doctrine is an impossibility.

there is a neat essay by J.Frame on a related topic at:
http://www.frame-poythress.org/frame_articles/2002Women.htm

(1) Such use of women's gifts should not be used in such a way as to blur the distinction between the special and general offices. Appearances are important in this regard. When a woman teaches in church in such a way that she "acts like an elder" or claims the same authority as the elders, or even appears to be doing so to reasonable people in the congregation, then the session should act in gentleness and love to remove the danger. What "appears" wrong or "causes confusion" may vary from congregation to congregation and from situation to situation. We cannot, therefore, furnish a final, exhaustive list of what precisely can be done and not done. Application of the biblical principles to specific situations is something we all must do, especially those in leadership positions. God expects the church's leaders to be sensitive to dangers in specific situations and to act, speaking the truth in love.

it really helped firm up my ideas on the distinction between the general and special teaching offices.

 

[inchristalone221]

That was very interesting article. My thanks to you for the link. I shall study it more in depth when time arises. I have briefly read it and analyzed some of the scripture proofs and I conclude that the argument put forth does not satisfy. The author rightly remarks that the specific topic of Sunday School is not mentioned in scripture because the instittion was not yet invented. I would submit to you that the same is true with the senior pastor/minister model of local church teaching ministry. I would suggest that women are not to occupy the position of ruling elders, but they are permitted to teach in the church provided they do not routinely teach their own husbands (my reasons are exegetical, and we can discuss them sometime, but I'd rather not hijack your thread).