To what extent does the church have a right into your personal business?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Greg,
Not that I disagree w/ anything you have written, are any sins outside of the over sight of our church elders? If not giving is sinful, wouldn’t it follow that some type of consideration be given in regards to giving?

I think I understand your question better now. Giving, unlike infighting, for example, may be more complex a matter for the session to navigate. Certainly giving falls under faith and practice, but probably needs much prayer if a session is to engage.

My gut reaction would be that, unlike infighting that may require immediate oversight and correction, a lack of giving may be occasion to ask how they (session/diaconate) may help the individual, even if it is merely in financial counsel. Maybe the individual (new believer) is unaware of his/her duty.

I would like to her from our seasoned officers how they have handled this in the past......
 
Rest assured, if you are abusing your wife, abusing your children, and or selling drugs as a job, I am confident your local church should have something to say and do in the matter. ;)

In other words, there is more elaboration needed to your statement than what you have claimed.
I was not speaking towards what would happen If I was abusing my wife or sons, or acting in a non Christian way as in known habitual sinning and not accepting discipline by the elders or the church though. I was speaking more towards the church leadership not being involved with telling me how to act towards my wife and family part from what the scriptures tell me how to behave, nor to be able to tell me what job I must take, who to marry. I am reacting towards what was exposed to early on in Charismatic circles under the so called Shepherding Movement, as elders there did exercise so much control that people were told who they could marry, what jobs could have, what churches had to attend, for examples.
 
An appropriate line would seem to be that a church can discipline for sin, but not for their own additional preferences. In the PCA, for instance, BCO 29-1 spells this out. If I take a job with a certain company that wronged them somehow, they can advise me about this, but not put me under discipline to get me to quit. If that job requires me to sin (do unnecessary work on the Lord's Day, or it's a job at an abortion mill), then they would be able to discipline me.

In your example, a wise church would understand this to be vague enough that there is legitimate disagreement over it. Scripture doesn't conclusively prove that these are sin, and our subordinate standards do not speak to the issue at all. Therefore, it would be very unlikely to come to the level of discipline. If you're at an abusive church, then you have your presbytery and GA as additional courts of appeal at which to raise this same objection.
I think this is a balanced approach, as we would want to have the church able to speak into and address known areas when they arise that are problematic. If I was known as a Christian in my community, but also well known to partake of drinking to excess a lot, or known to have affairs, that would bring reproach to Christ and must be addressed. I just wish to avoid situations when preferences and convictions are what is used to exercise authority over us, or when leadership claims toi have heard the voice and will of God for whom to marry. or what job must take for examples.
 
A church can discipline for sin, but not for their own additional preferences.

BUT....many authoritarian types think that most things fall into the category of sin or not sin and not into the category of personal preferences.

I have heard of Reformed Baptist elders asking for pay stubs from congregants to make sure they were tithing. A normal person would say, "None of your business buddy." But strangely enough, many parishioners are conditioned to believe that such requests do not cross personal boundaries and are not offended when, in fact, they should be.
Leadership is charged to be over the spiritual condition of their flock, and so should exercise authority over areas that fall under that umbrella, but not in areas that fall under preferences and convictions, under the freedom in Christ latitude the scriptures allow for us all to have and exercise.
 
Giving is the Christians joy and duty....according to the Scripture. I think a session should "think the best" of a member unless there is good reason not to. Any corrective action should not be putative, but restorative in nature. There may be unusual circumstances that may require an unusual response, but that would not the norm and I know with joyous certitude, that my session would treat any unusual circumstance gently and with much prayer.......
In my church, those involved in official ministries such as pastors and Elders and deacons are required to be tithing , and need to show that they are doing that.
 
In my church, those involved in official ministries such as pastors and Elders and deacons are required to be tithing , and need to show that they are doing that.

I think all Christians are "required" to give, by God's word, according to station.
 
I think all Christians are "required" to give, by God's word, according to station.
True, as that is in the scriptures, but was just saying that those in official positions seem to be under a greater financial responsibility.
 
I was not speaking towards what would happen If I was abusing my wife or sons, or acting in a non Christian way as in known habitual sinning and not accepting discipline by the elders or the church though. I was speaking more towards the church leadership not being involved with telling me how to act towards my wife and family part from what the scriptures tell me how to behave, nor to be able to tell me what job I must take, who to marry. I am reacting towards what was exposed to early on in Charismatic circles under the so called Shepherding Movement, as elders there did exercise so much control that people were told who they could marry, what jobs could have, what churches had to attend, for examples.
David,

Would have been better that you prefaced your original post with all these underlying assumptions rather than assuming we all would understand what you actually intended. Try doing this more often and avoid the confusion that results when you do not. We are not mind readers, so take some time to ensure what you intend to say matches what you actually say.
 
David,

Would have been better that you prefaced your original post with all these underlying assumptions rather than assuming we all would understand what you actually intended. Try doing this more often and avoid the confusion that results when you do not. We are not mind readers, so take some time to ensure what you intend to say matches what you actually say.
I will try to be more mindful of being more explicit on what I am attempting to post and say here on the Board.
 
Are financial offerings/church support, compulsory? If they are, what means does the church have at it's disposal to make sure the flock is not sinning by not contributing? Envelopes?
I'm guessing this was directed at my post just above: Yes, tithing is considered compulsory, and the membership vows include a promise to support the church financially as well as otherwise. So far as I know, they trust us as members to live up to the vows....though come to think of it, being on time is also in the vows and precious few bother to do that. Hmmm.
 
I have a question on a note that relates to the involvement of the elders in the lives of members. Have any of you experience (first-hand, or second) with what might entail appropriate disciplinary action for those that are unrepentantly unequally yoked in a dating relationship? If so, could you share what this might look like (or what you think it should look like).

Thanks,
Ryan
 
I would expect that this would follow Matt 18; practically speaking, if it got to the elders, there would be counseling. Interview of both parties (if possible), to validate.
 
Dealing with this subject, this is why I think it's important for the leaders to be close to the members, and to do home visits for spiritual check-ups. Also, so the elders are held accountable, it is good for them at the home visits to ask the members if they see any sin in their own (the elder's) life.
 
Dealing with this subject, this is why I think it's important for the leaders to be close to the members, and to do home visits for spiritual check-ups. Also, so the elders are held accountable, it is good for them at the home visits to ask the members if they see any sin in their own (the elder's) life.
This all creates an atmosphere that is not free and relaxed (home check-ups on their members). I once heard of a man who, upon visiting a home unannounced, checked the fridge and cabinets for alcohol. Such an environment creates members who are always sizing others up in the name of "discernment" and encourages a critical spirit instead of love.
 
^^ Perg, our elders schedule visits, rotating through the membership in I suspect alphabetical order. So I always have plenty of time to hide the contraband behind my 16-volume set of John Owen before they show up....:cheers:

Although they would not be offended to be offered a glass of wine, anyway.
 
This all creates an atmosphere that is not free and relaxed (home check-ups on their members). I once heard of a man who, upon visiting a home unannounced, checked the fridge and cabinets for alcohol. Such an environment creates members who are always sizing others up in the name of "discernment" and encourages a critical spirit instead of love.

Perg,
Unscheduled or surprise "check ups" for the purpose of "catching" someone would probably elicite your cited results. Our session schedules visits and asks some of the more difficult questions. It is ministerial and shepherding. Some of the guys may share a glass of Woodford Reserve with me!

Some background on me: up to age 10ish, I was raised R.C. at 16ish, I heard a poor form if the gospel and believed what I was taught. I didn't get into a church until 20 and that, a pop evangelical mix of attempted friendly and palatable "gospel". I made the jump from an EFree congregation (as a soteriological Calvinist) to a Reformed church about 5 years ago. The ecclesiology in the OPC could not be further from pop-E ecclesiology (if one could demonstrate pop-E even has an ecclesiology). My officers really care about my health. They are willing to make the hard call to intervene in my family's life if necessary. Not check for booze behind my Hodge books, but real care and shepherding. This is a good thing, but it is not an American-friendly thing. Someone mentioned earlier the "not unless invited" idea that has no place in the mind of a child of God under authority. If there is abuse, take it to the courts. If the said ecclesiology has no courts, the only two (and horrible) choices left are 1-put up and shut up or 2-leave. These are not good choices by anyone's definition and, at best, the lesser of two evils. Certainly, God has better in mind for His bride.......
 
Last edited:
The church has a right into your personal business if you're habitually breaking God's laws. For example, they have the right to discipline me if I decide to live with a man I'm not married to. However, they don't have the right to tell me which town I can live in and if it has to be in an apartment or a house. They have the right to discipline me if I'm watching p0rn but they don't have the right to tell me that I can't go to the movie theater to watch a PG movie. They have the right to discipline me if I decide to partake in Mardi Gras for a vacation, but they don't have the right to tell me if and when and where I can go on vacation when it does't involve sinful entertainment. They have the right to discipline me if I decide to become a pole dancer but they don't have the right to tell me I can't be a nurse and have to be janitor. They also don't have the right to my finances and tell me how much to give to tithe, but they do have the right to teach about tithing and admonish me to tithe.....etc etc. Basically, it comes down to common sense. Are you practicing sin in what you're doing or not?
 
I once heard of a man who, upon visiting a home unannounced, checked the fridge and cabinets for alcohol.
This sounds like an example of cult-like effort at control. It is an in loco parentis treatment of adults, who presumably 1) have an adult mind, and 2) didn't invite this level of accountability. It may be that a person would like or appreciate such levels of scrutiny, but the parameters should be established along with proper justification.

Pastors and elders are first responsible for policing public (that is, of the church) sins. So, to reference Sarah's comment above, a member who shacks up with someone to whom he/she isn't married is committing a public scandal. The presence of a bottle of alcohol (in addition to the question of whether it's even sinful to drink) shut up in a fridge or cabinet is at least a private matter.

People who have been secularly convicted of crimes, and put on parole, are subject to invasive, surprise searches and the like; their release from confinement is not new freedom, just a different burden of constant monitoring. What sort of strange shepherding is it, if the elders act like they are parole officers who expect to send back to prison 80% of their caseload?

Neither the parent model nor the warden model is suitable for shepherding. It is possible sessions might feel compelled to slip into those roles "in cases extraordinary," but they are not the best parents or prison/parole-minders. An habitual drunk, who doesn't want "helpful" intervention from the elders (even if he'll take it occasionally from his AA sponsor) is probably ripe--not for escalation of control, but--for relinquishment of the services the church is equipped to offer. Prv.26:11; Jer.48:26.

That is, there's a limit to what shepherds should do to maintain a member in his "good standing." Let him go, and later (if possible) pursue him; perhaps the Lord will let you bring him back (as he would go out to secure his lost sheep). Christ knows his own sheep, and he will go to amazing lengths to retrieve them; but he doesn't collect every wandering sheep--because they aren't of his flock, Jn.10:26.

Likewise, there is a balance to be struck between caring for the spiritual needs of the sheep, watching over them not carelessly, increasing the discipline where appropriate; and acknowledging personal/familial freedom, individual responsibility before the all-seeing God, and letting people go their willful self-destructive way. It is acknowledging our own limits as men, albeit ones who must give account, Heb.13:17.
 
The church has a right into your personal business if you're habitually breaking God's laws. For example, they have the right to discipline me if I decide to live with a man I'm not married to. However, they don't have the right to tell me which town I can live in and if it has to be in an apartment or a house. They have the right to discipline me if I'm watching p0rn but they don't have the right to tell me that I can't go to the movie theater to watch a PG movie. They have the right to discipline me if I decide to partake in Mardi Gras for a vacation, but they don't have the right to tell me if and when and where I can go on vacation when it does't involve sinful entertainment. They have the right to discipline me if I decide to become a pole dancer but they don't have the right to tell me I can't be a nurse and have to be janitor. They also don't have the right to my finances and tell me how much to give to tithe, but they do have the right to teach about tithing and admonish me to tithe.....etc etc. Basically, it comes down to common sense. Are you practicing sin in what you're doing or not?
Where this can get really overboard is when a Christians freedom in areas of preferences and convictions is being threatened, as in the so called Shepherding Movement , that had Pastors/Elders deciding for their members who could marry, what jobs to now have etc.
 
Where this can get really overboard is when a Christians freedom in areas of preferences and convictions is being threatened, as in the so called Shepherding Movement , that had Pastors/Elders deciding for their members who could marry, what jobs to now have etc.

I'm not familiar with this particular departure, but some goofballs departure does not negate the authority (God-given, mind you) of the offices. EVERY Christian should be willing to submit to the authority over them. If the authority is heavy handed, appeal it. If you have no means of appeal, then you will have to leave. Anyone not willing to submit to God's authority via the church officers, is a Christian who needs discipline. I think one could have had truly unrighteous things done to them and be gun shy.....that is one thing. To have an attitude of non submission is rebellion..
 
I'm not familiar with this particular departure, but some goofballs departure does not negate the authority (God-given, mind you) of the offices. EVERY Christian should be willing to submit to the authority over them. If the authority is heavy handed, appeal it. If you have no means of appeal, then you will have to leave. Anyone not willing to submit to God's authority via the church officers, is a Christian who needs discipline. I think one could have had truly unrighteous things done to them and be gun shy.....that is one thing. To have an attitude of non submission is rebellion..
I agree with you until a person in authority steps outside of Biblical authority. Once they do that I have no need to appeal for they are the one in the wrong. They are the one who needs to take it up with the session.
 
I agree with you until a person in authority steps outside of Biblical authority. Once they do that I have no need to appeal for they are the one in the wrong. They are the one who needs to take it up with the session.

If procedures are working well, the person in authority in question (presumably an elder) has already discussed this with the session and they agree. Our OPC, Presbyterian polity would warrant that you would have to initiate the appeal process. If the rouge officer is indeed way out of line, I would not anticipate or expect him to take the initiative (nor could he? Dr. Strange?) to appeal your case.

I'm not nor have I said there aren't officers who are unfit for office or there are not abuses. There is a stated process in Presbyterian polity. I think this might be more an issue in one of our sister denominations where even confessional subscription seems up for grabs.... I may have a different view if I was on the receiving end of injustice.......
 
I'm not familiar with this particular departure, but some goofballs departure does not negate the authority (God-given, mind you) of the offices. EVERY Christian should be willing to submit to the authority over them. If the authority is heavy handed, appeal it. If you have no means of appeal, then you will have to leave. Anyone not willing to submit to God's authority via the church officers, is a Christian who needs discipline. I think one could have had truly unrighteous things done to them and be gun shy.....that is one thing. To have an attitude of non submission is rebellion..
Agree with you on this issue , but still think that as long as functioning in a scripture allowed fashion, ones family and work decisions should be left between us and the Lord Himself.
 
If procedures are working well, the person in authority in question (presumably an elder) has already discussed this with the session and they agree. Our OPC, Presbyterian polity would warrant that you would have to initiate the appeal process. If the rouge officer is indeed way out of line, I would not anticipate or expect him to take the initiative (nor could he? Dr. Strange?) to appeal your case.

I'm not nor have I said there aren't officers who are unfit for office or there are not abuses. There is a stated process in Presbyterian polity. I think this might be more an issue in one of our sister denominations where even confessional subscription seems up for grabs.... I may have a different view if I was on the receiving end of injustice.......
I am just wondering if how Presbyterians and Baptists handle this issue differs at all, as my church does hive discipline and oversight over its members in regards to sin issues and theological issues, but that follows from the Matthew passage regarding church discipline towards a sinning and not repenting Christian.
 
I am just wondering if how Presbyterians and Baptists handle this issue differs at all, as my church does hive discipline and oversight over its members in regards to sin issues and theological issues, but that follows from the Matthew passage regarding church discipline towards a sinning and not repenting Christian.
Yes.....very differently, past the local session. The Evangelical polity has no authority outside the 4 church walls. Once you've gone to the local elders, your done. Now you have to choose to keep your mouth shut or leave. Presbyterianism has the local session, the Presbytery and the GA for appeals.
 
Yes.....very differently, past the local session. The Evangelical polity has no authority outside the 4 church walls. Once you've gone to the local elders, your done. Now you have to choose to keep your mouth shut or leave. Presbyterianism has the local session, the Presbytery and the GA for appeals.
Yes, for in the Baptist churches, local church handles locval issues, unless it involves pastors/Elders, than goes to the group over the local churches, in our case the Great lakes group.
 
Where this can get really overboard is when a Christians freedom in areas of preferences and convictions is being threatened, as in the so called Shepherding Movement , that had Pastors/Elders deciding for their members who could marry, what jobs to now have etc.

Sounds cultish.
 
There are a lot of good comments in this thread. One thing I have taken out of it is the need for good fellowship and accountability in the local church. The question in the OP may tend to be superfluous if more local churches acted this way.
 
Yes, as it was part of the Charismatic Movement, and some looked upon that Movement as having modern day Prophets, so that was why able to order people around.

What I've tried to understand are the people that derive pleasure in such things like those that thrived as Stasi. Seriously, showing up to your 'brother' or 'sister' pushing your way in and checking cabinets.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top