...
I have been rather concerned with the "factions" that have been "lining up", opposing one another and entering into argument, rather than dialogue. As Brian stated on another thread re: communication (much better than I could) this is a community of individuals who are desiring to come together for a common purpose. For most, that purpose has been to discuss their experiences (however short or long) in the assembly and to find healing and answers. Every once in a while, there is a person or persons who seek to enter into the discussion and defend the system most of us have fled.
Those who seek to defend the assembly do not see the error in the teachings and have been taught to think in a certain fashion. It is just these ones the Lord would seek for us to reach out to with the gospel of grace and show them the liberty with which Christ has set us free. To descend into arguement is to invite attack. Our pastor was pointing out Pauls' state as he arrived in Athens in Acts 17, verse 16, "Now while Paul was waiting for them in Athens his spirit was being provoked within him as he was observing the city full of idols." Paul was provoked. He was irritated, disturbed.
...
The pastor brought out that although Paul was all these things; angry, disturbed, irritated, he did not lash out at these ones (who were filled with idolatry - like the assembly) but he reached out to these ones with compassion, love - the gospel. He mentioned 2Cor 5:14, "For the love of Christ constraineth us..."
Now isn't this what happens when someone comes to the BB defending what we know now to be idolatry and heretical teaching? We become angry, provoked, disturbed. And why? Because for many of us, it took so long to come out of the assembly, we endured much pain and suffering....it cost many of us dearly. Some are even still experiencing the negative fallout from our involvement. And this propels some of us to respond in this manner of anger resulting in arguement, etc. But what did Paul do? The love of Christ constrained him and he "disputed" with these ones:
...
Hi Kim,
This a good post and it is very pertinent to the issue at hand. The issue being, as you described: "For most, that purpose has been to discuss their experiences (however short or long) in the assembly and to find healing and answers. Every once in a while, there is a person or persons who seek to enter into the discussion and defend the system most
of us have fled. "
I have been thinking about this and wondering what my take on it should be. At first, I didn't even want to touch those threads with a ten-foot pole. I just saw it all as mindless, useless bickering. I just wanted stuff like that to go away so we can talk about deeper, more meaningful issues. But then I took a closer look at it and actually read the threads. I found that what was going on in them was that some people were coming in and in various ways upholding the assembly/George/leaders as virtuous and/or teaching false doctrine. There were some, namely Brent and Verne who were refuting the falsehood. After becoming aware of this, I decided to also refute falehood and affirm the truth.
I don't think choosing sides is wrong. If someone is saying false things, we should say, "Hey, no, that's wrong." Shouldn't we? There is darkness and there is light; truth and lies. We must choose which side we are on. In other words, will we stand for the truth or give in to, agree with or in any other way support those who are stating lies?
In regards to your examples, they are excellent, but consider the application and context. In Athens, Paul preached to people who had never heard the gospel before. That's a different group than say, for example, the Jews that heard over and over again the good news of Jesus Christ and yet, not only refused to believe, but also persecuted Paul wherever he went preaching the gospel.
To these, Paul did and said the following:
"And when they opposed themselves, and blasphemed, he shook his raiment, and said unto them, Your blood be upon your own heads; I am clean; from henceforth I will go unto the Gentiles." Acts 18:6
I think the difference is clear.
Paul said to the high priest, "God shall smite thee, thou whited wall: for sittest thou to judge me after the law, and commandest me to be smitten contrary to the law?" Acts 23:3
Is that reaching out in love and compassion? No. But is it fitting? I think so.
Stephen, filled with the Holy Spirit, said "Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye. 52 Which of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted? and they have slain them which shewed before of the coming of the Just One; of whom ye have been now the betrayers and
murderers: 53 Who have received the law by the disposition of angels, and have not kept it." Acts 7:51-53
Was this called for? Absolutely, because it was true.
And consider the following:
"And that because of false brethren unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage: 5
To whom we gave place by subjection, no, not for an hour; that the truth of the gospel might continue with you." Gal 2:4-5
"But when Peter was come to Antioch,
I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. 12 For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision. 13 And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation. 14
But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all..." Gal 2:11-14a
Jesus condemned the Pharisees:
"But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in....(and many more woes) " Matt 23:13-35
John gives statements regarding two men:
"9 I wrote unto the church: but Diotrephes, who loveth to have the preeminence among them, receiveth us not. 10 Wherefore, if I come, I will remember his deeds which he doeth, prating against us with malicious words: and not content therewith, neither doth he himself receive the brethren, and forbiddeth them that would, and casteth them out of the church. 11 Beloved, follow not that which is evil, but that which is good. He that doeth good is of God: but he that doeth evil hath not seen God. 12 Demetrius hath good report of all men, and of the truth itself: yea, and we also bear record; and ye know that our record is true." III John 9-12
And some more passages, where the Bible uses clearly condemning speech regarding certain men:
II Tim 3
II Pet 2
Jude
In summary, it appears to me that it is not always the case that a Christian is to show compassion to everyone. A Christian is to avoid and/or rebuke men who know the truth but refuse to believe it and instead hold to and teach lies.
"8 Look to yourselves, that we lose not those things which we have wrought, but that we receive a full reward. 9 Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son. 10 If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: 11 For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds." II John 8-10
"28 Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. 29 For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. 30 Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them. 31 Therefore watch, and remember, that by the space of three years I ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears." Acts 20:28-31
