• Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.

Christian Liberty

  • Thread starter Thread starter Anonymous
  • Start date Start date
My point is spiritual authority should be about Jesus, not man. Traditions of man is no substitute for the Word of God.

Oh sure I agree totally in that. The key is for a leader to be mature in the word of God and in the practice of it for life so he or she can mentor by example another in the ways of Jesus Christ.
 
Dr. K.R. Allen said:
Interesting indeed that there is such a strong reaction to the idea of discipleship or respect for spiritual authority.

In my definition of things this statement by Pastor John, who is someone I am grateful to be a disciple of, said:

Too many men do not respect any spiritual authority and by doing so are teaching rebellion to their families

and this statement of mine

A man who will not be a disciple of any other man is teaching and training his women not to be a disciple of him.

are saying the same thing. Respect for spiritual authority and being a disciple of someone older in the Lord means the same thing in my vernacular.
if you take john's statement out of context like you did it appears that you have a point.
however, if you put his comment back into the context in which it was made:
(2.) As believers within a church, we have less liberty, yet greater obligation. In a church setting we are part of a larger unit than our family. As men we are the leader of our family, but in the church, we are part of the whole and we have representative leadership. We, by accepting that we are a part of a church have the same responsibility to submit to our church leadership as our wives do in submitting to us. In my opinion, failure to realize this role for men in the church is one of the greatest failures in polyworld. Too many men do not respect any spiritual authority and by doing so are teaching rebellion to their families. We do not have the authority in the church to demand that everyone believe and behave the same as we do. If we have discovered Biblical truth, such as plural marriage, we need to behave responsibly and lovingly as brethren in the assembly.
we can see that he was confining his statement to a local church setting while yours judges everyone including those who may not be in a local church anymore.
the reality for many of us is that had we been submitted to the church that we were in at the time that we found out about plural marriage we would not have been allowed to accept the truth of plural marriage.
no human mentor brought me the truth of pm. when the Spirit revealed it to me i knew of no one else that believed it even though many did.
(tongue firmly in cheek) having begun in the Spirit will i now be perfected by a fleshly human mentor? :)

iron sharpens iron, and we have our roles in each others lives. but let us not presume to judge others need of submission. as john so rightly said:
Each Christian man is a priest before God for his family and has all the responsibility of a priest by representing God to them, by example, by teaching precept and principles of the Word (Bible) and of representing them before God by serious searching of the scriptures for God's direction for his family, as well as being an intercessor in prayer for them. This is the duty of a husband and father, a patriarch. The liberty we have as believers allows us to seek the throne of God without hindrance and to follow our conscience as led by God in ministering to our families.

p.s. if martin luther had stayed in submission to the "spiritual authority" that he was under.......... ;)
 
This is indeed a very prevalent issue among those in this persuasion of thought. Many men have been burned and thus they now have shut down and refuse to be accountable to anyone other than themselves. A man who will not be a disciple of any other man is teaching and training his women not to be a disciple of him. It is like dominoes.
I understand the point here, If a father or even a mother is in constant rebellion, the children will pick up on it and do so themselves. It doesn't have to be with the local Church body, it can be with civil authority or an employer. Fellowship is important and so is discipleship, even if it's outside of the local assembly. As far as our submission to God being a role model, He is a Spirit, therefore it's good to have human discipleship and fellowship also. Although this is the opinion of a father with kids at home.
If a man is not holding himself accountable to anyone, your theory may hold true. But if a man is actively and visibly holding himself accountable to Jesus, then he is giving a direct example of direct submission to his direct head. Any wife refuses to follow that example cannot validly claim this as an excuse.
I agree that it isn't an excuse. I think that if a wife is in submission to God, she would also be to her human head or husband. But what if the wife is less mature? Her husband could lovingly try to lead her into her role, but if she rejects it for some reason, then wouldn't discipleship outside of the home be needed? I think the thing that needs to be remembered is that, fellowship and discipleship, even if it's not 100%, is important for all of us, we need each other as brothers.
 
Isabella, I'm guessing that such a church would be problematic IF they made polygamy the main issue. I think a balanced program is best. However, it may come to starting our own churches.
I agree John, it would look like some kind of cult.
Someone once said, " it is easier to build boys than it is to mend men." So maybe starting from ground up may be best in some cases
It would be easier to make disciples out of young men, especially when it comes to PM. (no offence to my mature brothers, I'm no spring chicken)
 
Isabella said:
Ok, thanks Jim, I don't want to take the thread off on a tangent so just asking whether a fairly open Polygamous Church would be an asset to the cause and possible could create the community so many of you seek without feeling that you are compromising some of your principles?

Just a thought,
B
x
Yes it would but it takes a lot of work. If everyone on here wasn't scattered all over the country, i'm sure we could easily start a church.
 
Jim said:
Yes it would but it takes a lot of work. If everyone on here wasn't scattered all over the country, i'm sure we could easily start a church.

The Happy Holy Harem Fellowship? :roll: :lol:

I think it is actually taking place on a small scale in several locales.

But I am wondering ... could someone tell me please ... just what is the difference between "independence" and "rebellion"?

Is it in the eye of the beholder? If you refuse to shut down the verdict of your own reasoning mind in favor of that of someone else convinced of their own authority, is that independence from one perspective and rebellion from another? And which perspective is correct?

Do we, as parents, need to recognize that this may even be at play in our children? That a child may not, in fact, be rebellious but simply of an independent and inquiring mind and nature?

From my own early life, I propose so. My dad frequently accused me of being rebellious and tried to beat it out of me. But in reality, I was simply asking questions and trying to understand so I could do right.

Oddly enough, he told me several times the story of a young phillipino boy whose dad tied him up in a bag and hung it in a tree, then beat it each week to keep him from going to church, but whenever he didn't, the boy went, until finally his dad gave in and gave his own heart to God as well. This boy was a hero of the faith, or so I was taught. But when I questioned and determined to do right as best as I could figure, THAT was rebellion ...
 
The Happy Holy Harem Fellowship? :roll: :lol:
:lol:

I think it is actually taking place on a small scale in several locales.
We could possibly support each other if the locations could be safetly shared.
And I am wondering ... could someone tell me please ... just what is the difference between "independence" and "rebellion"? Is it in the eye of the beholder? If you refuse to shut down the verdict of your own reasoning mind in favor of that of someone else convinced of their own authority, is that independence from one perspective and rebellion from another? And which perspective is correct?
Do we, as parents, need to recognize that this may even be at play in our children? That a child may not, in fact, be rebellious but simply of an independent and inquiring mind and nature? From my own early life, I propose so.
Indepence or freedom of conscience is a good thing, but without the Spirit of God what good is it? As believers, we should judge the actions of other believers with discretion, we have the Bible and the Spirit to help discern things. I don't think 100% submission is possible for anyone, not until we're redeemed anyway.
 
Rebellion and independence differ from the direction of the heart.

For example, suppose a judge is overseeing a trial and the lawyer is asking a defendant on the stand a question. The defendant does not really understand the question so he asks the lawyer to define his terms. The lawyer does define his terms and then asks the defendant if he understands. The person still says he does not. So the lawyer asks what terms he does not now understand. The defendant states what terms he does not understand. But then the lawyer examines the written statement of the defendant and see that he uses those terms in his own writings and this points to the evasive or rebellious nature of the question. The person is simply trying to be a pain and avoid accountability. The direction or purpose here from the heart is to avoid accountability and authority.

For an example in the home: A mother homeschooling her child says to him to answer the questions in the workbook. While trying to answer the questions the student has about five other questions arise so the student stops to ask about these other ideas. The ideas are good ones and the mother answers the questions one by one. As she answers more discussion takes place as the child's understanding increases with each question and answer. Even though 2 hours goes by and the original questions in the book are not yet complete the child has truly being learning. As that session concludes the child then goes back willingly to the original questions to complete his work without complaint or grumbling. His heart showed true interest and true curiosity not the spirit or attitude of being evasive or disrespectful to the original directive to answer the question.

For an example in the workplace: A boss tells a subordinate to accomplish a task. The subordinate has never done the task the way the boss has asked for it to be done this time. So he asks the boss to explain further. The boss just tells the person to get it done. The subordinate then goes and asks some other employees what they think is the best way to handle it. By the time he gets his answers and forms his idea on how to do it the boss checks back in and the work is not done. The boss then disciplines the employee. The employee here was truly trying to honor the wishes of the boss but lacked understanding. His efforts of going to others to find out how to best accomplish the task revealed the motive of the heart which was submissive in spirit and thus his motives were good not rebellious. The boss in this situation was overbearing and less than considerate with his employee.

In summary the key is for the motives of the heart to be discerned. Are the questions designed truly for learning or are they designed to avoid accountability. One wise parent who had a naturally curious son was struggling to know one time if the child was being curious or rebellious. So he told the child: "write down all of your questions you have and go finish your chores right now. As soon as you finish the chores we'll sit down and talk about your questions." After the chores were done the child said to his dad: "Oh I'm fine dad, I figured out the answers to my questions." The dad was able to discern that he thought the questions were to be evasive of his directives and thus he designed a test to see.

The point is therefore that to determine if something is rebellion or a true spirit of independence or a true spirit of seeking to learn and grow to maturity (an element of independence) the person examining the process and elements must consider numerous nuances of the situation. Is the person showing signs of trying to avoid authority or is the person truly asking in order to fulfill the directives of the authority. What is the pattern of the person in the past. Does the person have a habit of being generally disrespectful of authority in general? Are the questions being asked truly substantive or are they random and are they asked in or with a sarcastic tone and body language? These clues can help someone determine the heart and motive and directional orientation of the questions. Thus, when all of that is considered it is often easy to see what is really going in in the heart of the person.
 
It was brought to my attention that the use of the word "regurgitate" in my first response to this thread might be offensive to Pastors.

It was not my intention to denigrate what faithful Pastors do Sunday after Sunday, but rather, to highlight the average church attender's source of Scripture - all too often, people only want to hear what others say about the Word of God rather than actually cracking open the Bible and studying it for themselves. Relying only on someone else's Bible study for your spiritual food would be somewhat analogous to relying on someone else to chew your Happy Meal for you.

So sorry, all my fellow Pastors who may have been offended by my using the word "regurgitate." (I'm not currently serving as a Pastor, but have done so in the past and desire to do so again in the future.)
 
CecilW wrote:
If a man is not holding himself accountable to anyone, your theory may hold true. But if a man is actively and visibly holding himself accountable to Jesus, then he is giving a direct example of direct submission to his direct head. Any wife refuses to follow that example cannot validly claim this as an excuse.
If a man is actively and visibly holding himself accountable to Jesus, how can his wife (or wives) and kids know that he is? It is my belief that such a man will be in submission to other men who also are in true submission to Christ.

Which brings up another problem...there are a gazillion denominations because so many men held themselves accountable only to the One True Head (Jesus) but got something wrong somewhere that caused a rift with others who held themselves accountable only to the One True Head. All of the various denominational beliefs can't be right, unless the world is also right in saying that something can be truth for you, but not for me. (And that is not true!)

The Bible is our final authority on matters of doctrine and Christian living, as well as any other topic it talks about. The problem comes in because we are all tainted by sin and not one of us is immune to having our flesh get in the way, so we sometimes fail to rightly divide the Word, but end up butchering it rather badly. I have been guilty of that, and it's possible (in fact, likely) that there are some areas in which I (and each and every one of you) still believe something that is "butchered" rather than "rightly divided." (But I'm willing to make corrections as the Holy Spirit convicts me that I am wrong about something, and He often uses my brothers and sisters to point out where I might be wrong.)

And that's the key to the unity Jesus wants us to have. Listen to the Holy Spirit, and be willing to learn from each other. That is what discipleship is all about. We who are older and more mature in our Christian walk should teach those who are less mature, and should also learn from each other.

Let me share some of my own testimony.

I grew up in a church that was extremely legalistic. Their stated doctrinal beliefs are very similar to the Church of the Nazarene (a Wesleyan-Arminian doctrine), they just go to a legalistic extreme.

I was actually taught that every time I sinned, I "backslid" and "lost my salvation." That required "getting saved again." The problem was, "sinning" was breaking any little rule that the church said was wrong, like wearing any jewelry at all - not even a wedding ring is allowed! Women could not cut their hair, not even to trim off split ends. Men and women alike can not allow knees and elbows to show in public. Ad nauseum... 99+% of their laws and rules are nowhere to be found in the Bible, except maybe by some twisted out-of-context eisegesis.

So naturally, I "backslid" and "got saved again" somewhere between 50 and 100 times between the first time I made a public profession of faith in Christ and when I finally gave up trying to live a "christian" life and dropped out of Bible college. Every time the church had a revival, I was back at the altar "getting saved again." Thanks to the "altar nurses" brand of "discipleship," there were times I "backslid" again before getting off my knees! ("You need to stop doing this. You must start doing that. Don't do such-and-such...") I wasted nearly half of my adult life (after dropping out of college) trying to run from a God that I thought hated me every time I broke a rule, and spent the last two or three years of that rebellious time trying to prove that He does not exist.

When I had sunk about as low as a person can sink, I finally discovered that God loves me unconditionally. He doesn't want me to live by the rules, He wants me to develop a relationship with Him. A personal, loving, intimate relationship, not one based on fear.

If I had been properly discipled as a brand-new believer when I was about 8 years old, I would not have wasted over 30 years being afraid of God and trying to run from Him. I was 39 when I finally figured it out (on my own, unfortunately - I was so tired of fighting Him and running from Him that I just gave up and told God, "OK, take me!") and I have never once regretted the fact that I gave myself totally, completely, and forever to my Loving Heavenly Father. I am secure in the knowledge that He loves me even if I mess up. (Which I do frequently...)

My brothers and sisters, we need to get the concept of discipleship right and start practicing it. I don't want anyone else to go through what I did for the first 39 years of my life.

BTW, my belief in Biblical Family Values (BFV) instead of the false traditional family values-monogamy only position (TFV-MOP) came about because after I figured out that I had been taught a bunch of lies, I threw out everything I had been taught and studied the Bible for myself. It took almost 20 years for me to get around to the topic of marriage (actually, Biblical Covenant Unions.) As a result, I know what I believe and why I believe it.

And I hate false doctrine with a purple passion!
 
If we have discovered Biblical truth, such as plural marriage, we need to behave responsibly and lovingly as brethren in the assembly.
Is this where Rm.14 should apply?
 
Jim,
I believe this would certainly be a good place to practice Romans 14. Amazing what a gracious attitude can do for reaching our opponents.
 
Back
Top