-
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.
I've been banned from my church.
- Thread starter Hugh McBryde
- Start date
- Status
in this day and age any organization that did not take action after a statement like this could be held liable in court if the situation deteriorated and someone was injured or worse.Hugh McBryde said:
please understand that they have rights (before man) also. that they do not have those rights before YHWH does not matter. they own the organization and the building, He does not. if they would play by His rules then your points would be valid. since they don't care about what He thinks your arguments are as useless as nipples on a boar
Unless you read the words in context, as the person who "felt fear" from them HAD to, you wouldn't understand that the fear I supposedly was causing in this case was resulting from a claim that I was a physical threat because of those words, that those words were evidence of my threatening nature.
The problem IS, I was speaking DIRECTLY against any sort of action like that. By anybody.
The laughable truth is that the session, reading those words in context, acknowledged that they did not constitute a threat. And then chose to take them that way, and engaged in actions (writing a letter to the local police) that can only be read like I was some sort of radical physically violent threatening loony.
The problem IS, I was speaking DIRECTLY against any sort of action like that. By anybody.
The laughable truth is that the session, reading those words in context, acknowledged that they did not constitute a threat. And then chose to take them that way, and engaged in actions (writing a letter to the local police) that can only be read like I was some sort of radical physically violent threatening loony.
Steve, if someone is going to construe what I said, as the PRECISE opposite of what I did say, I can't really help it. The statement is taken out of context, the larger context is that physical or violent action is wrong, and that defines my "passion" as a strongly held view. There is nothing violent in the language and the session says so, asks me to clarify JUST TO BE SURE, I clarify, they agree that I am not advocating violence, but continue to treat the ANTI violence statement, as a statement of potential violence.
The scriptures say, this is "seeking an occasion" and the same thing was done to Christ. If Christ's words can be used against him, I really have no hope of making statements so carefully crafted that they can't be lied about and characterized as something else.
The scriptures say, this is "seeking an occasion" and the same thing was done to Christ. If Christ's words can be used against him, I really have no hope of making statements so carefully crafted that they can't be lied about and characterized as something else.
very trueHugh McBryde said:
they do not want you and will use any excuse to get rid of you
Psa 37:23 The steps of a [good] man are ordered by the LORD: and he delighteth in his way.
if the Lord is leading you to fight them, then delight in the fight
if He leads you in another direction, then delight in that way
just find out His will and delight in following it
one of my favorites:
Gen 50:20 But as for you, ye thought evil against me; [but] God meant it unto good......
I have had an interesting array of replies from members of the "Presbytery." In Presbyterian governance of a church, the elders rule a church, they are accountable as the "session" to the Presbytery and on up the line to a "general assembly." In theory at least, decisions at the Session level could be placed before the Presbytery and appealed. It makes no sense that someone would appeal a decision they agreed with.
Such appeals would involve wayward decisions on Doctrine by the Session or the removal of an elder or church disciplinary issues. The only reference I could find to a recent "excommunication" was one where the General Assembly chided a local body on not following procedure correctly, siding with the appellant, but then saying the decision was correct regardless, and siding ultimately with the session making the procedural issue of no effect. In addition the case was old.
That's really to be expected with all things human. While you're trying to get a case heard everyone is all huffy about procedure, after it's over, procedure doesn't matter so much if the decision is one we like.
The response I get the most often is one of anger or rage. I'll go with anger as "rage" is a category that involves a good deal more soul searching, of someone else's soul. I don't doubt that some of the pastors that responded were afflicted with rage, but it's hard to say which ones. The number of angry responses that fit a cookie cutter pattern pretty much means SOME of the WERE consumed by rage, I'll give you a typical one:
I got two guys on the line who have agreed to interact. One of them I could have sworn knew what the core issue was, but then he feigned surprise after he talked to Carl Durham or at least seemed to, and wrote a scathing tirade to me ending with "God help you" and something about fear for my soul. All because I advocate marrying in the same way that David, Solomon, Josiah, Elkanah, Moses and Abraham did. That seems a bit much. Wrong perhaps, but unprecedented unmentionable sin? Absolutely NONE of them respond to the true claim that Luther was more aligned with us, than with them.
One of the elders is a "Christian Conciliation Counselor" certified by and affiliated with "Peacekeeper Ministries." I wrote some scathing letters of my own to them as they stonewalled me asking me to read a bunch of material. I said I didn't have the time and they had to know what sort of complaint I was filing. I "cc'd" one of the more caustic ones to Ken Sande, writer of the book he sells in connection with his Ministry in Billings Montana. He wrote me back that he supported his counselor and decried my "abuse" of her. I wrote him back. Shortly afterward I got another counselor who did the "intake" on my complaint, and fortunately, finally, I got a MAN, not a woman.
Nothing against women but I don't think it's appropriate to mediate disputes with and among men, particularly those in authority, with women.
I have no information yet on whether or not he elder who is the "Christian Conciliation Counselor" has been notified. I've asked if he has been. I think it's critical that SOMETHING be done along those lines before the session's meeting of January 11th (this coming Monday).
So I remain barred from the church. I suppose I could go, and I suppose they would probably call the police and it would get really ugly. I have resolved that submitting to the civil authority in this case involves NOT going to the church and causing that inevitable confrontation that causes the believer to look bad in front of the unbelievers. The church has gone quite far enough already in that matter.
It would be nice if someone in the near vicinity traveled to Vermont next Sunday, and went, identifying themselves as an acquaintance of mine. That would be, interesting.
It's apparently NOT over. It's going to get uglier before it gets better, if it ever gets better. Frankly, I don't see myself setting foot in that church again, though I would prefer to do so. We'll see how this plays out.
Such appeals would involve wayward decisions on Doctrine by the Session or the removal of an elder or church disciplinary issues. The only reference I could find to a recent "excommunication" was one where the General Assembly chided a local body on not following procedure correctly, siding with the appellant, but then saying the decision was correct regardless, and siding ultimately with the session making the procedural issue of no effect. In addition the case was old.
That's really to be expected with all things human. While you're trying to get a case heard everyone is all huffy about procedure, after it's over, procedure doesn't matter so much if the decision is one we like.
The response I get the most often is one of anger or rage. I'll go with anger as "rage" is a category that involves a good deal more soul searching, of someone else's soul. I don't doubt that some of the pastors that responded were afflicted with rage, but it's hard to say which ones. The number of angry responses that fit a cookie cutter pattern pretty much means SOME of the WERE consumed by rage, I'll give you a typical one:
That was one of the milder ones. A certain number of them fit this pattern. "You're wrong, you did not follow Matthew 18 (and other passages) (funny, I thought I did), some of the letters went on to describe in brief WHY it was that they were sure I was wrong on my issue and then "I'm not going to read your mail, don't send any to me, this is my final word." What's funny is all you had to do was write these guys BACK, and then they would quickly respond. Some were bitingly sarcastic and rude. A couple of conversations went on for several rounds. A lot involved character attacks, etc.
I got two guys on the line who have agreed to interact. One of them I could have sworn knew what the core issue was, but then he feigned surprise after he talked to Carl Durham or at least seemed to, and wrote a scathing tirade to me ending with "God help you" and something about fear for my soul. All because I advocate marrying in the same way that David, Solomon, Josiah, Elkanah, Moses and Abraham did. That seems a bit much. Wrong perhaps, but unprecedented unmentionable sin? Absolutely NONE of them respond to the true claim that Luther was more aligned with us, than with them.
One of the elders is a "Christian Conciliation Counselor" certified by and affiliated with "Peacekeeper Ministries." I wrote some scathing letters of my own to them as they stonewalled me asking me to read a bunch of material. I said I didn't have the time and they had to know what sort of complaint I was filing. I "cc'd" one of the more caustic ones to Ken Sande, writer of the book he sells in connection with his Ministry in Billings Montana. He wrote me back that he supported his counselor and decried my "abuse" of her. I wrote him back. Shortly afterward I got another counselor who did the "intake" on my complaint, and fortunately, finally, I got a MAN, not a woman.
Nothing against women but I don't think it's appropriate to mediate disputes with and among men, particularly those in authority, with women.
I have no information yet on whether or not he elder who is the "Christian Conciliation Counselor" has been notified. I've asked if he has been. I think it's critical that SOMETHING be done along those lines before the session's meeting of January 11th (this coming Monday).
So I remain barred from the church. I suppose I could go, and I suppose they would probably call the police and it would get really ugly. I have resolved that submitting to the civil authority in this case involves NOT going to the church and causing that inevitable confrontation that causes the believer to look bad in front of the unbelievers. The church has gone quite far enough already in that matter.
It would be nice if someone in the near vicinity traveled to Vermont next Sunday, and went, identifying themselves as an acquaintance of mine. That would be, interesting.
It's apparently NOT over. It's going to get uglier before it gets better, if it ever gets better. Frankly, I don't see myself setting foot in that church again, though I would prefer to do so. We'll see how this plays out.
Why did Paul go to Jerusalem?
I'm not sure what was decided this evening. It was offered to me that if I gave an acceptable explanation of a statement that no one on the session thought was an expression of potential violence, that they might speak to me tonight at the session meeting. To be honest, I didn't think that was really going to happen, no matter what I said. The sequence of mealy mouthed statements was far to long.
We don't think you meant anything by it.
Someone else did.
We would like an explanation of what you said because though we don't think you meant anything about it we want to be sure.
(Explanation)
That's pretty much what we thought, we might invite you to the session meeting, stay out of church, we've called the police, we know you didn't mean anything by it, but it serves our purposes to keep you out of church indefinitely until we do whatever.
In the meantime I have filed a complaint with "Peacemaker Ministries" to have Dr. Andrew Selle, the session point man and elder who has been dealing with me "decertified" as a "Christian Conciliator." If you've read Ken Sande's book, "The Peacemaker" (you can download one chapter for FREE!), you would not recognize any of the Biblically based conciliation techniques in anything the session has done. I filed a formal "Form B" complaint about Dr. Selle, declaring that he had been the obstruction, not the bridge to peace as it were, and it will take them a few weeks to come up with a result to the investigation. Supposedly I will be interviewed, and so will Dr. Selle. Frankly I think they'll "Stand By Their Man."
That leaves me with several steps after that to take, or not take. I'm inclined to take them all and play them all out. Mind you I don't think I'm going to win, I think they must are stations on the journey where you get your card punched to say "Been there, Did that."
One is to take the matter from Session to Presbytery. Presbyterian churches don't provide for autocratic local action that can't be appealed, but there is a lot of dispute about whether or not you can appeal not becoming a member. A lot of church elders say yes, others say no, you have to be a member to have standing before the session, hence, part of my desire to become a member, it gives you an official voice in the denomination. From Presbytery, I can appeal it to the General Assembly, assuming I get past the session, or maybe I can appeal the fact that the session would not hear me, to the General Assembly.
The other action is that I can become vastly more active as a lobbyist in the cause of legalization. I know that many of you don't see a value in that. The fact is that only the Tax Man cares whether or not I'm legally married, everyone else takes my word for it. For all they know I'm not legally married, even though I am. It would take a claim that I am not with someone who had standing to ask, a demand for me to produce my bona fides and then I'd have to point to the county where I registered my marriage, or maybe the state. I stress that no one has ever asked for proof, not even the Social Security office. Why digress? The point is that if Polygamy is LEGAL, you DON'T HAVE TO legally register your polygamy. I repeatedly refer to YFZ to remind everyone that as long as it is illegal, harassment will follow you everywhere or you'll have to hide and frankly, as big a proponent of polygyny as I am, the Gospel is far more important, and if polygyny becomes a thing I have to hide to the detriment of the Gospel, I really ought not be polygynous.
I don't believe that legislation will pass, an attempt to legalize polygyny will probably be successful in the form of a court case. I strongly believe that Vermont and New Hampshire (and shortly Washington DC) are the best places to set up a test case. All have laws passed by duly elected bodies that have legalized Same Sex Marriage. Structurally the reasoning behind Same Sex Marriage lends itself to legalizing polygamy. The rational is that a lifestyle choice or predilection should enjoy the protections of marriage and to NOT allow those protections is a form of discrimination. If you accept, for the sake of argument that Gays are "wired that way" and so "deserve" to be married if they want to, can we not argue legally the same thing in court? I am inclined to be this way, it is my nature and so I should be afforded the same protections as monogamous heterosexuals and monogamous homosexuals? Indeed, someone will argue that they are "bisexual" and when they do, they will have every bit as much reason to be allowed marriage, as a gay. It's been done in the Netherlands already. Thus a court case involving me, or someone else who wants to take two brides, or an additional one (or two) stands a very good chance of succeeding. Indeed, we really OUGHT to be trying to do this since a "polyamorous" group will try and the resulting decision from the court will be built on that groundwork. I don't think that will help us to have polygyny suddenly legal in a framework created by the orgy crowd.
Beyond the legalization imperative (IMHO) there is the need for a denomination that accepts polygyny, and that also may be a move I make. Martin Luther left the Roman Catholic Church on a rail. We all owe the religious freedom we have in this country to things ML did 500 years ago. I would be to a degree, like Luther, if I am formally and finally and irrevocably cast out of church. I would be on my own, and could start another denomination. I would have done my due diligence, and be free of them, and could go on.
Call me a man of little faith though, I just think I"ll be going through the motions again. I'd really like to do something other than practice swings.
We don't think you meant anything by it.
Someone else did.
We would like an explanation of what you said because though we don't think you meant anything about it we want to be sure.
(Explanation)
That's pretty much what we thought, we might invite you to the session meeting, stay out of church, we've called the police, we know you didn't mean anything by it, but it serves our purposes to keep you out of church indefinitely until we do whatever.
In the meantime I have filed a complaint with "Peacemaker Ministries" to have Dr. Andrew Selle, the session point man and elder who has been dealing with me "decertified" as a "Christian Conciliator." If you've read Ken Sande's book, "The Peacemaker" (you can download one chapter for FREE!), you would not recognize any of the Biblically based conciliation techniques in anything the session has done. I filed a formal "Form B" complaint about Dr. Selle, declaring that he had been the obstruction, not the bridge to peace as it were, and it will take them a few weeks to come up with a result to the investigation. Supposedly I will be interviewed, and so will Dr. Selle. Frankly I think they'll "Stand By Their Man."
That leaves me with several steps after that to take, or not take. I'm inclined to take them all and play them all out. Mind you I don't think I'm going to win, I think they must are stations on the journey where you get your card punched to say "Been there, Did that."
One is to take the matter from Session to Presbytery. Presbyterian churches don't provide for autocratic local action that can't be appealed, but there is a lot of dispute about whether or not you can appeal not becoming a member. A lot of church elders say yes, others say no, you have to be a member to have standing before the session, hence, part of my desire to become a member, it gives you an official voice in the denomination. From Presbytery, I can appeal it to the General Assembly, assuming I get past the session, or maybe I can appeal the fact that the session would not hear me, to the General Assembly.
The other action is that I can become vastly more active as a lobbyist in the cause of legalization. I know that many of you don't see a value in that. The fact is that only the Tax Man cares whether or not I'm legally married, everyone else takes my word for it. For all they know I'm not legally married, even though I am. It would take a claim that I am not with someone who had standing to ask, a demand for me to produce my bona fides and then I'd have to point to the county where I registered my marriage, or maybe the state. I stress that no one has ever asked for proof, not even the Social Security office. Why digress? The point is that if Polygamy is LEGAL, you DON'T HAVE TO legally register your polygamy. I repeatedly refer to YFZ to remind everyone that as long as it is illegal, harassment will follow you everywhere or you'll have to hide and frankly, as big a proponent of polygyny as I am, the Gospel is far more important, and if polygyny becomes a thing I have to hide to the detriment of the Gospel, I really ought not be polygynous.
I don't believe that legislation will pass, an attempt to legalize polygyny will probably be successful in the form of a court case. I strongly believe that Vermont and New Hampshire (and shortly Washington DC) are the best places to set up a test case. All have laws passed by duly elected bodies that have legalized Same Sex Marriage. Structurally the reasoning behind Same Sex Marriage lends itself to legalizing polygamy. The rational is that a lifestyle choice or predilection should enjoy the protections of marriage and to NOT allow those protections is a form of discrimination. If you accept, for the sake of argument that Gays are "wired that way" and so "deserve" to be married if they want to, can we not argue legally the same thing in court? I am inclined to be this way, it is my nature and so I should be afforded the same protections as monogamous heterosexuals and monogamous homosexuals? Indeed, someone will argue that they are "bisexual" and when they do, they will have every bit as much reason to be allowed marriage, as a gay. It's been done in the Netherlands already. Thus a court case involving me, or someone else who wants to take two brides, or an additional one (or two) stands a very good chance of succeeding. Indeed, we really OUGHT to be trying to do this since a "polyamorous" group will try and the resulting decision from the court will be built on that groundwork. I don't think that will help us to have polygyny suddenly legal in a framework created by the orgy crowd.
Beyond the legalization imperative (IMHO) there is the need for a denomination that accepts polygyny, and that also may be a move I make. Martin Luther left the Roman Catholic Church on a rail. We all owe the religious freedom we have in this country to things ML did 500 years ago. I would be to a degree, like Luther, if I am formally and finally and irrevocably cast out of church. I would be on my own, and could start another denomination. I would have done my due diligence, and be free of them, and could go on.
Call me a man of little faith though, I just think I"ll be going through the motions again. I'd really like to do something other than practice swings.
Hugh,
My heart goes out to you for the trails you are facing. When I found out by some of the men on this site that Martin Luther, the founder of my denomination, was pro plural marriage, and the Lutheran church doesn't even talk about it, I was very upset about the cover up. Then I was mad about the position the Lutheran church stands against plural marriage--especially now that the ELCA synod is in favor of gay pastors.
I applaud your courage to stand up for what you believe. I haven't been able to do this yet, so I continue to go to a church that would boot me out too if I was voicing my new found truths. I know how alone you must be feeling. I don't think there is a mainstream denomination that will be the type of church you are looking for that believes in pm. I just wanted you to know that you are not alone.
Michelle
My heart goes out to you for the trails you are facing. When I found out by some of the men on this site that Martin Luther, the founder of my denomination, was pro plural marriage, and the Lutheran church doesn't even talk about it, I was very upset about the cover up. Then I was mad about the position the Lutheran church stands against plural marriage--especially now that the ELCA synod is in favor of gay pastors.
I applaud your courage to stand up for what you believe. I haven't been able to do this yet, so I continue to go to a church that would boot me out too if I was voicing my new found truths. I know how alone you must be feeling. I don't think there is a mainstream denomination that will be the type of church you are looking for that believes in pm. I just wanted you to know that you are not alone.
Michelle
Thanks.
I don't know what the outcome is going to be, but at some point a good portion of us have to "rally 'round the flag" or it's just trouble. For me. Not that I face the same obstacles or even the same awful outcomes, but the selfish part of me would rather be a Martin Luther, who had visible success, as opposed to a Jan Hus, who got burned at the stake.
Few people know who the Hussites are and were.
Any Christian is likely to know what the name "Lutheran" means. 100 years after Hus, Luther does not die for what he believes.
I am sure that when he realized he would die, Jan thought to himself "what good is this?" if it was even merely a fleeting temptation.
Moses is presented to his people, a young man, as a savior and is rejected. He comes back as an old man and does the job.
I don't wish to be a useless old man who has no second chances, who ends up becoming merely notorious for what he believes. The reward in earthly terms isn't even as great as that of Luther, or Hus or Moses or any hero of the faith. At best, all I do is clear the way for an optional behavior.
So I'm back to the "rallying 'round the flag." Someone needs to step up, and people need to line up behind that someone. I'm willing to be the someone stepping up, and that may be all that God wishes me to be, someone who was willing. He may appoint someone else to carry the standard and that, ultimately, is fine with me. Isolation is a hard thing though, and I am becoming increasingly isolated for stepping out.
It may be that I pursue the legalization angle more effectively. It may be that I break away after being tossed out, like Luther. At some point though, with no clear leading such as a voice from heaven that a prophet would experience, circumstance has to be my guide. A useless attempt (in terms of result) and no doors opening means eventually, I have to give up since I am doing something useless that no one on either side of the issue seems to want.
I don't know what the outcome is going to be, but at some point a good portion of us have to "rally 'round the flag" or it's just trouble. For me. Not that I face the same obstacles or even the same awful outcomes, but the selfish part of me would rather be a Martin Luther, who had visible success, as opposed to a Jan Hus, who got burned at the stake.
Few people know who the Hussites are and were.
Any Christian is likely to know what the name "Lutheran" means. 100 years after Hus, Luther does not die for what he believes.
I am sure that when he realized he would die, Jan thought to himself "what good is this?" if it was even merely a fleeting temptation.
Moses is presented to his people, a young man, as a savior and is rejected. He comes back as an old man and does the job.
I don't wish to be a useless old man who has no second chances, who ends up becoming merely notorious for what he believes. The reward in earthly terms isn't even as great as that of Luther, or Hus or Moses or any hero of the faith. At best, all I do is clear the way for an optional behavior.
So I'm back to the "rallying 'round the flag." Someone needs to step up, and people need to line up behind that someone. I'm willing to be the someone stepping up, and that may be all that God wishes me to be, someone who was willing. He may appoint someone else to carry the standard and that, ultimately, is fine with me. Isolation is a hard thing though, and I am becoming increasingly isolated for stepping out.
It may be that I pursue the legalization angle more effectively. It may be that I break away after being tossed out, like Luther. At some point though, with no clear leading such as a voice from heaven that a prophet would experience, circumstance has to be my guide. A useless attempt (in terms of result) and no doors opening means eventually, I have to give up since I am doing something useless that no one on either side of the issue seems to want.
You're not alone, Hugh. I was banned this summer from my church also. The "issue" is rarely ever the issue. My pastor said he would get back to me when I confronted him with the scripture supporting my position but I have called him three times now and he has not returned my calls. We agreed on practically every issue until I explained to him what I believed marriage actually was (and is) but the ladies in the church had evidently been complaining to him. First his wife confronted me because I am not "married" by writ of civil contract to my new wife. Then my daughter's friend (who attends the same church) confronted me about Rachel, asking me a number of questions about her, whether she wore a woman's apparel, whether she let her hair grow long, whether she was trinitarian... Finally, I guess the pastor had to check with me, knowing both the wife of my youth and my new bride, having met with both of them in person. I sort of have a dialouge written of what took place this summer on the telephone with him. This was after our newborn daughter just came into the world in July. I suppose this is what really set off the fireworks. I was discouraged because I love my pastor, or I guess that would be "former pastor" and had known him for 20 years. Neither he nor his wife had the strength of argument to persuade me that my union with Rachel was immoral. What really clinched it for me was when he had the audacity to ask me what GOD's moral law was. He's supposed to be my pastor and he's asking me??? I am still saddened by this because I honestly thought that he believed not some, but everything written in the Holy Bible. I honestly thought that he believed that the Word of GOD was infallible. I honestly thought that he was not just another one of these cherry picking partial truth Christians, but that the scriptures were the GOD-BREATHED Word of the LORD. I guess this is only the case when it suits his own flavour of doctrine. His own contemporaries declare that GOD's moral law does not change. They agree that what was right in the Sight of GOD in the Old Testament is still right in the Sight of GOD to day. . . Apparently except for the part where the LORD GOD called it out of His own Mouth "two wives".
Taking a stand for the truth is not always so easy. I wish you the very best.
Edward
Taking a stand for the truth is not always so easy. I wish you the very best.
Edward
Edward,
Being a Presbyterian, I think the church is to be accountable, as individuals, as a local body to one another, and to other churches. This is the pattern of the early church with people outside the church (Paul among others) advising and directing activities in the church. I'm not a congregationalist (local body autonomy) because that is not the pattern of the early church.
I'm also convinced that we do not hear, unless there is a preacher. That means there is an apostolic function to planting each church, that it comes FROM somewhere and owes it's planting TO someone. Even the church in Rome which seems to have sprung up on its own, is incorporated into the overall church structure and administered from Jerusalem. This clearly does not seem to cause trouble with the Roman church, and they desire this oversight.
I am not a complete expert in early church history, there were various "seas" or apostolic areas of influence from which the Coptics of Egypt sprang for instance. To make a long story SHORTER, I don't think we are called to independence, I think we are called to be interdependent. I don't think we're supposed to spin off on our own because we don't like the directions our fellows in the pews are taking. This does not mean I am "anti denomination," but it does mean I think that's a last resort, as opposed to a second or third card to play. It also means you stay in the church, as the early Christians did by meeting in the temple in Solomon's portico, until they could not.
This is what Luther does, and Hus and Wycliffe. In the end Luther is tossed out, and forms his own denomination. This is legitimate. There is then a connection going back to the original churches, Luther has been faithful. That in my view legitimizes the Reformation, and gives legitimacy to groups like the Presbyterians and Lutherans. This is why I fight to stay in the OPC, who I believe have fulfilled all the steps of legitimate succession, having been planted with connections that stretch all the way back to the beginning.
I can't be casual about it, I have to take as many steps as possible, and fight excommunication until there are no steps left, and then I am free of my responsibility to the church. I can then go on, to form, if I wish, another church.
This is what I am trying to point out to anyone who might listen. I have a connection to the church, the church wrongly disconnects me, I am free, if I am not sinning in what I advocate and not sinning in how I go about advocating it. This provides a righteous anchor for a New Denomination. I am not a great man, that is not what I am saying, I end up essentially having a minor apostolic mandate, I have been "sent" even if it is being "sent out" as a representative of the church I have come out of, even if under duress.
That's one thing I CAN do, but I would need people to share that vision, and see my casting out not as MY appointment to anything, but as GOD's appointment of a new church. This is very dicey business to explain, it can so easily be taken the wrong way.
Next, I am pursuing legalization, so that you are not harassed. I find precedent for these things in Ezra, Nehemiah, Daniel and especially Esther. We are UNDER authority, we ought to discharge our responsibility under that authority as good servants to our Masters. That sort of language makes some people bristle, but it's Biblical. I do not think it is best that they ask us to register our marriages or submit to certain forms of taxation or law, but they DO. Being able to GET married, LEGALLY, as polygynous men and women, does not mean we have to, but it does mean it's not flaunting our Masters and we ought to be approved by them, as opposed to rebellious, when possible.
Failing to gain acceptance in my church, I am willing to start a NEW one. I would prefer to stay where I am but that may not be possible.
LEGALIZING polygyny means I do not flaunt the law and show myself to be a good servant to those who have been made my masters by the LORD himself, for my own good. It witnesses to THEM that God is truth, it witnesses to those in my charge that I know how to submit to authority. Rebellion in me does not produce submission in others. Rebellion in me, while asking submission of my wives, is "LORDING IT OVER" as the Gentiles do, and is ungodly.
I'm telling you I am convinced this is the way to go. No one has to be part of the church I plant, no one has to legally register their marriages if they do not want to, but if there is an accepting Godly church, and an acceptable way of marriage, to the state, then we are good servants and a good witness to all.
Being a Presbyterian, I think the church is to be accountable, as individuals, as a local body to one another, and to other churches. This is the pattern of the early church with people outside the church (Paul among others) advising and directing activities in the church. I'm not a congregationalist (local body autonomy) because that is not the pattern of the early church.
I'm also convinced that we do not hear, unless there is a preacher. That means there is an apostolic function to planting each church, that it comes FROM somewhere and owes it's planting TO someone. Even the church in Rome which seems to have sprung up on its own, is incorporated into the overall church structure and administered from Jerusalem. This clearly does not seem to cause trouble with the Roman church, and they desire this oversight.
I am not a complete expert in early church history, there were various "seas" or apostolic areas of influence from which the Coptics of Egypt sprang for instance. To make a long story SHORTER, I don't think we are called to independence, I think we are called to be interdependent. I don't think we're supposed to spin off on our own because we don't like the directions our fellows in the pews are taking. This does not mean I am "anti denomination," but it does mean I think that's a last resort, as opposed to a second or third card to play. It also means you stay in the church, as the early Christians did by meeting in the temple in Solomon's portico, until they could not.
This is what Luther does, and Hus and Wycliffe. In the end Luther is tossed out, and forms his own denomination. This is legitimate. There is then a connection going back to the original churches, Luther has been faithful. That in my view legitimizes the Reformation, and gives legitimacy to groups like the Presbyterians and Lutherans. This is why I fight to stay in the OPC, who I believe have fulfilled all the steps of legitimate succession, having been planted with connections that stretch all the way back to the beginning.
I can't be casual about it, I have to take as many steps as possible, and fight excommunication until there are no steps left, and then I am free of my responsibility to the church. I can then go on, to form, if I wish, another church.
This is what I am trying to point out to anyone who might listen. I have a connection to the church, the church wrongly disconnects me, I am free, if I am not sinning in what I advocate and not sinning in how I go about advocating it. This provides a righteous anchor for a New Denomination. I am not a great man, that is not what I am saying, I end up essentially having a minor apostolic mandate, I have been "sent" even if it is being "sent out" as a representative of the church I have come out of, even if under duress.
That's one thing I CAN do, but I would need people to share that vision, and see my casting out not as MY appointment to anything, but as GOD's appointment of a new church. This is very dicey business to explain, it can so easily be taken the wrong way.
Next, I am pursuing legalization, so that you are not harassed. I find precedent for these things in Ezra, Nehemiah, Daniel and especially Esther. We are UNDER authority, we ought to discharge our responsibility under that authority as good servants to our Masters. That sort of language makes some people bristle, but it's Biblical. I do not think it is best that they ask us to register our marriages or submit to certain forms of taxation or law, but they DO. Being able to GET married, LEGALLY, as polygynous men and women, does not mean we have to, but it does mean it's not flaunting our Masters and we ought to be approved by them, as opposed to rebellious, when possible.
Failing to gain acceptance in my church, I am willing to start a NEW one. I would prefer to stay where I am but that may not be possible.
LEGALIZING polygyny means I do not flaunt the law and show myself to be a good servant to those who have been made my masters by the LORD himself, for my own good. It witnesses to THEM that God is truth, it witnesses to those in my charge that I know how to submit to authority. Rebellion in me does not produce submission in others. Rebellion in me, while asking submission of my wives, is "LORDING IT OVER" as the Gentiles do, and is ungodly.
I'm telling you I am convinced this is the way to go. No one has to be part of the church I plant, no one has to legally register their marriages if they do not want to, but if there is an accepting Godly church, and an acceptable way of marriage, to the state, then we are good servants and a good witness to all.
I like to think that I am an advocate of freedom of speech and of the press as much as I am an advocate of freedom of choice. Of course, being imperfect, I do not always measure up to that altruism. Luther learned in the end that he could not change the system from within. I am from that school of thought that believes it is not possible to license those ordinances of GOD which belong to GOD alone; wherefore I strive to render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and to render unto GOD the things that are GOD's. What therefore GOD has put together, let not man put asunder. Secularist government should butt out of the marriage business. My conviction is that It isn't their department. Since we both know that the meddlings of secularist government in the private affairs of others will not cease from involving themselves in those various "social unions" claimed by Society, I turn my attention inward, to those sorts of unions that GOD honours, blesses, regulates, and ordains, in preference to whatever secularist government might regard as "marriage". They can call it what they will. This does not obligate me to participate in their spurious definitions. If I understand you correctly, we are on opposite sides of the fence in this respect.
Of course we are entitled to our opinions and the so-called right to be wrong. You are at least as entitled to your opinion as I am entitled to mine. I may well be at a disadvantage to regard moral and decent women as "ladies" but I find myself at an equal disadvantage if they should regard me as a lord. Nonetheless I shall endeavour to be the lord of my own household and my own marriage and/or marriages to my own wife and/or wives as I am able. I find it a particulary humbling experience to be called "lord". Come what may, I do not subscribe to the egalitarian myth of gender equality and I rejoice in that common ground which places me on equal footing with fellow human beings. I look toward a better time when the lessons in humility that both genders must learn in their respective (dare I say it) roles are no longer required. In the meantime, knowing that in order for a thing to be equal it must also be identical, I press onward, as a member of the human race, toward that which is more than human. I am as ready to agree to disagree as I am ready to agree.
GOD bless you
Edward
Of course we are entitled to our opinions and the so-called right to be wrong. You are at least as entitled to your opinion as I am entitled to mine. I may well be at a disadvantage to regard moral and decent women as "ladies" but I find myself at an equal disadvantage if they should regard me as a lord. Nonetheless I shall endeavour to be the lord of my own household and my own marriage and/or marriages to my own wife and/or wives as I am able. I find it a particulary humbling experience to be called "lord". Come what may, I do not subscribe to the egalitarian myth of gender equality and I rejoice in that common ground which places me on equal footing with fellow human beings. I look toward a better time when the lessons in humility that both genders must learn in their respective (dare I say it) roles are no longer required. In the meantime, knowing that in order for a thing to be equal it must also be identical, I press onward, as a member of the human race, toward that which is more than human. I am as ready to agree to disagree as I am ready to agree.
GOD bless you
Edward
Edward,
The bottom line for me is that there is nothing wrong, intrinsically, with civil registration of marriage. The government desires this, and have made many laws surrounding the assumption that it is also necessary. Because the basic form of polygamy is impossible to register as marriage, the public perception of polygamy is that it is "against the law" while it is really true, that the law is not "for polygamy."
This perception leads to all kinds of activity with regard to the persecution of polygamists, activities that do NOT occur in countries where the practice is clearly legal.
Polygamists have difficulty in places like emergency rooms, because two women cannot approach their personnel and say "We are married to him." It would not be necessary for them to be legally registered as married for the hospital to accept this statement, but it is necessary for the hospital to accept the idea that such relationships are possible and legal for them to respond as if it were so. As I have said before, no one has ever asked me to show the slip of paper that is a "registration" of my marriage. That document is recorded in Flathead County and it sits there. I doubt anyone has looked at it since my marriage was registered and I have no copy of that document. Everyone, my church included, accepts me as married when I declare that I am, because they know it's possible.
As a finance manager, at a car dealership, I do the paperwork for homosexual couples all the time. They have never shown their "registration" papers to me, and I have not asked for them. Homosexual "marriage" is legal here in Vermont.
This all brings me to a bottom line.
If you don't want it legal, and you don't want to support it's legalization then you're not serious about polygamy, you are selfish about it. You just want to carry our your own agenda, independent of others. I have no uses for that, I have no further patience with that.
ONCE AGAIN, the BIG DISCLAIMER that has to be thrown in here is that you DO NOT HAVE TO REGISTER YOUR MARRIAGE as a legal entity, JUST BECAUSE IT IS LEGAL, any more than couples who "live together" as boyfriend/girlfriend register theirs or have to. I too want the government out of marriage, but that is at least 20 years away and numerous changes in the tax codes must come first, practically speaking.
I'm also saying this, in accompaniment with my concern regarding legalization.
We must be OBEDIENT, and I see a lot of rejection of that whole concept, though the scriptures preach it. That obedience REQUIRES that we be part of something larger. Being obedient and living alone in the middle of wilderness Alaska is a rather easy concept. Being obedient and living in New York City is a more reality based obedience.
We must be obedient to civil government, and not try to antagonize them. We can certainly work for changes in the way our country is constructed legally on all fronts, but we MUST BE OBEDIENT where it is possible and where it is moral, and frankly the vast majority of the things they ask us to obey and submit to, we can, without sinning.
We can't all be the Pastor/Ruling Elder of a church, and so we must be OBEDIENT. We must SUBMIT. This always involves delaying personal gratification, choosing are battles and considering the effect of what we do on peace in the church.
I frankly do not see anyone here as being willing to do that.
That brings me to the ultimate bottom line. That being I wonder why I bother. If you asked me which is a greater thing, polygyny, or obedience to God, it is always the latter. God is not and never has been against polygyny, but obedience to him comes first. I'm frankly developing an opinion of my fellow polygyny advocates and practitioners as selfish. They want to hide. They don't want anyone to bother them. They want to skulk around using pseudonyms and not being public as to who they are and what they do. They don't want to be accountable among God's people. We are thus lousy witnesses to the light.
In those contexts I am banging my head against the wall. My verdict on polygyny then becomes, that while it is entirely acceptable to God, we are disobedient slaves that don't even deserve one wife, much less three or four. My "monogamy only" church is in rebellion, but so are you and the only contest is WHO rebels more. Is it really important that my church rebels on marriage, baptism, and Sunday Sabbath issues, while we as a group practice rebellion towards all established Godly authority? Is this not the God that says "Rebellion is as WITCHCRAFT, and the SIN of IDOLATRY?" He is that God and we see no importance in that declaration of our LORD, while we see provisions for more wives as being the important issue. First things first, and I desire to be the LORD's servant, with a wife, or with wives or without them.
I really am not seeing that here, or anywhere else in the pro polygyny "movement."
The bottom line for me is that there is nothing wrong, intrinsically, with civil registration of marriage. The government desires this, and have made many laws surrounding the assumption that it is also necessary. Because the basic form of polygamy is impossible to register as marriage, the public perception of polygamy is that it is "against the law" while it is really true, that the law is not "for polygamy."
This perception leads to all kinds of activity with regard to the persecution of polygamists, activities that do NOT occur in countries where the practice is clearly legal.
Polygamists have difficulty in places like emergency rooms, because two women cannot approach their personnel and say "We are married to him." It would not be necessary for them to be legally registered as married for the hospital to accept this statement, but it is necessary for the hospital to accept the idea that such relationships are possible and legal for them to respond as if it were so. As I have said before, no one has ever asked me to show the slip of paper that is a "registration" of my marriage. That document is recorded in Flathead County and it sits there. I doubt anyone has looked at it since my marriage was registered and I have no copy of that document. Everyone, my church included, accepts me as married when I declare that I am, because they know it's possible.
As a finance manager, at a car dealership, I do the paperwork for homosexual couples all the time. They have never shown their "registration" papers to me, and I have not asked for them. Homosexual "marriage" is legal here in Vermont.
This all brings me to a bottom line.
If you don't want it legal, and you don't want to support it's legalization then you're not serious about polygamy, you are selfish about it. You just want to carry our your own agenda, independent of others. I have no uses for that, I have no further patience with that.
ONCE AGAIN, the BIG DISCLAIMER that has to be thrown in here is that you DO NOT HAVE TO REGISTER YOUR MARRIAGE as a legal entity, JUST BECAUSE IT IS LEGAL, any more than couples who "live together" as boyfriend/girlfriend register theirs or have to. I too want the government out of marriage, but that is at least 20 years away and numerous changes in the tax codes must come first, practically speaking.
I'm also saying this, in accompaniment with my concern regarding legalization.
We must be OBEDIENT, and I see a lot of rejection of that whole concept, though the scriptures preach it. That obedience REQUIRES that we be part of something larger. Being obedient and living alone in the middle of wilderness Alaska is a rather easy concept. Being obedient and living in New York City is a more reality based obedience.
We must be obedient to civil government, and not try to antagonize them. We can certainly work for changes in the way our country is constructed legally on all fronts, but we MUST BE OBEDIENT where it is possible and where it is moral, and frankly the vast majority of the things they ask us to obey and submit to, we can, without sinning.
We can't all be the Pastor/Ruling Elder of a church, and so we must be OBEDIENT. We must SUBMIT. This always involves delaying personal gratification, choosing are battles and considering the effect of what we do on peace in the church.
I frankly do not see anyone here as being willing to do that.
That brings me to the ultimate bottom line. That being I wonder why I bother. If you asked me which is a greater thing, polygyny, or obedience to God, it is always the latter. God is not and never has been against polygyny, but obedience to him comes first. I'm frankly developing an opinion of my fellow polygyny advocates and practitioners as selfish. They want to hide. They don't want anyone to bother them. They want to skulk around using pseudonyms and not being public as to who they are and what they do. They don't want to be accountable among God's people. We are thus lousy witnesses to the light.
In those contexts I am banging my head against the wall. My verdict on polygyny then becomes, that while it is entirely acceptable to God, we are disobedient slaves that don't even deserve one wife, much less three or four. My "monogamy only" church is in rebellion, but so are you and the only contest is WHO rebels more. Is it really important that my church rebels on marriage, baptism, and Sunday Sabbath issues, while we as a group practice rebellion towards all established Godly authority? Is this not the God that says "Rebellion is as WITCHCRAFT, and the SIN of IDOLATRY?" He is that God and we see no importance in that declaration of our LORD, while we see provisions for more wives as being the important issue. First things first, and I desire to be the LORD's servant, with a wife, or with wives or without them.
I really am not seeing that here, or anywhere else in the pro polygyny "movement."
Note: I have edited this post so that the objections I have to the content of this thread are more clear.
==============================================================
Dear Hugh,
I have read, but not commented, on this topic for quite some time, and for obvious reasons. Clearly, like Edward, I disagree very much with your assumptions, and the "fruit" I think I see. I also do not subscribe to the opinion that your actions are somehow more "noble" than those many others here who have left or been dis-fellowshipped from ecclesia which teach something other than the Word as Written.
But at this point a question or two is warranted, I submit:
I do not try to change the "Mormon" or LDS position on "polygamy", or anything else. I see it as utter hypocrisy, of course, but most importantly because they do not honor the Word of God -- having "added to" it a bunch of things that are not His. I do not therefore choose to belong to their 'church'.
But I do not think that it is appropriate to defame SPECIFIC CHURCHES by NAME on a public forum, unless it is arguably to warn others away from something heinous.
It is one thing to "come out" of a church or denomination when it is clear that one no longer subscribes to their "doctrine".
It is another entirely to claim to be "submissive" to their leadership while the actions that one takes seem to be not only rebellious to their "authority", but vindictive.
Yahushua did not say "trespass against those who will not hear you", or "force them to listen". He said to wipe the dust off your feet as a witness against them.
And He also said, "come out of her...that you partake not of her sins".
You claim to understand what He Wrote about 'rebellion'. When will you decide to quit doing it yourself and follow Him?
Psalm 105 says, "Touch not mine anointed, and do my prophets no harm."
While I might claim that people who so reject the Word of God are not truly His servants, Hugh, you say that you are under their authority. Your actions seem to belie that claim, and speak more of pride than principle.
Enough said.
==============================================================
Dear Hugh,
I have read, but not commented, on this topic for quite some time, and for obvious reasons. Clearly, like Edward, I disagree very much with your assumptions, and the "fruit" I think I see. I also do not subscribe to the opinion that your actions are somehow more "noble" than those many others here who have left or been dis-fellowshipped from ecclesia which teach something other than the Word as Written.
But at this point a question or two is warranted, I submit:
I do not try to change the "Mormon" or LDS position on "polygamy", or anything else. I see it as utter hypocrisy, of course, but most importantly because they do not honor the Word of God -- having "added to" it a bunch of things that are not His. I do not therefore choose to belong to their 'church'.
But I do not think that it is appropriate to defame SPECIFIC CHURCHES by NAME on a public forum, unless it is arguably to warn others away from something heinous.
It is one thing to "come out" of a church or denomination when it is clear that one no longer subscribes to their "doctrine".
It is another entirely to claim to be "submissive" to their leadership while the actions that one takes seem to be not only rebellious to their "authority", but vindictive.
Yahushua did not say "trespass against those who will not hear you", or "force them to listen". He said to wipe the dust off your feet as a witness against them.
And He also said, "come out of her...that you partake not of her sins".
You claim to understand what He Wrote about 'rebellion'. When will you decide to quit doing it yourself and follow Him?
Psalm 105 says, "Touch not mine anointed, and do my prophets no harm."
While I might claim that people who so reject the Word of God are not truly His servants, Hugh, you say that you are under their authority. Your actions seem to belie that claim, and speak more of pride than principle.
Enough said.
A
Anonymous
Guest
Hugh,
I thank you for a well thought and well written letter. I applaud you for your courage and conviction. Your vision is of an enormous task, that may easily seem overwhelming to most of us. You may not be a "great man" as you referred in another letter, but you may very well be "the man" in this venue, your calling and leading of God. I have read your posts in other places for some time and see a consistent position being held. Much of your position is dictated by your doctrinal beliefs, as you have clearly laid them out. I think I see the same for many of the members of this group, motivated by their beliefs. I mentioned this in a personal message to a man that does not share much of our belief system as represented by this forum. "We may revolve around different axles, but our gears mesh in important places". It is my prayer, that many others will hear the information you've presented here and feel the heart behind it. We may still revolve around different axles, but we want to be sure to not try to run the whole machine by ourselves. To others reading this, read it carefully and prayerfully, Brother Hugh has made some very important points that we would do well to consider. Let's all see the big picture, not only for our sake, but for our children and their children.
I thank you for a well thought and well written letter. I applaud you for your courage and conviction. Your vision is of an enormous task, that may easily seem overwhelming to most of us. You may not be a "great man" as you referred in another letter, but you may very well be "the man" in this venue, your calling and leading of God. I have read your posts in other places for some time and see a consistent position being held. Much of your position is dictated by your doctrinal beliefs, as you have clearly laid them out. I think I see the same for many of the members of this group, motivated by their beliefs. I mentioned this in a personal message to a man that does not share much of our belief system as represented by this forum. "We may revolve around different axles, but our gears mesh in important places". It is my prayer, that many others will hear the information you've presented here and feel the heart behind it. We may still revolve around different axles, but we want to be sure to not try to run the whole machine by ourselves. To others reading this, read it carefully and prayerfully, Brother Hugh has made some very important points that we would do well to consider. Let's all see the big picture, not only for our sake, but for our children and their children.
Thanks John.
Mark,
You entirely misinterpret "come out of her," (at least for my consumption) and I have had a hard time trying to figure out where you "come from" for that simple reason. "Coming out of her" does NOT mean that we are not in the world because we are not of the world. We live in it. We have chosen human government over God, you might want to check back with Israel and asking for Saul. We are not better people than the Israelites of that time, we are at best, the same people. They chose a human king. If we were faced with the same choice, we would do so as well, as people. This is UNDENIABLE for a student of scripture. Since the selection of Saul by Israel I defy anyone to show me a period of anarchic rule such as the period of Judges during which God was King over Israel.
Christ and the Apostles WENT to the synagogues. They went to the temple. They submitted to the earthly authorities with Paul even apologizing for speaking sharply to an ungodly High Priest. He wasn't answering to governors or debating with High Priests or defending himself to High Priests because he was being forced to, he was doing so because he ought to do so.
You declaim Yemenese law, yet Yemen was the last place the Jews practiced polygyny freely, and in our lifetimes as well.
Again, Esther and Mordecai submit to and lobby for laws to Ahasuerus. Christ says, "render unto Caesar."
On top of this Mark, you make the extraordinary claim to me that I should begin to follow him as if YOU are, and I am not. Your continuing claim is based on interpreting phrases like "coming out of her." My admonition is not my admonition, but that of God's that we should submit. Paul submitted. Christ submitted. Esther submitted. Moses WENT to Pharaoh. Israel DEMANDED a human King. Paul appealed to Caesar. Paul apologized for showing disrespect for God's High Priest. Luther presented himself to the ruling authorities. Pilgrims sought the permission of the crown.
I don't want to fight, but I am not unwilling to fight. There is a "good fight."
Paul: "I have fought a good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith."
Paul: "I therefore so run, not as uncertainly; so fight I, not as one that beateth the air."
Nehemiah (a man UNDER authority): "I contended with them, and cursed them, and smote certain of them, and plucked off their hair, and made them swear by God, saying, Ye shall not give your daughters unto their sons, nor take their daughters unto your sons, or for yourselves."
Nehemiah: "I contended with the nobles of Judah, and said unto them, What evil thing is this that ye do, and profane the sabbath day?"
Making me out to be one who WANTS to fight, when there are times we ought to fight, and things about which we should fight, and principles we ought to fight for is a demonstration of the weakness of your position.
Once again, I have no desire to fight, per se. I am willing to, I know how, I will. That is different, entirely different, from wanting to.
Please do not pretend to utter to me "what part of" and "come out of" any longer unless you can better define what YOU understand, who YOU have come out of, who YOU have contended with, and those whom you have striven with to show the LORD's truth. I've outlined who I am, where I am coming from, what traditions I am part of, and what I seek to be faithful to and to whom I seek to be faithful. You are treading on that, rather casually. God does not call you to be "Mark C." God calls you to be part of a people.
Mark,
You entirely misinterpret "come out of her," (at least for my consumption) and I have had a hard time trying to figure out where you "come from" for that simple reason. "Coming out of her" does NOT mean that we are not in the world because we are not of the world. We live in it. We have chosen human government over God, you might want to check back with Israel and asking for Saul. We are not better people than the Israelites of that time, we are at best, the same people. They chose a human king. If we were faced with the same choice, we would do so as well, as people. This is UNDENIABLE for a student of scripture. Since the selection of Saul by Israel I defy anyone to show me a period of anarchic rule such as the period of Judges during which God was King over Israel.
Christ and the Apostles WENT to the synagogues. They went to the temple. They submitted to the earthly authorities with Paul even apologizing for speaking sharply to an ungodly High Priest. He wasn't answering to governors or debating with High Priests or defending himself to High Priests because he was being forced to, he was doing so because he ought to do so.
This is in Acts 23, where Paul immediately goes on to make the claim, not that he WAS a Pharisee, but that he IS STILL, A PHARISEE. They met in Solomon's portico (Acts 5) and the way they "came out of" THAT, was that the TEMPLE was DESTROYED. The early church continued to be led from Jerusalem until it's conquest and destruction as a REBELLIOUS PROVINCE, by ROME, God's rightfully appointed ruler as a fulfillment of prophecy. Paul went there to meet with James and Peter. He went back there. He left for Rome to appeal to Caesar and you claim that we are supposed to "come out of her?"
You declaim Yemenese law, yet Yemen was the last place the Jews practiced polygyny freely, and in our lifetimes as well.
Again, Esther and Mordecai submit to and lobby for laws to Ahasuerus. Christ says, "render unto Caesar."
On top of this Mark, you make the extraordinary claim to me that I should begin to follow him as if YOU are, and I am not. Your continuing claim is based on interpreting phrases like "coming out of her." My admonition is not my admonition, but that of God's that we should submit. Paul submitted. Christ submitted. Esther submitted. Moses WENT to Pharaoh. Israel DEMANDED a human King. Paul appealed to Caesar. Paul apologized for showing disrespect for God's High Priest. Luther presented himself to the ruling authorities. Pilgrims sought the permission of the crown.
I don't want to fight, but I am not unwilling to fight. There is a "good fight."
Paul: "I have fought a good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith."
Paul: "I therefore so run, not as uncertainly; so fight I, not as one that beateth the air."
Nehemiah (a man UNDER authority): "I contended with them, and cursed them, and smote certain of them, and plucked off their hair, and made them swear by God, saying, Ye shall not give your daughters unto their sons, nor take their daughters unto your sons, or for yourselves."
Nehemiah: "I contended with the nobles of Judah, and said unto them, What evil thing is this that ye do, and profane the sabbath day?"
Making me out to be one who WANTS to fight, when there are times we ought to fight, and things about which we should fight, and principles we ought to fight for is a demonstration of the weakness of your position.
Once again, I have no desire to fight, per se. I am willing to, I know how, I will. That is different, entirely different, from wanting to.
Please do not pretend to utter to me "what part of" and "come out of" any longer unless you can better define what YOU understand, who YOU have come out of, who YOU have contended with, and those whom you have striven with to show the LORD's truth. I've outlined who I am, where I am coming from, what traditions I am part of, and what I seek to be faithful to and to whom I seek to be faithful. You are treading on that, rather casually. God does not call you to be "Mark C." God calls you to be part of a people.
- Status