Every individual should act according to the leading of the HS, wherever it leads them. If that leads them contrary to Conference, Church, GC or Union decision, then so be it. Our moral free will should never be subjugated to another’s unless both are in accordance with the leading of the HS. Only the individual can determine the leading of the HS in their lives.
Why does any action need to be taken? Your response assumes that the church rules from the top, the way Ted and team seem to want it to, but the way the church is set up, power rests first in individual churches and flows up to the conferences and beyond.
Even the devil can say that he is led by the Holy Spirit. Just saying it doesn’t automatically make it so.
A spirit of disobedience is certainly not a sign that one is led by the Holy Spirit.
And, like Scripture says, rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft (1 Sam 15:23).
And the church in session, composed of the delegates from the individual churches, has taken a decision regarding women ordination, decision that the Rocky Mountain conference is not respecting.
I think that’s fair, the church was already declining in nad and Europe before wo. I think there are a lot of reasons for declining attendance/membership. Lack of women in ministry I don’t think is a significant factor, although it was argued that it was.
We’re hearing a similar argument with lgbt membership. The argument is that since we’re not embracing lgbt people, were loosing the younger generation.
I don’t agree with that argument either
This RMC policy change is a perfect example of how morality develops through cognitive maturity. The majority of children take morality as a set of unchangeable rules mandated by an authority. By the time children develop abstract reasoning by 9-10 years old and relinquish egocentric thinking, morality is deemed to be a set of rules mandated by the group itself and subject to change according to what would benefit the majority of the group.
It is not the behavior but the reasoning behind the behavior that makes morality credible.
However it is commonly known that although all individuals have no choice but to mature chronologically, not all mature cognitively and one major contributing factor that stunts cognitive maturity is religion.
So Martin Luther, the other reformers, the apostles, Elijah and throw in JC for good measure. All were rebels against the establishment.
I will see your Bible text and raise you one:
In the same way, some think one day is more holy than another day, while others think every day is alike. You should each be fully convinced that whichever day you choose is acceptable Rom 14:5
And before you say it is out of context, it is most definitely about following mandates from the religious authorities.
interesting…i haven’t heard that one yet…but then again, several prominent persons have accused my church of being the most conservative church in canada - our one and only female elder passed away not too long ago - and so we may be a bit late to the ball game compared to other places…
as it is, WO and LGBT would never fly up here…these are non-starter issues, and everybody’s happy, including our young people, who dominate our potlucks in overwhelming numbers…most of our greeters and deacons are younger kids now…my perception is we’re growing, slowly but surely…there are usually around 20 baptisms each year - we just had four young Russian boys baptized (our senior pastor is Russian)…several gay persons are attending my church, although i’m not so sure everyone knows it…i feel under no responsibility to educate anyone…
mind you, we’re not as packed to the seams as we were pre-pandemic, but we’re getting there…the sabbath school i normally go to has opened up again, and our choir is up and running again…
The reformers, the apostles, Elijah, and Jesus followed the rules established in the church according to the Word of God. It was the establishment that didn’t follow its own rules and departed from the Scriptures.
In the case of WO, the church in session representing the entire church (not just the leadership), in which the Rocky Mountain delegates participated, took a vote, vote that the Rocky Mountain conference decided not to follow. But, guess what, I am sure that the Rocky Mountain conference expects its own local churches to comply with its own decisions, right?
Again, wrong example. Who is speaking in this verse? Paul, who is a religious authority. And what is the matter about? It is about something that was not mandated any longer. So, since it was not mandated any longer, the matter was just a question of personal choice. Which is not the case with WO.
I am curious, what do you mean by a religious authority?
Thank you for laying out a perfect case of why we should follow the HS and not blindly follow church authorities.
- Church establishment can be wrong
- The only reason why holy days and festivals were an issue was because people were trying to mandate them ( the same way some are trying to mandate against WO)
And good for them! We know that was wrong, and so do they, it seems.
By this, I mean that Paul was an apostle and had a mandate from Jesus himself. As such, he had a position of authority in the church.
You are right and wrong.
Right, because we should never follow the church blindly. This is why we have the Word of God: to be sure that we are not misled.
Wrong, because we should not try to oppose the Holy Spirit and the church authorities. God established the church and its overseers. So there is nothing wrong by definition with the concept of church authority. And also we have to be careful not to use the Holy Spirit as an excuse to do whatever we want without any regard for the church and/or its leadership. Everybody can claim to be led by the Holy Spirit. Even false prophets do that. But claiming it doesn’t automatically prove that it is so.
The implicit argument in the above statement is that the church is correct and me (or anybody) opposing it is wrong. That is the premise of the whole line of reasoning. My contention is that that is a decision everyone has to make. “Do I agree with the stance of the church?” If a person does they should support it. If not they should oppose it.
It is not the role of the church to say “John Doe, you are not led by the HS. Fall into line.” The church should say “Come let us reason together.” If the church is not open to new truth, no matter how confronting it is, or challenging to dearly held beliefs, it is dead. Not sleeping, dead. I am not saying all new “truth” is truth but it cannot just be dismissed out of hand. It must be investigated and studied with intellectual rigour and honesty.
At the end of the day, a person must live with their conscience (guided by the HS), irrespective of the stance of the church.
Everybody can have his or her opinion. But the church doesn’t function according to people’s opinions.
No, wrong again! The argument is not that the church is correct and you wrong. The argument is that we cannot use the Holy Spirit card to disregard the decisions of the church in session and do whatever we want. It is very easy to say that we follow the Holy Spirit even if it is not always the case. And, concerning the WO question, the other side also says that they are under the leadership of the Holy Spirit and that they are following the Bible. So, who is right?
I know it is a tricky situation. But it has to be handled with care. As I said earlier, the problem with the Rocky Mountain conference is that their action “gives the right” for anybody (local churches and individuals) in their territory to act the same way concerning any issue. If a local church disagrees with a policy or a directive of the conference (and we know that it happens) now this church can just follow the example of its conference and do whatever they want. And you can be sure they will say that they are following the Holy Spirit. Is it what the Rocky Mountain conference really wants? I am sure they don’t.
So, in this case, can John Doe say to the church, “You are not led by the Holy Spirit”?
I would agree with that. But, like you said, not all new “truth” is truth. We have to keep this in mind.
True. But following our conscience doesn’t mean doing things our own way either.
I think it does. There’s no science involved in religion, and no empirical facts. Religion depends on opinion/belief/faith.
Your previous post claimed that the vote to suppress women in the ministry was valid and binding was in fact a vote of basically uninformed opinions - mostly from basically misogynistic men from the southern hemisphere where the church is most successful, who think the bible says only men should lead. This despite what the church theologians concluded in the TOSC endeavor, which Ted suppressed.
Thank you. I guess the next question would be:
a) yes, his calling was unique for sure and the mandate from Jesus was to preach the gospel if I understand correctly i.e. Jesus is messiah, Sins are forgiven, Jesus would come back for us, etc.
b) what does this ‘position of authority’ mean in practical terms? In other words what specifically did he have authority to do and to whom?
The more you indicate that we should submit to the church, the more forcefully you prove why we shouldn’t. You seem to indicate an individual can’t be led by the HS if the are not in line with church “mandates”. What is the church but a group of spirit led individuals. The church is not some magical thing that is always right. We must follow what we believe is the Spirit’s leading, even if it is contrary to church teaching. At the end of the day we stand before God in a belief in JC, not a belief in the church.