Would you join this church

Wow Tim, we have something in common! I was saved in a similar church. Now, I am what some here call a "flaming liberal" although I take issue with that label.

There are still many of these types of churches here, but like you say, they are dying.

 

I am a complex fellow!!! some see me as very conservative.. some see me as too liberal...

I see me as just right....

Oh, and God sees me as one of his.. so I don't care what others label me... I am me.

I am a very social conservative in politics.. and more moderate in religious circles...

 

Something else we have in common is our Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ!

 

Dear Brother Tim,
you are correct when you speak of church autonomy.

I don't think these characteristics all match Old Regular or Primitive either one; both are conservative.

What we must be certain of is the 'fact' (that we ourselves are Biblically comfortable) and that any ABC church we attend and join is teaching the NT doctrine.

Often, our view(s) are projected onto what is really taught from the scripture; if we search honestly, do we find Sunday Schools?

I have never been in a church that prohibited women ( who are members) from voting; if they wish to speak they have the option of speaking through their husband, which is biblical, or as a single woman, voicing their concerns, and opinions through a deacon or elder; at times the church may even decide to grant women to speak on a topic. I have never seen any body that prohibited voting by women members.

once again, I vote for local autonomy.

bro. Dallas

 

Perhaps knowing the heart of a man makes all the difference. Certainly a man who refuses to remove his hat indoors and then runs when asked is lost.

Maybe he was only in the wrong neighborhood?:tonofbricks: :tonofbricks:

 

Wow! I am surprised the Lord was able to save you in such an environment.

:1_grouphug:

How can you be religiously liberal? What does that mean?

bro. Dallas

 

Maybe I read it wrong, but isn't that prohibiting women from voting?

I would not attend a church which expected women to talk "through" men.
So the church may even decide to "grant" women to speak on a topic?
That, imo, is borderline abuse.

 

Dear Brother Joe,
During the question, the discussion, the women do not speak, except through a man. A member, male or female having been faithful to attend will always be aware of issues. Therefore, the sister(s) can certainly make their wishes, opinions, etc. known through a brother prior to the business meeting.

Any member in good standing has the local right and authority to vote in business meeting.

bro. Dallas:wavey:

 

This is so unbiblical on so many levels is just sad. Sounds like you may be involved in a cult. I'll pray for you Brother.

Read Numbers 30. Single women are in subjection to their fathers, not a strange married who belongs to another woman. A married man, imo, shouldn't be spending too much time with a single female under the guise of "church business"


There is a game we played once as kids. We sit in a circle, and someone tells one person a story. Then the next person tells it to the other, then the other...The story is almost unrecognizable in the end.

 

I wouldn't call it a cult, but very conservative...

I think Frogman, (tell me if I am wrong frogman) is a Landmark Baptist.

If a church only allowed a woman to speak through their husband, I would never be back to that church... In Christ, we are neither male or female.

Frogman is right, it all boils down to church autonomy.

And because this brother believes such as he does, he has every right to attend the church he does.

I on the other hand choose not to.

 

Dear Brother Joe,
Your own imagination is running wild around that circle.

You are correct, a single woman should speak through her father; where her father does not attend church; you and your requirement has effectively closed her mouth yet you want to project your imaginations upon my statements.

Where did I say this single woman is to spend any time alone with a married man?

That is your imaginative statement brother; not mine.


This board is not an offense because we sometimes have disagreements; this board is becoming an offense because very many members so often imagine the unthinkable.

Again, where did I state a married man should spend any amount of time with a single woman?

:tonofbricks:

 

I spent the night last night with a married woman....


MY WIFE... hahahaha

 

I am an Old Landmarker; not a Neo-Landmarker.

During the Spanish Inquition, Jewish women kept the Jewish teachings alive: Why?

Men would not dare speak, not even to teach the oracles of God. Thus, the woman can be used to correct errors no doubt; where the Bible is taught faithfully, the Bible tells us to not suffer a woman to usurp the authority of man.

This is Biblical, whether I like it or not is not the particular question.

Where the man refuses to rise to his responsibility, I have no problem with women pointing the collective body to the truth of God's word.

Otherwise to act, practice and believe otherwise is anti-scriptural and I thus begin upon a course foreign to both the Bible and the Churches of God.

Having said that, I strongly believe in local autonomy. If I disagree with what is being taught as Bible doctrine, the responsibility becomes my own to work to change that according to patience, meekness, and humility all scriptural attitudes. When and if this fails, it becomes my responsibility to leave that body; separate myself as it were; but do so in like manner, I must never permit myself to become the catalyst that destroys a body or the peace of a body of believers.

Show me where the Holy Spirit annulled the words of Paul concerning the usurpation of the authority of a man and then I will be found in full agreement with the idea of a woman so acting within the body of believers. Otherwise, I am satisfied to stick with the word of God.


bro. Dallas:wavey:

 

Dear Brother Tim,
Here I believe is an example, please forgive me. I do not mean to be picking on you.

Read the statement above. Consider the post by brother Joe. How can a married man spend time with a single woman as Joe states when there is neither male nor female in Christ?

Do you think possibly this is a spiritual maxim; or speaking of a time we have not yet experienced? We are yet in the flesh and whether in Christ or not, we do have both male and female among us.

Furthermore, can we imagine an unbeliever's sense of contradiction when we tell 'him' or 'her' that a 'woman' should not usurp the authority of a man ( a biblical teaching), yet there are neither 'male' nor 'female' in Christ?

There is more to that statement than a cliche.

Certainly so inmho.

May God Bless,
bro. Dallas:wavey:

 

It was one sentence out of my post, the only sentence you addressed in my entire post. And it was misconstrued.

It is you who is exaggerating my sentence. I am sorry if I offended you, I didn't mean to.

You didn't, and I didn't mention a married man spending time alone with a single woman either, so why bring this up? Our Deacons are not to be alone with other women so that thought didn't enter my mind.

Again, I didn't say you made that statement. We are talking about your church, women voting in business meetings remember?

When you mentioned women, forgive me but I thought you meant ALL women. You did not specify single women had "no voice" thus you weren't speaking of them "talking through" a Deacon. Honestly, I am very confused of which women you meant must talk thru a Deacon but it's not worth it. I respect you, and don't want to hurt you. Thanks for the clarification brother.

 

Froggy, you can pick on me all you want.. !!!
lol...

I think where we are disagreeing is what does it mean to have "authority "over someone

I as pastor am moderator of the precedings.. .I am at that point the authority over the business meeting....
Everything is done with order... I can be, and have been known to be, a stickler to the Robert's rules of order.

So, therefore, since I am in authority at the business meetings, a woman that speaks is not usurping authority over me... in a sense, I, through my authority am allowing her to speak.... I never lose the authority....
She has to be recognized by the chair... the same as everyother member does.... And if 2 people rise at the same time, the one farther away gets to speak first...

make sense?

 

Numbers 30??

Further proves my point(S).

bro. Dallas

 

Dear Bro. Joe,
Let me further clarify, I did mean no woman is to speak during business meeting. If they have a concern they (either married or single) can speak through their husband, father, or any brother who is faithful to have attended. By that I mean, where my wife is a faithful member and I am not, she cannot speak through me, right?

Secondly, I did address your entire post, following suit with your exaggeration, not my own. You imagined if a single woman speaks to a deacon or elder, they might at least possibly be spending time alone together, that is your idea, not mine. If a single woman, or married woman whose husband does not attend, or a daughter whose father does not attend so chooses to speak to a brother in the church, of course the right way to do it is in the presence of his wife and never to engage in a lone meeting, that would of all things be most clandestine.

bro. Dallas

 

Salty:

I know it's too late now, but maybe you should have included an "All of the Above" option.

That is, "I would not consider joining a church that practiced 'All of the Above' things."

BTW, all the women on BB have voted to give me their permission to post in this thread!!!! :laugh:

:tonofbricks: