Preach/Sing in "Other" Denominations

[saturneptune]

Well, I didn't want to say anything, but you can also find Brother Tom on his bicycle every Thursday with white shirt and tie passing out tracts.

 

[SOGOSINGER]

Av1611Jim, Thank you for the scripture...I personally don't believe that they override the entire ministry of Peter and Paul but at least that lets me know where the belief comes from, which was what I was trying to find out when I started this thread. Especially the being yoked with unbelievers verse (I'm going to learn how to put your quotes in ) because we do sing in churches that believe in "Salvation by Grace". which would seem to me that the are "Believers" My only problem with the majority of the verses would seem to keep anyone from having a prison ministry or passing out tracts...Oh well, I am very capable of agreeing to disagree with someone who gives me scripture for his point of view....thank you, I wish the pastor would have done the same when I asked him. I guess my parting answer to those that do not believe in spreading gospel in other denominations is this...If I am wrong, when i stand before Jesus, I believe I will still have a soul winners crown to lay at his feet for those souls that were saved in a Methodist or Nazarene or Pentecostal (gasp) church through our ministry....But if you are wrong.....

 

[AVL1984]

Originally posted by Brother Bob:
You would have to be naive to not know that the church has a constitution and all members and Pastor must follow those rules or at least when you get took to a court of law the church would lose. You don't just get out in a little building or a big one a say this is a church maybe in the old days but today is a different world. If the leaders didn't have a constitution to protect the church from people who say "well its not Scripture" so I will sue you and don't think that people who get angry won't do that for they will and yes, where you are too. If your leaders are naive enough to let your church go unprotected of which I am sure they don't then you will reap the consequences someday. Again, I say the Leaders make decisions based on the constitution of your church all the time and always keep in mind the constitution when making those decisions. If your church is old enough those constitution rules were around before you came into the world. Without rules, no organization would last and I mean none. One other thing, you better make sure that constitution will stand up to today's world too, just some friendly advice, take it or leave it I really don't care. If you are truly "Independant" I would advise you if you are in leadership to get you a constition and post it.

I have been in several churches that had the "Constitution and Bylaws", and found that they meant very little in those churches. In fact, I was in one that split last August where a deacon, not 2/3 of the church, attacked the pastor and asked for his resignation. 2/3 of the church didn't agree to this, but it happened. Most wanted the pastor to stay and the deacon to go...the deacon is still there to this day. Ever hear of te term "intimidation"? Constitutions and bylaws mean very little if they're only a pretense, which in some churches, they are. I became the interim of this church after this split and tried to get the constitution and bylaws changed and was attacked severely by this same deacon. I resigned after three weeks, as the deacon still had the stronghold and was intimidating the church into taking his positions. Money speaks louder than Constitutions and Bylaws, and even God's word in some churches. So, the Lord led us out!

I was on the constitution and bylaws committee and also non-staff pastoral (3rd preacher) in the church that split from this church, and though it was established, this church, too, violated it's own directives and went liberal.

I'm far from naive. I live in the real world more than you'll ever know. Maybe you should come down off of your soapbox now.

 

[Brother Bob]

avl1984;
I'm far from naive. I live in the real world more than you'll ever know. Maybe you should come down off of your soapbox now.

Remarks like this is what brings out the harshness from people and maybe is why you didn't prevail at either church it seems, but if you want to add slangs to a discussion about constitutions then go for it. You posts seems to suggest the majority was against you and you say it was for money. Well, I have seen where the big money man had the rule of the church so you may be right, but there is no need to attack me for telling you and others they need a constitution and that majority rules whether they want to agree or not. Even with the money man, the majority got behind him, maybe for the wrong reason but they must of supported him. I know all about splits and don't know how old you are be we have an Association where 27 churches are bound together by a constitution and every year when we come together that constition is what we go by to conduct our meetings, so if anyone has a problem then can present it before the Association and it is dealt with and decided by a majority with the Scripture always our backbone. So you can pass out your remarks all you want but The Lord knows the mind of you and I both and He knows I was only trying to explain, without a constitution a church, Association or any organization would be in a dangerous position.
So, if instead of, as you did in the end agreeing by your posts but still attacking me, is how you get along, ok by me. I am too old to be on a high horse I might fall off.

 

[saturneptune]

Av,
You are obsessed with deacons. The role of a deacon (or should be) is a servant of the Pastor and the people. That is the second thread where you have a deacon in some kind of authority or deciding role. Acts is quite clear on the role of a deacon.

 

[Tom Butler]

Back to the OP.

You folks in churches which forbid members to sing or preach in a church of another denomination, you do understand that this is a slippery slope.

It's really not a big step from there to forbidding personal and professional associations with "heretics" or "heathen."

Paul's going to synagogues (unbelievers) would be off-limits, and so would a Billy Graham Crusade, since he involves many denominations. (I'm not happy about that, either, but it wouldn't keep me away).

From there, how about working for an unbeliever or a Catholic, or Jew? Oh no, you'd be unequally yoked.

I have neighbors who are unchurched. Oh, I guess it's okay to witness to them, but any social relationships--uh-uh.

Yeah, I can hear, why that's ridiculous. Yep, it is. But only a logical extension of the mindset which, in an effort to forbid unequal yoking with unbelievers, has placed its members under another yoke--legalism.

 

[AVL1984]

Originally posted by Brother Bob:
Remarks like this is what brings out the harshness from people and maybe is why you didn't prevail at either church it seems, but if you want to add slangs to a discussion about constitutions then go for it.

AVL Responds: I don't believe I addressed you with harshness, but realilty.

You posts seems to suggest the majority was against you and you say it was for money.

AVL: [***Editor's Note: Offensive assertion removed. Debate the issues and do not attack the person holding the opposing view please. Personal attacks will not be tolerated BB Posting Rule 4.] I have not stated anywhere either of these two things. My leaving wasn't for the money, nor was my being an interim.
Now if you're saying that I said that the church voted against the Sr. pastor because the deacon and several others backing him had the money to control the church...I did indeed say that. The majority wasn't against the pastor, but the initiative being presented by one of the members...the head deacon packed the church and got his way voted in, and then violated the constitution by asking for the pastors resignation, a position for which he did not have the majority. The pastor resigned because of the knowledge of the deacons continued fight to oust him.

In the second church, the pastor had resigned without the church ever having had a constitution and bylaws in place, which I had pressed him to do several times in the first few months. The interim should not have been allowed to take the church because he was a newly licensed minister without any pastoral or preaching experience. I on the other hand was experienced in both. He and I both agreed that the constitution and bylaws should be done right away, but, he wished to rush them and in a fashion that allowed for the most liberal of things in the constitution that violated scripture. Being a newly licensed minister, he wasn't sure what to do, and didn't have the courage enough to stand up for the Bible. Having this knowledge, and having discussed it with him on several occasions, and having the final draft that was to be presented to the church, my wife and I resigned all positions and left the church. It folded between four and six weeks later. They weren't against me, they were against the Bible and it's guidelines and in favor of their "feelings". There were some who were for the positions I held as a non-staff pastor, and they, too, left the church.

Well, I have seen where the big money man had the rule of the church so you may be right, but there is no need to attack me for telling you and others they need a constitution and that majority rules whether they want to agree or not. Even with the money man, the majority got behind him, maybe for the wrong reason but they must of supported him.

AVL: Indeed the majority did get behind the man in the first church. I had no control over that as we were out of town because of my Mom-In-Law's having been injured, diagnosed with lung cancer upon examination during her time in the hospital and given 4-6 weeks to live, subsequent death and burial, and then other legal matters. We were out of town for nearly six weeks. We came back to a ticking bomb that Sunday morning, and to a church split that night. I was left as the interim, as I had voted to not change the particular point in the constitution. Had I known all the issues at hand, I would have voted with the pastor. I believe the Lord leaving me as interim in the church was for a good reason, for they, after my resignation, did indeed change the constitution and bylaws. I had worked as a mediator between the two churches during my term as interim, but neither side would budge. The Lord led my wife and I to leave that mess so that they would know the seriousness of their departure from the Word of God. At that point, they decided to start looking their constitution and bylaws over and changed them. If they would have done it in the first place, there would have been no split.

I guess what I'm saying BB is that yes, the church does need the constitution and bylaws, but, that doesn't necessarily make them right, and neither does majority rule. When the constitution and bylaws trump the WOG, then the constitution and bylaws are wrong.

I know all about splits and don't know how old you are be we have an Association where 27 churches are bound together by a constitution and every year when we come together that constition is what we go by to conduct our meetings, so if anyone has a problem then can present it before the Association and it is dealt with and decided by a majority with the Scripture always our backbone.

AVL: The first church is a member of the SBC and of a local association. But, when the association was called upon during our absense to mediate the situation, the DOM wouldn't even touch it. He only stated that the pastor was right in his standings, as was the member who had requested the change in the constitution and bylaws. We didn't find this out until after the split. At that time, I asked the association for assistance in mediation, but, the DOM refused to do so, saying it was a church matter. When I several weeks later advised him of my departure from that church he agreed with me. So, just because a local associaton within the SBC has a constitution and bylaws doesn't necessarily mean that the local association will follow their own set of guidelines. I was surprised that they didn't, but, such is life. I truly believe that they need a DOM that will grow a backbone.

Now, the second church had voted to align itself with the SBC and the local association, seek a sponsor church and have us presented in October of 2006, but, they wavered back and forth on whether or not to align with the SBC. They wanted to be more "interdenominational" and "liberal" in their standings...their words, not mine..I would just call it "WORDLDY"! Being a disabled, non-staff pastor, I could not 'force' them to do anything. Even though more agreed that the constitution should reflect a biblical stance than didn't, the minority actually won since some wouldn't vote against their brethren because of the pain they still felt from the split from the first church.
It was a really mixed up situation. We know what our purpose was in being there, and for a while we did help keep things stable, but after the pastor resigned in mid January, the church started whirling out of control under the interims leadership.

I happen to be 44 years old and have been preaching since I was 19.

So you can pass out your remarks all you want but The Lord knows the mind of you and I both and He knows I was only trying to explain, without a constitution a church, Association or any organization would be in a dangerous position.
So, if instead of, as you did in the end agreeing by your posts but still attacking me, is how you get along, ok by me. I am too old to be on a high horse I might fall off.

AVL: I surely don't believe I was attacking you, and if you took it that way, I apologize. But, I am very direct, and will continue to be so. If that's offensive to you, I don't know what to tell you. I have problems with very few people. Surely you're not that much older than I.

[ May 05, 2006, 02:46 AM: Message edited by: Bible-boy ]

 

[AVL1984]

Originally posted by saturneptune:
Av,
You are obsessed with deacons. The role of a deacon (or should be) is a servant of the Pastor and the people. That is the second thread where you have a deacon in some kind of authority or deciding role. Acts is quite clear on the role of a deacon.

I'm far from obsessed with deacons. I know very well what their role is. I also know that many think they run the church, especially in smaller churches...and, in fact, some of them do despite what the Bible says about their role.

 

[saturneptune]

Then if you know what the role of a deacon is, as you state above, then why did you tolerate unscriptual use of power by deacons in the churchs of which you speak?

 

[Brother Bob]

AVL1984
AVL: [***Editor's Note: Offensive assertion removed.] I have not stated anywhere either of these two things. My leaving wasn't for the money, nor was my being an interim.
Now if you're saying that I said that the church voted against the Sr. pastor because the deacon and several others backing him had the money to control the church...I did indeed say that. The majority wasn't against the pastor, but the initiative being presented by one of the members...the head deacon packed the church and got his way voted in, and then violated the constitution by asking for the pastors resignation, a position for which he did not have the majority. The pastor resigned because of the knowledge of the deacons continued fight to oust him.

See what I mean by your hateful remarks and to call me a liar I truly resent and you should be admonished by the moderators. I in no way referred that you left because of money but that there was some one there with money that outdid you and had the support of the majority instead of you. You sir, owe me an apology. Following is your post I was referring to.

by AVL1984; Money speaks louder than Constitutions and Bylaws, and even God's word in some churches. So, the Lord led us out!

BTW, I am 67 and its quite a bit older than you and as long as you call me a liar I don't care to carry on a debate with you. After all the name calling and harshness then you post that you agreed with me to start with. So why the remarks that I was on a soapbox, a liar etc. A Christian should not be talking that way and needs to ask God to forgive him for such actions. You know if you had of talked with me as you did after you got through calling me names we probably could of had a good discussion.

AV; I guess what I'm saying BB is that yes, the church does need the constitution and bylaws, but, that doesn't necessarily make them right, and neither does majority rule. When the constitution and bylaws trump the WOG, then the constitution and bylaws are wrong.

[ May 05, 2006, 02:49 AM: Message edited by: Bible-boy ]

 

[MRCoon]

Ok so the point that seems to get misrepresented is that unequally yoked is not a casual relationship but a toiling in the Lord's work. A farmer would not casually 'yoke up' his oxen to a neighbor's donkey who claimed no relationship at all. This is refering more to two creatures that are familiar with each other and whether they have the same farmer or hosued in the smae barn means nothing once you hook them to the yoke because it just doesn't work. We can associate with others saved or unsaved but when we enter into the business of the Lord's work and worship to him we need to be doing it in the understanding and guidelines of the Bible. I would recommend that if one has no issue worshipping with someone who believes in adding something to salvation other than what the Bible says or take away something from the Bible or doesn't believe the Bible to be completely from the Lord then that person should run away very fast and definitely not worship with them. this is substantially different than having unsaved to church or working in the secualr workplace with unsaved or even running an outreach ministry (prison or otherwise) that is not under the umbrella of another faith's contrary practice.

 

[Brother Bob]

MRCoon;
You did mean to "yoke" up your oxen with the neighbors donkey and not "to" didn't you.

 

[MRCoon]

Well two things against me....I'm from the south and I'm a Marine...so "with" "to" whatever you higher edumacated people say...it made sense to me

Thanks

 

[blackbird]

Majority rule outside the bounds of Scripture---is totally contradictory to the will of God the Father

 

[Brother Bob]

Ok blackbird, lol;
First tell me who chooses your Pastor.

 

[Brother Bob]

Please give me the Scripture against Majority rule, ok.

 

[MRCoon]

Originally posted by blackbird:
Majority rule outside the bounds of Scripture---is totally contradictory to the will of God the Father

Man did God make a mistake with Saul as King then. (please note heavy use of sarcasm ) Since the people went to Samuel and said we want a King as the other nations (or something along those lines). That seemed to be a case of 'majority rules' maybe not a valid case but a scripture case nonetheless.

By the way, how is a Church or Government to be ruled? God established the home first, then Government, then the Church...so how is it we say that the US is a Country established by God and I'm sure you know our country is not a democracy...where the masses rule but are a republic where the masses vote for representative leadership...so we do have some 'majority rule' complexion.

 

[Bible-boy]

Apparently we have had a bit of confusion due to the problems we have had with the double posting. I edited a post by AVL1984 and deleted what I thought was a duplicate post. Apparently AVL1984 had self-edited his own post and removed an offensive remark. However, both posts (one with the offensive remark and one without the offensive remark) were on the thread. It seems that when I received a PM complaining about AVL's post I edited one and deleted the one that he had already self-edited. I am sorry for any confusion that I may have caused.

Yours in Christ,

Bible-Boy,
Forum Moderator

 

[mima]

Within 8 miles of my home or two churches that are commonly referred to as Dr. so-and-so's Church
and Mr. so-and-so's Church. One Is Baptist and the other is Methodist. Both are old well-established churches of about 35 to 50 regular attendees. Now both men, that these churches are called by, are financial giants and I assume big givers. I know both of these men personally and they are both considered to be good Christian men. And from my knowledge I would agree. These men exercise enormous influence over their churches. Notice I said "their" Churches, just habit I guess. People come to me, wanting to tell me about these men. I always say this, I know these men and I believe they're Christians. I understand their overriding actions, I understand that they rule the roost, but I can give you no advice about this matter. Whatever you decide will have to be independent of what my opinion is. Some of the people that come to me were saved, after hearing my street message, and later chose to go to these two churches.