« Six Shifts That Will Shape the Church | Main | OPINION: Take MegaChurches Seriously »
Thursday, April 28, 2005
Conflict? Ask Ken: Tips On Church Conflict Resolution
An important document of the church membership process is the covenant of membership form. It signifies a shared understanding by those who sign it and become identifiable members of that church. It also tells the church’s spiritual leaders that these individuals are formally putting themselves under their spiritual charge. A signed membership covenant means there is an agreement with and a commitment to abide by the church’s organizing beliefs, principles, and practices.
This is why I recommend that churches incorporate a conflict resolution process that is distinct from the church’s discipline process outlined in Matthew 18:15-18 (see my “Conflict? Ask Ken” comments for Thursday, December 9, 2004). When individuals sign the covenant of membership and agree to abide by the doctrines and norms as reflected in the church’s bylaws, they are also agreeing to a pre-defined manner in which they will work out their differences. Indeed, this should be explicitly highlighted in the covenant itself.
To Illustrate
Consider the following true scenario: The planning of a new church is undertaken by a young pastor whose vision is to build an interracial congregation. Early in the church’s experience, when numbers ranged only in the dozens, a member was dissatisfied with the pastor’s selection of certain individuals to fill certain church roles (not elders). This man sent a letter to every member of this fledgling congregation to express his dissatisfaction. Not surprisingly, this caused an uproar.
Now imagine with me the above scenario with one difference. As part of it’s DNA, the church adopted a church conflict resolution process which outlined the steps one needed to take to address areas of frustration, unmet expectations, etc. If this man were to send out his letter, the whole dynamic of the debate would be different. Why? The primary issue would not be the content of the letter, right or wrong, but the man’s failure to abide by his covenant of membership whereby he agreed to the church’s conflict resolution process. Since most understand that righteous ends should not be achieved by unrighteous means, the one who breaks his word will stand condemned by the rest of the congregation. The covenant of membership provides a universal agreement on how conflict will be managed, a significant step in fortifying the church’s fellowship and stability.
Let’s Be Specific
Therefore, I propose that every church conclude its covenant of membership document with wording similar to the following:
I have read and agree with Appleton Community Church’s doctrinal statement and bylaws and pledge to abide by them as a member of this church. As Christ's under-shepherds, I understand that the church’s board of ________ [elders, deacons, fill in the blank] is responsible for the spiritual nurture, fellowship, and discipline of the congregation, both individually and corporately. Accordingly, as it relates to the areas of biblical doctrine and Christian conduct, I willingly submit myself to their spiritual care, oversight, and authority.
I understand that my membership is voluntary and that I may resign from Appleton Community Church at any time. But for as long as I choose to be a member, I pledge to do my best to make it an assembly where God is honored by my life and others are encouraged by my words and my deeds. And, in the event a dispute arises between myself and another in the congregation, I agree to follow the conflict resolution process adopted by this church.
The last line in this membership covenant assumes that the church already has a conflict resolution process in place. If your church does not, but would like to learn more about the model I have developed, let me know and I will e-mail information to you free of charge. You can call me at 301-253-8877 or e-mail me at Newberger@ResolveChurchConflict.com.
For Discussion
This forum provides us all with an excellent opportunity to share ideas that will help others. In the area of church conflict resolution, would you be so kind as to share an idea or “tip” that has worked for you? Thank you in advance.
--
© 2005 Kenneth C. Newberger
Ken
Newberger, an experienced church conflict resolution specialist, earned
his Th.M. from Dallas Theological Seminary, has ten years senior
pastoral experience, and is in the dissertation phase for his Ph.D. in
Conflict Analysis and Resolution at Nova Southeastern University, one
of only two accredited doctoral programs of its kind in the United
States. If your church needs help resolving conflict, if you need
individual coaching, or if you would like to introduce a proactive
conflict management system into your church, please visit Ken's website
at www.ResolveChurchConflict.com or call 301-253-8877.
Pass this post on to a friend now...
Subscribe to RSS Feed | Get Email Notifications on New Posts
April 28, 2005 in Church Conflict | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451dafb69e200d83477d1a269e2
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Conflict? Ask Ken: Tips On Church Conflict Resolution:
Comments
Here we go again!
Why must someone sign a document to become a "member" of an organization, especially when they are already recognized as members of the Church?
This "covenant" trash is nothing more but a poorly veiled attempt at controlling well-intentioned but Scripture-ignorant people who have been taught that such nonsense is "biblical," which clearly it is not.
This is just more of the same "church growth" pablum from the "we know better than Jesus" crowd in how to build a "church."
This is legalism at is worst.
Posted by: Ricky | Apr 28, 2005 12:05:28 PM
Ricky,
Do you think that "leaders" (Sunday School teachers, voting members, deacons, elders etc...) in the church should sign a Covenant like this?
Al
Posted by: Pastor Al | Apr 28, 2005 1:33:31 PM
Al,
Ricky's against everything!
:)
Todd
Posted by: Todd Rhoades | Apr 28, 2005 1:40:16 PM
I think the issue is not so much the signing, but the fact that everyone involved understands how Christ-followers handle conflict with each other! You may or may not require a covenant with individual members, but every person who joins or even regularly attends a church should understand the Biblical model for conflict resolution and reconciliation. Ideally, it would be the same in every church!!
Personally, as the spouse of a staff member, it would be a huge relief to know that we had 'proof' that every member understood where the church stood on conflict resolution. I worked at a small store in the mall once, and we had customers initial their receipts after we explained the rather restrictive return policy. That way we could prove, in case of a disagreement, that they had been made aware of the store's policy. Maybe it shouldn't be necessary in a church, but it's just common sense all the way around to be sure that members of a congregation are aware of what they are 'getting into' when they make a particular church their home.
Posted by: RB | Apr 28, 2005 3:07:03 PM
I personally don't care if I have to sign or not sign. I would agree with RB that it is important that everyone be aware of how conflict will be handled. The aversion to signing could be that they do not totally trust the leadership and are not ready to give total control away. It could also be that by signing they no longer have the excuse for sinful reaction to conflict. I sign for everything else, what would keep me from signing a covenant at my church?
Posted by: Bart | Apr 28, 2005 5:05:01 PM
Al,
I agree with Todd. Sorry Rick, just seems to me you disagree with everything. You are kind of predictable.
Posted by: Jade | Apr 28, 2005 5:05:24 PM
The good thing about signing is it really makes you think what you are signing. The bad part is, it seems like a lack of relationship. When the relationship falters, all you have is rules... which is not healthy.
It's like marriage. If you have love, you don't have to talk about committment. It's automatic. No love, then you have to convince people to stay because of committment (the rules, promises, etc). The best advice for failing marriages is teaching how to build love (like 'the five love languages') rather than harping on committment.
...Bernie
http://www.oneplace.com/ministries/247
Posted by: bernie dehler | Apr 28, 2005 7:14:37 PM
RB notes: "Ideally, it would be the same in every church!!"
Agreed, but at this point we can't even agree on the necessary elements of forgiveness. Most Christians believe we have to practice repentance-free unrequested forgiveness. It's a deadly heresy when you factor in women who've been sent from the ICU directly back into the arms (and fists) of abusive husbands -- sans repentance.
Clearly we are not all on the same page...
"Forgiving the Unrepentant":
[http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2005/003/29.78.html]
... more of the same man-centered, "Forgive them so you'll feel better about yourself, oh, and God will feel better, too" drivel. Absolutely NO mention of Matthew 18 (arguably THE Scripture for Biblical conflict resolution)! How can we hope to be on the same page with this gospel-less methodology being published and mass distributed to millions of "sheeple"?
Posted by: Phil in CA | Apr 28, 2005 7:17:21 PM
Al asks:
"Do you think that "leaders" (Sunday School teachers, voting members, deacons, elders etc...) in the church should sign a Covenant like this?"
Absolutely not. Why should they be made to? To prove their devotion to the pastoral staff? Why can't they just be allowed to serve?
I'll tell you why. It's because the organizational politics that people wrongly call "church" today demands it. They're no different than some Fortune 500 corporation who forces its employees to sign all types of legal waivers (i.e., anti-consulting, no solicitation of existing customers upon departure, etc.).
So, if you want a well-oiled business model, then go ahead, FORCE your people to sign covenants that protect YOU, but don't dare call it "church."
Posted by: Ricky | Apr 28, 2005 9:15:27 PM
Todd said:
"Ricky's against everything!"
And Todd's for everything (as in "every wind of doctrine" ;))
By the way, Todd, did you get my email suggestion regarding an article of possible interest?
Posted by: Ricky | Apr 28, 2005 9:19:42 PM
RB stated:
"Maybe it shouldn't be necessary in a church, but it's just common sense all the way around to be sure that members of a congregation are aware of what they are 'getting into' when they make a particular church their home."
"Getting into?" This sounds absolutely cultic! I can't believe what I'm reading!
This is just more hoops for precious souls to be forced to jump through in order to be recognized by some man-made organization, as if that's what saves them. What's even more sad is that most of those precious souls don't even know that God has already accepted them as members of His Body.
It's amazing to watch these organizations as they continue to declare that they have stricter "membership requirements" than Jesus Christ.
This is an "add on" to the gospel of Jesus Christ and amounts to legalism.
Posted by: Ricky | Apr 28, 2005 9:28:45 PM
Careful, Ricky...
And no, I didn't get your email... please try and re-send.
Todd
Posted by: Todd Rhoades | Apr 28, 2005 9:31:07 PM
Bart said:
"The aversion to signing could be that they do not totally trust the leadership and are not ready to give total control away."
And why should someone give up "total control" to a group of men who are not willing to do the same in return?
I can't believe the amount of Koolaid that is being swallowed on this site! I can understand Todd's willingness to capitulate, after all he makes his living dealing with these organization, but the others?
Unless, of course, the "others" are those in power in the organizations.
Posted by: Ricky | Apr 28, 2005 9:32:03 PM
No capitulating here Ricky. Sorry to disappoint you.
Todd
Posted by: Todd Rhoades | Apr 28, 2005 9:35:03 PM
Phil said:
"How can we hope to be on the same page with this gospel-less methodology being published and mass distributed to millions of "sheeple"?"
And there's plenty of bleating on this topic!
Posted by: Ricky | Apr 28, 2005 9:43:32 PM
Ricky,
I think your points while, obnoxious in their tone, :-) have some legitimacy. The only thing I might say is that the church I now pastor, had something like this when I came. It was actually the first time I had seen something like this in a church! At first it seemed like a good idea, until I realized that if “unhealthy” people sign them then they are not going to really know how to honor them. So, I filed them away and began to teach about what really being a follower of JC was all about. My approach now to someone who needs some “direction” is not to bring up the “covenant” they signed but the Scriptures and what they say about living for Christ. Maybe if the reason for this “covenant” had been established through good teaching before they moved to this format, it might have been more of a positive influence.
I’m not saying I am against them, I would just suggest that a lot of teaching about what a covenant is and what how a believer should interact with Christians and non-Christians alike should be the real outcome.
IMHO
Al
Posted by: Pastor Al | Apr 28, 2005 9:49:32 PM
Al said:
"I’m not saying I am against them, I would just suggest that a lot of teaching about what a covenant is and what how a believer should interact with Christians and non-Christians alike should be the real outcome."
First, thank you for your reasoned post.
I can say that I am adamantly opposed to them because they are not true covenants, which incorporates a 100% MUTUAL submission to each other, as is the marriage covenant, for example. Each biblical instance of covenants were this way with neither party of the agreement in a higher position. Even God bound Himself in this type of relationship through Jesus Christ His Son.
And yet, in today's organizations, these so-called "covenants" are one-sided with the power and ultimate decision left with the "pastor." Is this representative of the biblical understanding of covenant. No way.
But that hasn't kept the throngs of pastors, who are emulating the pastoral "experts" such as Rick Warren, from rushing these documents to their congregations under the pretense that it is for their good. It's not and they should be rejected.
No where in the New Testament do we find the Early Believers entering into these so-called "covenants." Why is that?
I believe it's because that each of the Early Believers (accept for the selfish ones [Ananias/Sapphira]) emptied themselves for the sake of their brothers/sisters in Christ, just as their Master did for us.
So, if we're all what we claim to be, why the need for a piece of paper?
Posted by: Ricky | Apr 28, 2005 10:16:21 PM
"Actually, then, it is already a defeat for you, that you have lawsuits with one another. Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be defrauded?"
-- Paul (I Corinthians 6:7)
Would Paul require a "covenant?" No way.
Posted by: Ricky | Apr 28, 2005 10:24:25 PM
Ricky,
You said, "I can say that I am adamantly opposed to them because they are not true covenants, which incorporates a 100% MUTUAL submission to each other, as is the marriage covenant, for example."
Would you then be in favor of them if they were 100% mutual? Although we do not have a signed covenant in our church, we do have a covenant to which all members agree when joining our fellowship. We even bring it out and review it on special occasions just to remind us how we are to behave toward one another in the Body of Christ. It is biblically based and it applies to all members equally, including elders and pastors.
As Todd pointed out, you seem to be against almost everything. I'm wondering if you perhaps you have been hurt in the past by an abusive pastor or group of church leaders. If this is the case, please know that, not all churches have abusive leadership individuals or groups. There are many godly, Christ honoring churches out there also.
I'd also like to hear about the fellowship to which you currently belong. Are you a pastor, church leader or lay person. You obviously have some strong opinions about what church should be like, perhaps you could share some of your ideas with us.
I've asked some pretty personal questions so I think it only fair to let you know where I'm coming from. I have been in full time vocational ministry for 20 years, most of them in associate pastor postions. I have personally been abused by both senior pastors and supposedly mature elder boards, forced to resign for unfair reasons, and even had pay illegally withheld. I have also been blessed and ministered too by other pastors and leadership boards. Sometimes things get tough, but I wouldn't give up the ministry and the opportunities I've had to serve God's people for anything.
Posted by: Rich | Apr 29, 2005 12:22:08 AM
Thanks Rich for your concern for me. I will attempt to answer your questions to the best of my ability.
You asked:
"Would you then be in favor of them if they were 100% mutual?"
No, I would not be, simply because signing a document sets the tone of distrust from the very beginning. If you truly trusted the other party (i.e., a brother/sister in the Lord), then why the need for a document?
I equate such an action as tantamount to a prospective groom asking his prospective bride to sign a pre-nuptial "just in case." To do so is to begin the relationship on the presumption that one of the parties will likely violate some rule that will cause problems. Is that indicative of trusting in the Spirit of God, especially between fellow brothers and sisters? No, it is not.
Rich:
"It is biblically based and it applies to all members equally, including elders and pastors."
First, I seriously doubt any such "covenant" is "biblically based," at least upon the practices of the New Testament Church.
Secondly, Rich, you know as well as I, that if push came to shove, the pastor/board would have the final say as to whether the allegedly "offending party" would have to submit or leave. Do you invision the pastoring stepping down on his own over a dispute? Rarely, would a person with so much power do such a thing.
Again:
"As Todd pointed out, you seem to be against almost everything."
That is a little exaggerated, seeing that I usually post my feelings on those issues that I believe pose the greatest danger to the Body of Christ, i.e., "super pastors," "authority," etc. Additionally, Todd always seems to show a bias in favor of the institutionalized organizations (otherwise known as "church") in that he seldom, if ever, posts anything from a house or simple church perspective.
Sorry, but I refuse to blindly follow anyone just because their organization may number in the thousands, without checking it out.
Also:
"I'm wondering if you perhaps you have been hurt in the past by an abusive pastor or group of church leaders. If this is the case, please know that, not all churches have abusive leadership individuals or groups. There are many godly, Christ honoring churches out there also."
I totally agree that there are many fellowships where love is the only "rule" which governs their time together. Unfortunately, however, there is an undercurrent in America that says that unless you adopt the heirarchial structures and marketing strategies of the world, you will not grow, although "growth" is a very subjective term that the "big guys" have hijacked and defined themselves.
As to being "hurt" by authority, sure. I don't know many who has been around in the institution for any length of time that hasn't been, but I honestly don't think that my words are tainted with any animosity toward those who have hurt me or others.
Saying that, I must admit that I have VERY little patience toward those who have exalted themselves in unscriptural positions of supposed authority and do all that they can to stay in power.
It is my conviction that while most of those in this type of power have good intentions, many if not most of those should know better because they have a privilege that most believers don't have: more than ample time study the word of God at length. However, this has not stopped the practice of many who speak to congregations from only repeating what they were taught in seminary as the truth instead of truly inspecting it themselves with a critical view (i.e., like the Bereans).
I cannot see how those who maintain much of the institutionalized line, as it relates to issues such as "authority," "government," etc., can do so without having to lie. Such a practice can be traced to the Medieval Church where the "educated" ones (i.e., priests, bishops, cardinals, pope) kept the commoners stupid in order to remain in power and enjoy the privileges.
Again:
"I'd also like to hear about the fellowship to which you currently belong. Are you a pastor, church leader or lay person. You obviously have some strong opinions about what church should be like, perhaps you could share some of your ideas with us."
Presently, I serve in what you would call a "pastorate," although I eschew titles. I do so in order, by the grace of God, to help set the record straight regarding the purpose of the New Testament church gatherings, the practices of the Early Church and the historical points at which the church left the simplicity of just submitting the Headship of Christ and the sacrificial service of each other, and has become this mutated beast of man's creation.
The precious souls that I have the privilege to live and to learn with have struggled to stay committed to the simplicity of the Scriptures and to learn together the joy of mutual submission and of the giving of ourselves when we gather.
It is my passion to see God's people freed from the shackles of man's attempt at "building the 'church'" and to encourage them to know and to live in those gifts and calling to which God has called them.
In other words, our "vision" (a sorely misused word today) is to help others to live the dreams that God has given them. Everything we do is toward that goal and I am truly blessed to be a part of such a fellowship.
This passion sometimes compels me to take stands that are in opposition to other brothers and sisters who have bought into the world's schemes of structure, et al. Thus, my days are probably numbered on this forum.
For the record, I have served on the staff of two large megaorganizations and grew so sick of the politics and the paralyzing (i.e., abuse) of God's people that I NEVER want to be a part of that trash ever again.
Unfortunately, it is the nature of the beast that vast majority of the institutions, however well-intentioned, will eventually suffer the same.
Again, thank you for your concern.
Blessings.
Posted by: Ricky | Apr 29, 2005 1:42:07 AM
"I can say that I am adamantly opposed to them because they are not true covenants, which incorporates a 100% MUTUAL submission to each other, as is the marriage covenant, for example."
You just about prove my point for me, Ricky. In a marriage covenant there is mutual submission to one another's needs, but there is NOT mutuality in authority. One can, in fact, serve and have authority. Take a police officer for example. Anarchists and miscreants hate 'em, but we who want a civilized and safe society know they're needed. Their authority -- just like that of church "overseers", husbands, school principles, etc. --- is bounded by law or other mutually agreed bounds. It's rule by consent of the governed. If a woman marries a man who believes in the Biblical principle of husband headship, then she knows she will be bound and blessed so long as he blesses her within the Biblical bounds and purposes of that headship.
"I equate such an action as tantamount to a prospective groom asking his prospective bride to sign a pre-nuptial "just in case." To do so is to begin the relationship on the presumption that one of the parties will likely violate some rule that will cause problems. Is that indicative of trusting in the Spirit of God, especially between fellow brothers and sisters? No, it is not."
No, Ricky, what it *IS* is just an acknowledgement that humans sin, and that God (and this is constant theme throughout the Bible) puts covenantal provisions in place to protect the innocent. Speaking of marriage: The same couple that agrees (by vows, or in writing? would that be so hard?) to abide by the Biblical principles of marriage, so by definition therefore agrees to the covenantal protection/consequence of divorce in the event of adultery. [please let's not get into the reason or complications of divorce, it's no the point here] So, every covenant has provisions to protect the innocent party in the event of a breach of the covenant. That's Biblical. That's just. That's love! Church covenants, if done right, also protect the innocent and preserve justice (and in some cases, preserve purity, i.e. 1 Cor 5:13) within the Body of Christ.
"Each biblical instance of covenants were this way with neither party of the agreement in a higher position."
You obviously cannot seem to get over the mental view all persons in authority as having huge superiority/pride complexes. I'm really sorry that you can't see beyond that prejudice, but your bias only makes you just that (repeated on every threat). There are many humble men who, in fact, know their sin well and their congregation, leadership accountability and the Lord's chastisement keep them where they need to be.
"And yet, in today's organizations, these so-called 'covenants' are one-sided with the power and ultimate decision left with the 'pastor'."
Ricky, the "ultimate decision" is up to the attendee to attend. If they don't like something about it, they can either overlook it and abide by it anyway out of unity, or if it's too legalistic they can leave. And contrary to your flippant portrayal, most church covenants I've seen do not allow church discipline by a single leader, but rather by consensus of the leadership, and only on serious grounds.
Finally, your obsessive vilification of Rick Warren is just getting tiring. Well all know that babe (in the faith) need milk, so beating up the milkman still isn't wise.
All that aside, Warren's philosophy aside, covenantal theology aside, I've seen/read more humility and charity from Rick Warren than I have in you here. So while you go on about the superiority of love, frankly Ricky, I see very little charity out of you. I'm quite tired of every topic bumping the chips you have stacked on each shoulder. I'm here to learn what I can and share what I can, as I may start (lead? *gasp*) a church someday, and my gut tells me there are good men (and women?) of God here. You, on the other hand, seem to get off on being an anti-everything contrarian who is out to save us from ourselves.
Posted by: Phil in CA | Apr 29, 2005 4:16:43 AM
Speaking of good examples of healthy church covenants, I like this one from Mars Hill Church outside Seattle, WA...
http://www.marshillchurch.org/print/member_covenant.pdf
Well stated, balanced (list both church and member responsibilities) not legalistic (focuses on belief and practice, not legalistic performance) and practical, IMHO.
Posted by: Phil in CA | Apr 29, 2005 4:22:49 AM
Ricky said " Thus my days are probably numbered on this forum." I hope not. You help make this forum a place where we can grow together and there are many who feel you are making valuable points and you help to stretch our beliefs whether certain points are in agreement or not. You are a member of the body of Christ and as iron sharpens iron you are helping us too.
Posted by: LD | Apr 29, 2005 10:35:52 AM
This article is about tips for conflict resolution in the church. I am reading alot of criticism (and conflict), yet not one constructive idea about the topic at hand.
How's this for a "tip." Before I quickly find fault and take aim at another, I will take the time and effort to acknowledge that which is positive.
I, for one, appreciate the author's attempt to help the church manage conflict. I have seen firsthand the damage it can cause.
Posted by: Anonymous | Apr 29, 2005 10:41:01 AM
Phil opines:
"In a marriage covenant there is mutual submission to one another's needs, but there is NOT mutuality in authority."
So, apparently you are of the neanderthal/Pharisaical wing of Christianity? You believe that the husband is always right because he is in some sort of "authority" over his wife and whether that the husband is abusive emotionally, physically or even spiritually?
If so, then why does Paul mention the mutual "authority" that each spouse has over the other (I Corinthians 7:1 -5)?
I suppose you're also of the extreme wing(nut) of Christianity who believes that women should keep their collective mouths shut while they gather with other believers?
If marriage is one-sided, as you imply, then you don't have a marriage you have a master/servant relationship, which is certainly not representative of the biblical understanding of covenant.
Again:
"One can, in fact, serve and have authority. Take a police officer for example. Anarchists and miscreants hate 'em, but we who want a civilized and safe society know they're needed. Their authority -- just like that of church "overseers", husbands, school principles, etc. --- is bounded by law or other mutually agreed bounds. It's rule by consent of the governed. If a woman marries a man who believes in the Biblical principle of husband headship, then she knows she will be bound and blessed so long as he blesses her within the Biblical bounds and purposes of that headship."
Again, you're looking at the New Testament Church through the tainted lenses of a worldly understanding of "authority." To the extreme, your view opens the door again to the Dark Ages and the Crusades, a time when "Christians" sought to forcibly wield an authority they never possessed.
Is that what you're advocating? I would hope not. However, your adherence to a chain-of-command structure within the Body of Christ is wrong-headed because it places some believers over others.
Let me give an example of the biblical understanding of "authority" in the Body of Christ.
JESUS
_________________us_________________________
And again:
"No, Ricky, what it *IS* is just an acknowledgement that humans sin, and that God (and this is constant theme throughout the Bible) puts covenantal provisions in place to protect the innocent. Speaking of marriage: The same couple that agrees (by vows, or in writing? would that be so hard?) to abide by the Biblical principles of marriage, so by definition therefore agrees to the covenantal protection/consequence of divorce in the event of adultery. [please let's not get into the reason or complications of divorce, it's no the point here] So, every covenant has provisions to protect the innocent party in the event of a breach of the covenant. That's Biblical. That's just. That's love! Church covenants, if done right, also protect the innocent and preserve justice (and in some cases, preserve purity, i.e. 1 Cor 5:13) within the Body of Christ."
If what you say is true, then why is there no instance in the New Testament where a New Testament fellowship entered into a written agreement concerning how they should behave in the New Testament?
The Old Testament practice of covenants were necessary because of both the sinful nature of man, which is alive today, and the lack of the indwelling of the Spirit of God, who is alive today. To say that believers, who are supposed to be indwelled, are in need of such a document is to slap the face of the Spirit of God.
Thankfully, Jesus didn't have the apostles sign such a ridiculous document upon His ascension. Instead, He trusted in the Spirit of God that He is all that is necessary for the Church to grow and mature.
And once more:
"You obviously cannot seem to get over the mental view all persons in authority as having huge superiority/pride complexes."
It's not that I can't "get over" those in power but that I understand that most who are seen as in some sort of authority, especially within the Body of Christ, comes under such temptation to remain in that so-called position of authority. Rarely, does someone have the humility to withstand the pressure to comply or conform to what is expected.
In addition, it is my conviction that those who speak most about authority are those who have no understanding of such and therefore, are unworthy of it, having always to justify or defend what they do not have. It's tantamount to a dog chasing its own tail: a lot energy is exerted but no progress made.
Once more:
"Ricky, the "ultimate decision" is up to the attendee to attend. If they don't like something about it, they can either overlook it and abide by it anyway out of unity, or if it's too legalistic they can leave. And contrary to your flippant portrayal, most church covenants I've seen do not allow church discipline by a single leader, but rather by consensus of the leadership, and only on serious grounds."
And yet, again, what makes us so smug to think that we have to have added requirements of membership to an organization than God's requirements into HIS family? This is the height of legalism.
And finally:
"Finally, your obsessive vilification of Rick Warren is just getting tiring. Well all know that babe (in the faith) need milk, so beating up the milkman still isn't wise.
All that aside, Warren's philosophy aside, covenantal theology aside, I've seen/read more humility and charity from Rick Warren than I have in you here. So while you go on about the superiority of love, frankly Ricky, I see very little charity out of you. I'm quite tired of every topic bumping the chips you have stacked on each shoulder. I'm here to learn what I can and share what I can, as I may start (lead? *gasp*) a church someday, and my gut tells me there are good men (and women?) of God here. You, on the other hand, seem to get off on being an anti-everything contrarian who is out to save us from ourselves."
And your apparent vilification toward me and makes you what? Apparently, the same as I.
Blessings to you Phil. I really do mean that.
Posted by: Ricky | Apr 29, 2005 3:56:52 PM
