Jonathan,

Case in point why the Gospel has to be front and central to all that the church does and breathes.

I know that sounds easy, it's not and in a church plant that's three years old, I am beginning to see the little agendas and factions that want to develop...

But isn't the pure un-adulterated Gospel and it's trajectories into every area of life the only true weapon you'll have against that happening. If the Gospel isn't the ethos of the church, what is? It'll be some other issue which I think goes against the central story of the Bible?

Am I wrong? Seeing this wrong? Not the question you were asking?

Having pastored a church in which such issues did cause division I am interested to hear some sound wisdom. These issues seem to be cropping up all over the place, especially in the reformed camp of thinking.

Jonathon,

Depending on the practices of this church, there may or may not be difficulties. The church first has to lead by example.

For example, some churches may have practices of frowning upon those who drink, but at the least they may forbid for example, their deacons and elders to drink. It's going to be hard for a church to to convince their congregants not to develop categories when the leadership develops their own categories not specifically stated in Scripture.

My church background is mostly fundamental albeit I don't subscribe to the position that drinking alcoholic beverages should be frowned upon. Anyway, I go to PCA church and during lunch after one of the Alliance of Confessing Evangelical Conferences we went to a pub - suggested by the leadership - and a couple of the elders had an ale (not the pastor though). I was stunned. I wasn't use to seeing that kind of Christian liberty exercised by leadership.

Anyway, I say all this, to say, if the church leadership has their own non-biblical categories like forbidding alcohol for its leadership it's going to be almost impossible to sway a congregant that s/he should not have their own categories.

Let's not assume the worst though, and assume the best, that the church leadership does not exercise those kinds of categories. I rarely use the KJV now (I use ESV and NASB) even though the KJV has served the church well for many years. But time-to-time, I do like it's usage of words and in one case is the usage of "Doubtful Disputations."

The best definition I've heard is as follows: "anything that two groups of true Christians (1) who have been openly owned by God as His people, (2) own each other as brothers in Christ, have (3) defined differently the same doctrine, and have (4) put their belief into their respective creeds" disagree on.

What this church needs to tell this person and show from Scripture is that this person is sinning by causing division in this doubtful disputation.

Now, as I've said, it's going to be awfully difficult to do this if the leadership has its own categories - and we've been talking about local church membership and what is required - if it is the church's practice to disallow people from membership because of important but non-essential doctrines, then it will be impossible for the church to lead by example.

With regards to the family keeping their children in family worship. There might be other reasons that these parents want to keep their children with them. I know one family that keeps their children with them during worship for two main reasons: (1)They don't want their kids to catch colds and pass them along. I hear that children's church and Sunday school is one of the biggest places where germs and colds are passed on - okay...(2) and more importantly, this family prefers to educate their kids instead of delegating that to Sunday school and children's church.

So, first, I would say, and maybe you already have, verify, it is because the family wants the kids to worship with them, that, that is the main reason. Also, realize there are other valid reasons why parents do not put their children in Sunday, mainly, because that family, wants to be involved in the instruction of that child and they don't want to delegate it. Nothing wrong with that.

Lastly, I would say this, and this has to be done gracefully...if this family is really militant about homeschooling - or if families are wondering why the Jones are not sending their kids to children's church - I would submit there are some deeper problems. What should be occupying our minds is sharing the gospel and being about the Father's business and not be pre-occupied why certain families are not putting their kids in homeschooling or children's church. There's a real, real, real, deeper problem I think in this family, that is so pre-occupied with such issues.

Thanks for raising the issue, Jonathan. I've printed off your post and it will be the topic of tomorrow's pastoral staff meeting.

"In spite of Paul's instruction in Colossians 2, it seems we Christians are always trying to create categories for 'better' and 'worse' Christians based on the basic principles of this world."

Insightful.

I think individually we can shepherd folks by modeling for them what it means to hold to a set of biblically informed convictions. Can't we have convictions in certain areas of our lives that are played out differently within the body of Christ and still have true fellowship and unity? We can if we handle those convictions with humility and love. Based on my study of 1 Corinthians 8-14, love has to rule any biblically informed conviction we have and how we express it in the life of the congregation. Maybe chapter 13 of 1 Cor. could've been written to also say, "If I homeschool my children and have not love...If my children behave well in the worship service at the age of 2 but I have not love...If I can defend all 5 points of Calvinism but I have not love..."

Also, it may, at some points, be necessary to provide correction for folks when we have tangible evidence that their convictions are expressed in unloving ways, causing hurt feelings and tension within the body. Some examples of tangible evidence might be their visible treatment of another person or words they have spoken in our presence regarding the matter or our observations about how they have handled certain situations.

Every situation is different and so it is harder to shepherd from the pulpit so as to provide leadership in every situation. I believe that we can model this in the pulpit: what matters are of primary importance and what matters are of secondary importance. Where do I concentrate my teaching on a text - on the vital doctrines of the faith found in the text or on other tangent issues that the text may lead to. I think it is acceptable and sometimes necessary to go to the tangent issues, but am I taking a tangent issue and making it into an area for possible application or a matter of gospel truth authoritative to every individual universally? Am I pushing my own leanings and my personal convictions on to the congregation or am I presenting the truth of the text of scripture without apology? I also think that from the pulpit people should be given a perspective or impression of a true spiritual reality that is God-centered and not man-centered. When this happens, these secondary issues are given their proper perspective and importance in the life of the congregation. When the congregation is given a perspective and impression of reality that is God-centered then I believe healthy conversations and discussions over issues of secondary importance will occur and the diversity of viewpoints and applications of biblical principals within the congregation will edify the body and not lead to tension.

I think another key to shepherding both individually and from the pulpit is to model this in your own life. Are you militant about secondary issues? Do you force your own views and the application of biblical truth regarding certain matters upon the people in your congregation? Do your biblical convictions come across in such a way that brings about clarity and conviction in others or does it just bring about tension with those who disagree? If my life is modeling the rule of love in regard to these secondary matters then that is a form of shepherding on an individual basis and from the pulpit.

Needful observations. What I particularly noted was the issue of one set of "distinctives" for "leadership" and a separate one for the "membership", as if there are two classes of believers. I see NO biblical substantiation for this. IF, as the scriptures indicate, leadership is drawn from within the congregation, then is one to expect a prospective leader to suddenly adopt a set of behaviours at odds with what he has lived his entire life? Or, to become a candidate for leadership, to adopt such a different set? This is patently ridiculous. And a-scriptural. In my own church, we make much of the concept of the "liberty garden", the non-essential issues. Homeschooling? YOur decision. We'll perhaps help you consider the issues involved..but YOU, sir, are the HEAD of your household. Thus, it is YOUR decision and no one else's. As to things like children's church and youth group---I have seen the bad fruit of both so often I would not be part of a church that is not fully age integrated. Not a
"snob" issue at all. Not even, at its root, whether the fathers or the "sunday school crew" is instructing the children. Does the church assembly model the family, or something else? And what are the ramifications of this modelling?

I like the phrase "garden of liberty." Over all, I think the leadership of my young church has done a very good job of modeling gospel priorities and guiding us in doing the same. For the most part, I've seen my pastors as majoring on the gospel and not allowing "doubtful disputations" to divide the church. The one exception I've seen to that is a focus on their idea of what wisdom looks like on gender roles that has seemed to me to exceed biblical warrant but be taught authoritatively nonetheless. Even in that area, though, it seems that my pastors may be changing for the better, allowing more room for liberty in how couples and singles live out relationships for the glory of God.