You are however still presenting the danger in your position. You say that your aim is “for the church to reach the Biblical conclusion on this issue – that storehouse tithing is not correct.” However I have already said that I disagree. The leaders of your church likewise would claim storehouse tithing is biblical. You of course insist that they’re viewing scripture through a lense, and warping it to a heretical position. Now you said that was your goal as an individual. There is nothing inately wrong with this, but if you are unwilling to accept the other view it could be dangerous to yourself and others. That is why I continue to advocate working as a group.

The Bible says that at least two witnesses are needed to substanciate an accusation against an elder, and surely more must be needed to strike at church doctrine. Of course the reforms of Martin Luther came from individuals, but so did almost all serious heretics. From the Judedizers to the Jehovah’s Witnesses every error came from people. I shall not slot you into either group; I can only say to be careful Mr. Wile. You too easily label heresy any teaching you do not agree with, while neglecting the simple fact that there are people who have come to the other position. You asked yourself how you’d know if you were pious or intelligent enough to make a right decision. You argued at the time that all believers can make such decisions, yet seem to think that youth, bias, or a myriad of other factors render someones analysis unacceptable. Certainly they place limits (which is partly why I too did not wish to argue over specific matters of Doctrine. However as Elihu argued in the Book of Job “it is the Spirit in a man, the breath of the Almighty that gives him understanding.” (32:8, NIV). You admit that you command no more of a monopoly on this spirit than Job’s friends, surely you must therefore be willing to listen, even if critically, to others.

Indeed your “militant Jesus” said that the teachers of the Law sit in Moses seat and therefore should be obeyed (even when they do not practice what they preach). The same applies to us. If our leaders make an unbiblical proclamation (for example if they sanction sexual immorality or divorce.) they should be challenged. If you strongly believe that Storehouse tithing is such a matter by all means try to oppose it, but you must try in all sincerity and humility while remaining open to, and while loving, the other side. Furthermore saying do away with every doctrine not founded upon scripture remains dangerous and divisive (as well as unscriptural), since strong guidance can indeed be found within the church teachings. It is not a blind squirrel. Indeed it is the embodyment of the light of the world.

Once again, you don’t seem to understand the point of what happens when people lead an ORGANIZATION. The leaders that make decisions for a church are not giving, “an unbiblical possition they know is false to do their job.” They are giving an unbiblical position they THINK is true BECAUSE OF THEIR JOB. They are viewing the Bible through the filter of keeping the church alive. When your focus is on an organization rather than a person, your view of Scripture is warped. You start thinking in terms of what is best for the organization, not what is best for the cause of Christ. This is why I said an individual or a group of individuals is a better source of information on doctrine and morality than a church. The individual or group of individuals is looking at Scripture through the filter of what is best for YOU and for the cause of Christ.

On the subject of tithing, how in the world do you know that I am not “discussing the matter with the church” but am “simply refusing to pay”? Of course I am discussing it with my church. It is bad enough for you to misrepresent my position. It is worse when you libel my behavior! I am refusing to pay, but I certainly am discussing it with my church. It is my goal for the church to reach the Biblical conclusion on this issue – that storehouse tithing is not correct. This is exactly the point. Just as Jesus rebelled against the errant teachings of the synagogue, we must rebel against the errant teachings of our church. That’s the only way we have hope of the church reaching Biblical positions – for the INDIVIDUALS to correct the church.

I agree with you that “The primary need of the church is for it to fulfil its purpose of serving believers.” Thus, its pronouncements on doctrine and morality are useless. It should serve the community of believers by making it possible for them to reach sane conclusions about doctrine and morality instead of simply pronouncing those conclusions. Rather than assuming the flock is dull and dimwitted, give them the tools they need to be able to make decisions for themselves. The believers are better equipped to make those decisions than is the church, as the believers do not have to worry about the survival of an organization.

I don’t know what it is like in Mozambique, but in the US, there are a myriad of churches and they all make mutually exclusive statements on doctrine and morality. I don’t know of a single church in the US that doesn’t hold to heretical views, and most of these heretical views can be traced specifically to what it takes for those churches to survive. Only if believers are willing to follow Christ and be rebels will any church end up being drug kicking and screaming to a reasonable view of Scripture.

Immagine, to modernize the case study, that our hypothetical youth group discovers one of the members is “Doin’ drugs.” (Now I’ll assume for the moment you don’t sanction this self-destructive, socially unacceptable practice.) But since the average age in the group is 16, and few members have been sincere christians for more than the last five of those, the general concensus is a disappointing “Go 4 it Man!” I have already said that I would normally approve of such a group giving some moral support and I don’t recant of that. But this is clearly a case for the next level of external authority to step in and stamp out the issue.

Now I do acknowledge that this, regardless of whether it is the local pastor or Paul the apostle, is a single christian human being. But (unlike within the youth group or Corinthian church meetings) this individual has been granted special authority by the church (and by God, for it is God who instills all authority.) The Bible makes it clear that it is necessary to have such leaders in the church, and though they are still able to sin or make a mistake (the Bible also says how to deal with this, after the sin has been confirmed by two or three witnesses) they are proved to be at a marginally higher notch than the rest of us and able to rebuke our mistakes.

If a single such leader confronted either of us on any matter we would both at least listen to their wisdom. However you say that when a few of these leaders come together in official role to speak for the church, their words are somehow less trustworthy. I understand that you believe them to be doing their job and it is not a matter of deciet. I would say that if they give an unbiblical possition they know is false to do their job; this is clearly a matter of deciet. Furthermore it is a misuse of authority.

However though we are to actively disobey authority–and I shall extend this to both church and secular authority–when it refers to a sinful matter (such as when the Romans wished the Early church to worship the emperor) we are not to disobey on a lesser issue. I Believe church leaders to be more worthy of our respect than some politician. We know the politician could claim huge amounts of our income as tax; yet when the leader of your church says it can be more effective with a full 10% you give him half. Don’t take offence (or retort with your favourite line either). I am well aware that you believe this a serious biblical issue and have more respect for your POV than for a number of others. But the fact remains: you aren’t discussing the matter with the church, you are simply refusing to pay.

Now in my own situation I cannot publically do what you’d suggest because my father is the missionary to, and hence largely overseer of, our churches in this country. If I disagreed with his decision I could not say so publically while remaining within the fifth commandment. At the same time I do have quite a good view of, though not experience in, church heirarchy and I do notice that the proclamations of the church actually tend to be quite sane and scriptural (even when they come from the church executive rather than just my own father.) Perhaps your church or even your country is more business-orientated than that of Mozambique, but I should strongly contest your views given my own observations. If people can scarcely read the Bible (literacy and availability issues) and are under pastors of a better but not optimal station clearly the teachings of the church form an integral part of their moral foundation which must be buffeted by independent heretical churches, traditional anemism, and many other trials.

This is an utterly different scenario to a British or American congregation but I suspect you must have those too with problems and unsure foundations. Perhaps this will help put my POV in perspective for you. The primary need of the church is for it to fulfil its purpose of serving believers.

.
.
.
.
.

On “Spirit filled christians rebelling…”
Fair enough where the teaching is actually incorrect. However often the issue is trivial and even a Spirit filled christian is able to err himself and worsen the situation. Indeed Paul admits that he was constantly warring with a sinful nature and also recounts that he had to chastise Peter for surrendering to contention of the cult of the Judedizers.

The situation of the man having an affair with his stepmother is definitely a case of the church failing, and as I said before, it represents the extreme danger of your position. Since Paul knew about the affair, the church obviously knew. However, it did nothing. Thus, the church SUPPORTED his immoral lifestyle. If you actually place merit on the church’s position, then you would see this as a confirmation that his behavior was morally acceptable. After all, if the church is a good source of moral leadership, and if the church knows about the behavior and allows it, it must be a moral thing to do. That’s the problem with looking to the church for guidance. It makes its decisions based on what is best for the organization, not what is best for the cause of Christ.

The scenario you are looking for in the wider church does not happen. I agree with you that a youth pastor can be a great source of moral leadership. Indeed, an entire youth group discussing morality might be a great source as well. However, a group of church leaders making decisions FOR THE CHURCH is not that kind of group. The youth group (or prayer group or whatever) is interested in YOU and in YOUR spiritual walk. If it is filled with spirit-filled Christians, it is also interested in what is best for the cause of Christ. A group of leaders deciding on church policy is not (and indeed CANNOT) be worried about you and your spiritual walk or even what is best for the cause of Christ. It must be worried first and foremost about the church’s survival. Thus, the official positions of the church are not a good source of information for individual Christians, as the group that makes those decisions has goals that are often counter to your goals as a Christian and the greater cause for Christ.

I strongly disagree with your statement, “However allowing an internet audiance diversely scattered over at least 3 continents and many denominations to rebel against their church’s teachings will allow that human nature to cause havoc.” In fact, having spirit-filled Christians rebelling against their church’s incorrect teachings will help make the church better. And it is not just this internet post that encourages rebellion. The example of Jesus Himself encourages rebellion. Jesus did ALL SORTS of things that the religious leaders of the day abhored. He was a rebel, and if we are to be like Christ, we must be rebels, too.

My church teaches storehouse tithing because it is best for the church, not because it is a Biblical position. They may have read the Bible and prayed about it, but it was all through the filter of what is best for the CHURCH, not what is best for the cause of Christ. It is not that they made the decision after they talked to an accountant. They made the decision because their JOB is to ensure the church’s survival. As such, it colors their view of Scripture and the Holy Spirit’s guidance. Once again, it is not about deception. It is about the fact that the church’s needs are DIFFERENT from the needs of the body of Christ, because the church is an organization. The body is not.

I told the Bible story, you said that the man was probably high up in the church, I said “I see no evidence…” and you said it, your own statement from part II, was irrelevent. I did nothing but agree with you, in the words “yes it is irrelevent.” I fail to see how you’ve milked that from my words at all.

Now the situation here is not the church failing you are hunting for. It is that one man falls into sin and the local pastor says nothing, the local prophet says nothing, his local members say nothing to chastise him for it. This is not a leadership meeting with men in suits discussing pros and cons to the church of excommunicating him. That in fact is why it is clearly not safe to only trust one’s own judgement. A Christian is constantly battling against sin and the Devil is always out to lead us astray. We agree that an individual is a fallible source of authority for exactly this reason. However every individual is so fallible, and it seems to me that the only way to account for that is to bring many christians together until they reach a concensus on a matter.
Let me give you an example. I should say that a sincere youth pastor is a good source of moral authority. I should likewise say that a youth group is a good source, in so much as it is a group of christian young people meeting together (with the youth pastor) and discussing within a christian context how they should deal with matters. Most will face the same issues and they can support each other. Clearly there remains a risk that the entire group can err, which I suspect is similar to what happened in our Corinthian case study. However the group is far less likely to fall and more likely to reach a good decision than any one individual would be. This is the scenario I should be looking for in the wider church as well.

I should have accepted and applauded your original position if it included bringing the entire church together to decide where they stand as that would be the church reforming itself, through the actions of its members of course as no other way is possible. However allowing an internet audiance diversely scattered over at least 3 continents and many denominations to rebel against their church’s teachings will allow that human nature to cause havoc.

On your second and third paragraphs, I am indeed saying that the leaders of the church must as christians be taught by the Bible and the Holy Spirit, and too are trained in matters of lifestyle, church history and doctrine. Therefore they can reach a good decision about morality. Their position is at least as good and probably significantly better than the average. Now the question lies in whether they share this wisdom with their church.

If so, if your church teaches storehouse tithing because the leaders read through the Bible, prayed upon the matter, disputed it, etc and came to that conclusion, I don’t think you have the right to arbitrarily refuse except if you confer with others including others of the opposing point of view.

If the leaders have read the bible, prayed, disputed and decided that tithes are necessary but its fair to give half elsewhere BUT then they talked to the accountant and changed 5% to 10% and said the “Bible supports storehouse…” this is a clear case of undeniable deception. Perhaps they should move into law, or Politics, but not the Serve-ocracy that is the church. If that is the state of the leadership I can see where your position comes from, but would still think it vital that a conference be arranged.

I am not sure what you mean by, “However as you have already stated members of the modern church are taught through the Bible and the words of the holy spirit. How much more then must those who lead them be so led?” If you are saying that the leaders of the church are taught by the Bible and the Holy Spirit and thus can end up making good decisions about morality and doctrine, you are quite wrong. The leaders of the church must make decisions that are best for the church’s survival, not what is best for individual Christians. Thus, if they are doing their job properly, they CANNOT make the best decisions for individual Christians.

You are also incorrect to “feel that if a man is so concerned with the survival of the corporate church as to deliberately decieve their brethren on matters of doctrine, he is quite unfit for the post at all.” It is not a question of deception. A leader does not deceive when he or she makes decisions that are in the church’s best interests. In fact, he or she is doing his or her job. The problem is that the church’s interests do not always align with the individual Christian’s needs. That is the point of the entire discussion. The church is not a good resource on morality and doctrine, because it is not a PERSON.

Now in this instance it was true that the external conciense belonged to one man, but I do not believe that needed to be the case. Could not representatives from a nearby sister church not have performed the same function? Or for that matter couldn’t the apostles leading the Jeruslem Church (which we know maintained authoritive prominance during this time)?

I do not confuse the appostles with the church. I fully recognize that at that time they were a part of the church, as were the Seven, Paul’s helpers, Jewish believers, Samaritan believers, Corinthian believers, and many more besides. I would say that they were the equivalent to what would now be called a church leadership team at the denominational level. That they had had direct contact with the Son uniquly permitted them to write the New testament. However as you have already stated members of the modern church are taught through the Bible and the words of the holy spirit. How much more then must those who lead them be so led?

If I correctly understand your possition you would say that the actions of the modern leaders of our churches are at best partially led through these means. I have trouble believing that to be so, and do feel that if a man is so concerned with the survival of the corporate church as to deliberately decieve their brethren on matters of doctrine, he is quite unfit for the post at all. However if the church is led by servants of Christ, heeding the advice of the spiritual counselor he sent, surely we must pay it heed. The Bible tells us to respect and obey secular authority as all authority is instituted by God. Likewise the apostles were chosen and mentored by God, and I believe the modern church is too.

As to the creed, I should consider it a doctrinal source much as you might take the writings of an individual christian such as Luther or Wesley. We both listen (safely) first to God’s word and then to that of humans. However I would say that a creed crafted with debate by the combined input of hundreds of Bishops and accepted by more than 99% of them is of more value than a statement made by either of those above (if the two happened to conflict.) Of course if they conflicted I should actually be looking to the Bible for judgement rather than to either party.

And as to unity I should indeed prefer a debate such as this, the aim of which is to resolve a dispute. However simply allowing such disputes to fester or even break apart the church (note well that where churches disagree on single doctrines they are often unwilling to colaborate even on what they agree on) is not something to encourage. At any rate I shall request that you return a favour and leave this question to return to the original debate.

You seem to be confusing the apostles with a church. The apostles were a group of believers who had the privilege of sitting at the feet of Jesus and learning from Him. That gave them unquestionable authority. There is no such council today. You can’t compare today’s church to the council of Apostles!

You can take a creed as a doctrinal source if you wish. I prefer to use the Bible as my doctrinal source, however. I think I have chosen the safer path. Remember, your initial response was that my position was “dangerous.” If you rely on the words of men and not the Bible, it is your position that is QUITE dangerous.

It is certainly not “illogical, unbiblical, and deadly” to have no worries about a fractured church. The Bible is quite clear that the body of Christ is to be united in PURPOSE, not in liturgy, morality, or doctrine. You and I obviously disagree about a lot of things, but we probably have the same purpose. In fact, the reason we both strongly believe opposite things comes from the fact that we both are so devoted to that same purpose. The fact that we can carry on this conversation not only helps both of us in our spiritual journeys, it probably (at least I hope) helps others in theirs. If it weren’t for the fact that we are “fractured,” this whole interesting conversation would not have occurred.

Thus, the fact that controversy exists within any church is a very healthy sign. It means that we can sharpen each other as iron sharpens iron. As I said before, a church in which there are no reformers is destined to be a corrupt church.

If we all agreed with one another, we would not grow in our faith, and there would be no need for militants like Christ. David has it right. Christ was a militant, and the church needs militants.

The vital fact, as I have already stated, is that each of these men was filled with the Holy Spirit. Each led a holy life. Each had contact with Jesus. And working together they were as I said a bit of a cocktail of their bests–Cephas’s teaching with Paul softening his Jewish bias, Paul’s firm discipline with John plastering a little love over his harshness, and so on until we now have a far better model of life and faith in the Bible they wrote and the teachings they gave (and not they but the Holy spirit working through the church which they formed).

This continued onward. Look for example at the Nicene Creed, confessing the belief in Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Because that creed was authored by a group of many church leaders rather than Arius the vagrant songwriter, I am far more confident taking it as a doctrine source. I would give it a higher weighting than the teachings of an individual theologian (though infinitely less than the Bible should the two conflict.) and thus certain that the Jehovah’s Witnesses are mistaken.

On your previous post you said that the church becoming fractured is not important, as the global church is already fractured. This is illogical, unbiblical, and deadly. The Bible is quite clear that the body of Christ must be united. Its cracks seriously harm the effectiveness of its mission, make it look rediculous to the wider world, and cause bickering. Further splits in the local church must be allowed.

The church is certainly not a “refined cocktail” of their best utterings. In fact, it is a filter through which their best points often get eliminated, because the church is an organization and as such has completely different goals and needs from a person.

Your example of Paul urging the chastisement of heretics is a perfect example of my point. If the church had been capable of making good moral and doctrinal decisions, it would have already chastised the heretics. In 1 Corinthians 5:1, for example, Paul chastises the Corinthian church because it is allowing a man to have an affair with his stepmother. Most likely, that man was powerful in the church, so for its own survival, the church allowed the man to stay. It took an INDIVIDUAL to make it clear what should be done. Once again, then, it is the INDIVIDUAL, not the church, that is best equipped to make moral and doctrinal decisions. The idea that today’s church has moral authority has no Biblical basis.

You claim that you don’t want to mischaracterize my position, but you continue to do so. I am certainly not “so disillusioned with the church to cease considering it made up of believing men and women.” Of course I think it is made up of believing men and women, because I want THEM to make their OWN decisions rather than relying on what the church says. The Holy Spirit dwells in the believing men and women, not in the church. That is the point. Look to the believing men and women for spiritual guidance, not the church.

Your statement “If the people of the church are Christian the church will be Christian and its teachings will be Christian” is as dangerous as it is false. There are all sorts of churches out there that teach very heretical things. However, they are mostly made up of good Christian people. The problem is that once again, a church teaches what is best for its own survival, not what is prompted by Scripture. As a result, many churches made up of serious, Bible-believing people end up teaching heretical things.

This is why it is so important to challenge your church’s teachings. In order for a church to teach proper things, it must be continually checked by its people. Otherwise, it becomes corrupt.

Jesus challenged the Jewish teachings of the day. He was a militant. If we are to be like Christ, we must challenge the incorrect teachings of the church today. We must be militants, which is (I think) David’s original point. That point is made even stronger as a result of this discussion.

However, and this is where we mostly disagree, I am not so disillusioned with the church to cease considering it made up of believing men and women. I believe that the church IS a body filled with the Holy Spirit because each (hopefully) of its cells is itself filled with the Holy Spirit. Therefore I agree that individual theologians and inspirational Christians are excelent sources of moral authority, and I would say the Church includes these people, and its words are a refined cocktail of the best of their utterings.

Now in the Bible Paul demonstrates this idea. He sends letters, notably Timothy and Corinthians.

He says to chastise various heretics and gives the official Church possition. He tells off the man who took his father’s wife, and tells off the church for letting it happen. It is irrelevent whether he was primarily concerned for that man’s soul or for the reputation of the body of Christ. BOTH ARE WORTHY AIMS. Likewise in scripture the results of the Council of Jerusalem are circulated throughout christendom. Actually I can see so little Biblical basis for your position that if I accepted it I should instantly revoke it.

Now actually I would think that a church must reform from within, but beleiving the church is formed from christians I can see only one way to reform it: Reform the people. If the people of the church are Christian the church will be Christian and its teachings will be Christian. If not then the church has a problem but simple refusal to comply is more likely to alienate you from the wider church than to cause others to realize the truth of your position. Also it does not give you the opposition needed to ensure that you are making the right choice.

We do not disagree at all on the ability of Christians to be led by the Holy Spirit, but we do differ on the ability of the Church to be so led.

A few answers to your criticism.

“Wait a minute…in an earlier post YOU said that MY views lead to leaving churches. It is now YOU who are advocating leaving a church. I strongly disagree. It is better to attempt to reform the church from within than leave a church entirely.”

I would indeed say that if, for example, a man finds himself a member of the Jehovah’s witnesses he should leave that church for the sake of his own soul and try to convert his fellows too. But as I said above, my approach would be completely different if the matter in question were marginally less serious.

“Also, you continue to mischaracterize my position. As I have made abundantly clear, I do not reject storehouse tithing for my own reasons. I reject it for BIBLICAL reasons. The Bible clearly tells us to give (at least) 10%. However, it certainly does not tell us to give it all to the church.”

I do not wish to mischaracterize your position, nor did I refer to your position. Indeed I have promised not to debate matters of specific doctrine. I merely stated the truth–there are people who claim that it is not necessary to tithe at all. Surely that must be considered an equal level of bias to the demand of a church for the full 10%.