Loyalty

[Arthur]

Tom, you hit the nail on the head with that Loyalty article.  Personaly loyalty to God is of first importance.  I think every Christian would say, "no duh".  But how did it get shifted in the assembly?  I know what it was for me.  I thought that obeying my leaders was part of my loyalty to God because the Bible says to do so.  But when I found out the shepherds were wolves, I stopped following them.  They bit me.  It hurt and opened my eyes.  Maybe some who are still in haven't been bitten hard enough yet.  Or maybe they have, and are too hurt to get away out of the wolf's mouth.

[Oscar]

Arthur,
The shift comes in the God's Government idea.  If God has appointed a Surpreme Leader, loyalty to him is the same thing as loyalty to God.
Bad doctrine produces bad practice which leads to bad results,(fruit).

That's what happened.  When it started there was never any mention of George being an apostle or anything like that.  He claimed he had an "annointed ministry", but we never heard him claim apostolic authority.
However, he did teach that the work should be done on apostolic lines.  So I guess the idea was implicit, not explicit.
When we gave George his letter of commendation into the work, he was being acknowledged as a worker, not an apostle.
Tom

[Peacefulg]

Hey all, this point also rings true for all ministries.  
Taking the passage in Hebs 13 out of context seems all to common in general, but that coupled with the Lodges unwritten rule "Leaderships word is from God!" caused the hurt from these men to be magnified all the more.

Thanks for the insights Tom.

Lord Bless
George A.

[editor]

I might just add that Hebrews 13:17 does not say "obey," as in follow orders.  It says obey as in, be persuaded.

One obey is tantamount to corporals obeying captains, they have no choice.

The "obey" in Hebrews 13:17 is to be persuaded.  In other words, listen to the guy and give him a chance to persuade you.  It is not the idea of submission to authority.

This is what Vines says.  

I brought this to the LB's attention and it was like talking to a bag full of hammers.

Brent

[Peacefulg]

Brent, you mean to tell me you actually questioned the leadership and did not get a consequence?  

Scrubing the sidewalk to clean bird droppings would have got you in line (yes I actually got that as a consequence).  

Cheers,
G

[editor]

I wasn't in one of the communes at the time.  My consequence was being kicked out of the doorkeepers and having bad things whispered about me to everyone.

I had trained all the birds around our place to poop over at the neighbors.  We are to have dominion, brother.  

Brent

[Peacefulg]

Oh now you encourage me with the dominion verse!  

I also could have used that for the bear I ran into at 3 am during a childern's camp instead of running down the hill like Carl Lewis!

G

[Arthur]

Hmm...I did a study on that word for obey before, because, I...ehhem...was wondering about it a few times while living in the brothers homes.  I'm going to look that up again.
Ok, I'm back.  You are right about the word obey in Heb13:17.  And now I remember what I was thinking about.  It was the word "submit" that immediately follows in the same verse.

Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you.

That word submit is #5226 in the Strongs, which says it is from the words hupo (which means to be positionally under) and eiko (which means to yeild or to be weak).  The Strongs also mentions the phrases "to surrender" and "submit self".  So I take that word submit in Heb 13:17 to mean that we are to consciously make the decision to place ourselves under the direction of those who are our guides.  Is this not so?  
I think this wouldn't be so bad so long as:   
1. The shepherds are good and really care for you.  i.e. not selfish
2. The shepherds do not try to play God in your life but rather allow you to make decisions on your own.
3.  It's understood by all that our first loyalty is to God.

But the question I have is, assuming number 1 and 3 are in place, what if the shepherd has a different direction for you then what you think?  Should the shepherd insist that you follow his direction?  Should you not do what you think you should do and rather yeild to his direction?  Isn't the latter part what the word submit means?   But you know what they said in the assembly.  They took it so far the other way and made you feel bad for questioning anything they said.  They said stuff like, "You need to learn to go another's way" and "the heart is deceitful above all things" and "you shouldn't be head-strong and stubborn but submit to authority.  Look at society today.  It gets increasingly worse and godless.  The Bible says that in the last days iniquity (independence, lawlessness) shall increase, and the love of many will grow cold.  Will you be someone who is under authority, like the centurion"  etc.

Another passage that was used incorrectly and for the purpose of controlling us was I Cor 16:15-16.

I beseech you, brethren, (ye know the house of Stephanas, that it is the firstfruits of Achaia, and that they have dedicated themselves to the ministry of the saints,)  That ye submit yourselves unto such, and to every one that helpeth with us, and laboureth.

In the group, they implied that they were like the household of Stephanas and thus we needed to submit unto ones such as them.  
That word for submit, hupotasso, is slightly different than the one in Heb 13:17. Instead of "to be weak under" as with hupoeiko, hupotasso means "to put in an orderly manner (arrangement, subjection) under".  

It seems to me that the type of submission referred to in Heb 13:17 is more heart-felt and tender, considering the word used and the context that this is an individual entrusting himself to a shepherd for guidance.

But what do I know?  It seems like any noob with a Strong's can pass himself off as some kind of a Greek scholar.  Anyways, I'd like to hear your rebuttal to the assembly's use of those two verses (and I know there were others, but this post is long enough) for justification to exercise improper control over the sheep, and what your take is as to what the proper perspective of those verses should be.

Thanks
Arthur

[editor]

Hello Arthur!

For those of you who don't know, Mrs. Arthur just gave birth to a beautiful baby boy, (arthur's)    Praise God! Congratulations Arthur and Rachel!!

Now, Hebrews 13:17:

I read it like this.

1.) If I am persuaded by my "leader,"  
THEN
2.) I should place myself under his direction.

I must be convinced in my own mind that he is God's "Pastor," for me.  Also, I see this verse, not as a blanket covering every aspect of life, but as a case by case, direction by direction instance.

Example:  Let's Say the pastor in my church wants all of us to take two weeks off work and go to Mexico, where we will do some sort of mission work.  I don't think this is a good idea for me, so I am not persuaded, therefore I am under no obligation to submit.  Neither will he, the Pastor, require me to do so.

On the other hand, let's say that the pastor entreats me about alchohol abuse.  He has seen me drunk in church several times, etc.  I am persuaded by his entreaty, and know that he is correct, but I refuse to submit to his advice.  Now, I am in violation of Heb. 13:17, as well as a host of other verses.

These are two examples, and we could look at many more.  The point is that whatever is not from faith is sin.  Following a man, when deep down inside we are not OK with it, is NOT what the Lord is trying to communicate with Heb 13:17.

Also, refusing to obey a man, when we know what he is saying is true and biblical is exactly the warning we need to heed from Heb 13:17.

Is this clear?

Brent

[Peacefulg]

Hi all, lets not forget that the verse does say "them" and not "him".  As was stated this verse is not meant for every thing in your life.

This verse taken in context with the rest of scripture (i.e., in the multitude of counselors there is wisdom) should be applied when dealing with issue like marriage, career changes, etc. (and even then your are not bound).  

We can have and know the mind of Christ, and as the time draws to a end we must grow in our discernment, there might and are times when your guides are not there.

Also I like what Kirk C. said in one of his articles there is a noticeable difference between sheperding and medling.

Lord Bless,
G

[Arthur]

Thank you Brent!    His name is William.  But how do you know he's beautiful, you haven't seen him yet.  He's ugly as sin.  j.k.    You are right.

Ok it seems what your saying is that a person can basically do whatever they want, or, shall we say, whatever is right in his own eyes.  (Heh, remember that guilt trip?)  And what you're saying is that a pastor is basically there to give some advice and we can take it or leave it, they have no authority whatsoever to say "do this" or "do that"?  
What if the drunkard is not persuaded that what he is doing is wrong?  He'll point out, well Jesus drank wine, or I'm a bigger guy so I can handle more than what the pastor thinks is excessive.  So for me this much wine is ok.  Is that right?    How about something a little more common for each of us than the drunkard example.  How about your pastor comes to you and says, hey you really shouldn't come into work 10 minutes late every day because it's like stealing from the company, and shows you the verse about servants pleasing their masters all the time, not just when they are watching.  You think to yourself that it doesn't really matter because your supervisor doesn't care, and there's nothing to do that first 10 minutes anyways.
So now let's take a look at this.  Is the truth relative?  Can the 10-minute stealer just say, I'm not persuaded, so it's ok for me?  
Or how about if your pastor comes to you and says, you know, you really shouldn't be french kissing this sister on the first date.  You may say, hey we're not having sex, therefore we are not committing sexual imortality (heh),  so I'm not persuaded that what you're is saying is right, so it's ok for me.
Or how about if you ask your pastor if he has any ideas how you might serve the Lord more and he tells you to sell everything to the poor?  You may say, well, I'm really rich and I'm not persuaded that I should do that because I could really serve better by giving some money to
missionaries and keeping some for investing, so that's not right for me.

etc.


Still a little unclear, and playing the d.a.

Arthur

[editor]

Hello Arthur!

Greet Mrs Arthur for me as well.

Heb 13:17 says no such thing about doing anything we wish.  It says that we should be persuaded by our leaders.

This implies that we should listen to them, question them, and ultimately, be persuaded to submit to their leadership. This happens when we observe their conduct, compare it to what we see in scripture, and recognize that God has indeed called them to shepherd the flock.

If we act like you extra-large drunk, we violate, not only Hebrews 13:17, but also many other verses.  Also, unbelievers can't do this.

If we act like know it alls, and make a point to NEVER be persuaded by a godly leader, same deal, we are wrong.

A godly leader won't force his will on you.  He will try to teach you, persuade you, rebuke you, etc. all in order that you will come to your senses.  The verse has nothing to do with control, but everything to do with guidance, which is accepted freely by a person who has been taught the Word of God, by a godly leader.

If you know the guy beats his wife, do you think you should listen to his marital advice?  NO WAY!  To suggest that Heb 13:17 binds us to obey a reprobate who sits in Moses seat is not right. No, precious, not good at all.  (I like LOTR)

Great discussion. Any other views?
Brent

[Peacefulg]

Ok, ultimately you will be responsible for your decisions!  

Arthur you are right in what you say, we can easily deceive or be deceived.  Hence before you can heed your leadership, you need to submit to Christ.  The person needs to ask, have I surrendered all to HIM?

George

[Arthur]

Brent, from your view of the verse, it would seem that I should really get to know the leader before following him.  Perhaps that was a mistake on my part when I joined the group.  I assumed that because these men were preaching from the Bible and living what looked to be good, God-fearing lives, that I should follow there lead.  I still am in wonder about how anyone could be so twisted, now that we know what we know looking back on it. Kinda makes me not want to follow anybody, because, how do you know, you know?  Where are these godly leaders, I'm still a bit skeptical.  I mean, I'm talking about, show me the scars from where you were tortured for Christ before I believe that you are a so-called "godly" man.

George, hey how's it going.  I was in HB one time to see you do a night show with the felt-board.  You are good!  Yes, agree do I with that we need to leave it up to Christ.  Problem tho, is that Christ speaking or me thinking that he's speaking but it's just me?