Seth
Member
Recently my church changed it's bylaws. They received some poor advice from a local christian legal firm on how they should word their bylaws so as to be anti homosexual. This is the letter I'm going to give them hoping they revise the changes. Included at beginning is some of the articles as I did not quote them in entirety in letter:
XIII "Marriage has been ordained by God. This church defines "marriage" as the union of one man and one woman . A civil government's sanction of a union will be recognized as a legitimate marriage by the church only to the extent that it is consistent with the definition of marriage found in this article
IX Sexual activities outside of marriage including but not limited to adultry, premarital sex, homosexuality, pornography, and pedophilia are inconsistant with the teachings of the Bible and the church
X All members shall afirm their agreement with the articles and every volunteer shall afirm and live consistantly therewith
Dear Pastor and Board,
I hope you take this letter in the spirit which it is intended, which is to make Crossroads a better church. Not as a personal criticism levied to attack and detract but instead as reasons why a different approach would edify our fellowship and make us stronger.
One of the greatest qualities of Crossroads to me was its’ inclusive nature, which allows people who were smoking the crack pipe that morning to come to church. People who got drunk the night before, who don’t have a place to live and steal their food, these people are welcomed to Crossroads with open arms. Likewise, your requisite doctrinal statement was relatively short and sweet. Thus people who disagree about pentecostal powers, premillennialism, polygamy, or pretrib rapture could come, disagree, and yet still be members. Which brings me to the new bylaws recently amended. I would like to go through each of the changes and explain my interpretation. Of course you may not agree with all of my proposed changes, but I hope you will at least give fair judgment on each, for their merits and not simply throw them all out in total.
The last line of Article III was added and states “We believe the Bible to be the inspired, the only infallible, authoritative Word of God.” First, I don’t know which Bible you’re referring to? Gutenberg? Sinaiticus or Vaticanus? NIV? KJV? Watchtower? Joseph Smith's? Jeffersonian? Catholic? “The Bible” is a misnomer we allow in common speech, but which really needs to be defined if you’re going to make it part of your statement of faith. The Watchtower edition for example changes John 1:1 to read “In the beginning was the word and the word was with God, and the word was a god.” I know you don’t want to call that inspired and infallible. Catholics have the Apocryphal books included in their text. Is Crossroads now holding those as inspired, contrary to the rest of Protestantism? I think we can agree on all this so far. This next part may not be common knowledge and may require some research on your part to confirm my statements. When it says “only infallible”, I have two different issues. The first is that there are in fact transcriptional errors in most modern protestant texts. Further, there seems to have been additions made to them. For instance the end of Mark with the handling of the snakes, is not in the oldest copies, nor is the story in Luke of the lady caught in adultery. May they in fact be inspired, they may be. But on the surface, the evidence is that they were not written by the original author, and in fact were added by transcribing monks centuries later. As to simple errors I point to these two verses:
1 Kings 4:26 And Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen.
2 Chron. 9:25 And Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses and chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen
Do I feel that such an error invalidates the entire word of God, of course not! But to state that the current text we have is infallible seems on the surface to be problematic. Is it sufficient, yes, infallible, no. Further, I have a problem with the word “only”. Jesus is referred to as the Word. Surely, we don’t want to say a book is infallible and Jesus isn’t. In the paragraph above you talk about the Holy Spirit being active. Isn’t he authoritative? Can’t he bring the word of God to a person? Isn’t he infallible? The Pastor stated that the intent of this line was to be anti-mormon and to demonstrate you don’t hold the pearl of great price, book of mormon, and other such writings to be inspired of God. I have no problem with that. Why not just state that though? The line could read, “We do not believe that the book of mormon is inspired”. This accomplishes your goal, without getting in the morass of other issues.
My next problem stems from Article VIII – Statement of Marriage. Again the purported purpose of this section was to state that the church does not recognize homosexual marriage. Why not just state the church doesn’t recognize homosexual marriage? Why would the church ever want to state that it accepts any civil government’s sanction of union as legitimate marriage? If you truly believe that Marriage is ordained by God, then don’t let the government usurp what does not belong to them. Under this article if a 40 year old lives with a 14 year old for the requisite amount of time and they lie to the neighbors and say it’s ok because they are married, then in certain states they become common law married (South Carolina). So when this couple moves to Yuba City and starts attending Crossroads, since you recognize any state recognized marriage between a man and a woman, you recognize theirs? If they didn’t lie to their neighbors about being married, then they weren’t common law married, so then you wouldn’t accept their marriage? If they lied but didn’t live together long enough for the common law marriage you wouldn’t accept their marriage? So one week before time they move, you don’t accept marriage, one week after, you do? Never was a vow given. No ceremony, before God and men. What makes a marriage? The recognition of the state according to this article in your bylaws. What happens when this country continues its moral disintegration and recognizes incest as acceptable marriage, then you will also? When they get rid of age requirements completely and allow 10 year olds to be married? When they allow necrophilia or bestiality? Our government seems hell-bent on taking God out of every aspect of the nation. Why would you want the church to recognize government marriages in any way at all? We don’t need to tell homosexuals they can’t get married. We need to preach against homosexuality. Their marriage is irrelevant, it’s like getting mad at a murderer for leaving corpses lying around and littering. God never says gay’s can’t get married, he says don’t be homosexual. My next problem is that “one man and one woman” could be interpreted to prohibit polygyny. I know again that many of you will disagree with me. Whether it’s based on dispensationalism, or a different view of how sin works. So please be patient with me while I explain my viewpoint. Marriage is a vow between a man and a woman and God. This vow however does not preclude the man from then making another vow with another woman. Where do I get the idea that polygyny is permitted in scripture? Well let’s see. Almost every Patriarch in the OT was a polygamist. From Abraham through Moses and David to Solomon. At no point did God point to their polygyny as a sin. The closest he comes to that is in the case of Solomon. Where he says that we shouldn’t multiply wives.
Deut. 17:17 Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart not turn away: neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold.
That seems to be speaking to the fact that if he seeks after too many wives or too much gold then his heart isn’t seeking after God. Or in the case of Solomon it seems his frequent marrying was done for diplomatic/power plays and he eventually sought after his foreign brides gods, neglecting his own. This is certainly not a commandment against polygamy but a warning that like most other good things it can be excessive and when it is then it should be avoided, in the same way that drunkenness is to be avoided, though one can have a couple glasses of wine. Now some can interpret Paul to be against polygamy in that he says it’s better to have no wives. But that would apply to monogamists just as well. Or you might point to the passages that say it’s better for the pastor to have only one wife. My answer to that is those references are only to the presbyter and not to the congregation. In my own understanding and in practice of most churches further it seems to be an ideal guideline and not a hard and fast rule. Since I see divorced pastors, pastors with problem children, and ones of notorious repute kept as pastors. Sin is pretty clearly outlined in the OT and never is polygamy listed as such. In the NT when it talks about sins, again never is polygamy listed. So it hurts my heart that just as Pharisees would, Christians would add to the list of sins those things that God did not call a sin. God blessed David with multiple wives:
"And I gave thee thy master's house, and thy master's wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things." 2 Samuel 12:8
Does God give sin as a blessing? Here it seems to be saying that God would have even given him more wives if he had asked. David was punished for stealing another man’s wife and killing him for her, not for having multiple wives. Or would you say that God orders us to sin when in Deut 25:5
“If brethren dwell together, and one of them die, and have no child, the wife of the dead shall not marry without unto a stranger: her husband's brother shall go in unto her, and take her to him to wife, and perform the duty of a husband's brother unto her.”
So then are we going to define marriage contrary to God? If God permits polygamy who are we to say that a man can’t have more than one wife? I would like you to read first Timothy 4, particularly verse 3:
1The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons. 2Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron. 3They forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth. 4For everything God created is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, 5because it is consecrated by the word of God and prayer. 6If you point these things out to the brothers, you will be a good minister of Christ Jesus, brought up in the truths of the faith and of the good teaching that you have followed. 7Have nothing to do with godless myths and old wives' tales; rather, train yourself to be godly. 8For physical training is of some value, but godliness has value for all things, holding promise for both the present life and the life to come. 9This is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance 10(and for this we labor and strive), that we have put our hope in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, and especially of those who believe. 11Command and teach these things. 12Don't let anyone look down on you because you are young, but set an example for the believers in speech, in life, in love, in faith and in purity. 13Until I come, devote yourself to the public reading of Scripture, to preaching and to teaching. 14Do not neglect your gift, which was given you through a prophetic message when the body of elders laid their hands on you. 15Be diligent in these matters; give yourself wholly to them, so that everyone may see your progress. 16Watch your life and doctrine closely. Persevere in them, because if you do, you will save both yourself and your hearers.
Article IX really is just a matter of definitions. If you define a polygamous relationship as being adulterous then obviously I have a problem. I don’t know what you consider pornography. Is Michelangelo’s Venus pornography? Married couples video taping themselves for their own use? If you’re a bit actor in a film that has a topless woman? National geographic documentary on some remote African tribe? I don’t know what is and isn’t pornography according to this article. What about pedophilia? Do we adopt our states definition? Do you have an age of consent in mind? I don’t find anywhere in scriptures where it says 13 is bad and 14 is good. So what is your definition? I find it hard to find scriptures directly on many of the issues outlined in article IX. The missing scriptures seem likewise odd. Why are we going to get excited and upset about transgender lifestyle, and not about a child striking their parent, or about divorce, blasphemy, drinking of blood? We have a Goth sub culture that drinks blood, we don’t have that in the bylaws, how is it that the hot button issues in cultural Christianity is what is being put into the bylaws but issues that have already been abandoned by the church such as divorce or issues that haven’t come to the forefront yet are excluded? It seems that these bylaws are made for political maneuvering and not for the edification of the body.
Article X is where the rubber hits the road. I can be in a church that has silly things in it’s bylaws that don’t make sense, it would pain me, and be a constant thorn in my side, but no church is perfect, so survivable. However article X requires that we affirm the truth of these statements and further, that we can not even be a volunteer in the church without affirming them. So you’ll let murderers and thieves, gossips and liars be volunteers in the church. But not someone who is unwilling to say that the scriptures aren’t clear on pornography and pedophilia? Why is that you desire the people in the church to have a strong stand against homosexuality, but not abortion, divorce, evolution, nationalism, idolatry, etc? How is it that the bylaws have nothing about these issues that are destroying the church, but instead you are going after gays? A child striking his parent gets the same punishment, stoning. Or how about all the parents with deadbeat kids living at home perhaps this can be put in the bylaws.
Deut 21: 18-21 “If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and [that], when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them: Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place; And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son [is] stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; [he is] a glutton, and a drunkard. And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.”
The thing is that Crossroads isn’t a stoning church. It’s inclusive, not exclusive. Lots of churches I’m sure do have a laundry list of items they will disfellowship you for. That’s not what I saw at Crossroads. I saw a church that didn’t have much in the way of a membership requirement because it wanted to open it’s arms wide to all believers, no matter what they might be struggling with. If you want to change the direction of Crossroads to no longer be inclusive but instead exclusive like so may others, then I suppose this is a good first step. But is that what you want? I am hoping that these articles were simply not reviewed thoroughly and this examination will cause you to revise them and improve them to create a bride worthy of Christ.
XIII "Marriage has been ordained by God. This church defines "marriage" as the union of one man and one woman . A civil government's sanction of a union will be recognized as a legitimate marriage by the church only to the extent that it is consistent with the definition of marriage found in this article
IX Sexual activities outside of marriage including but not limited to adultry, premarital sex, homosexuality, pornography, and pedophilia are inconsistant with the teachings of the Bible and the church
X All members shall afirm their agreement with the articles and every volunteer shall afirm and live consistantly therewith
Dear Pastor and Board,
I hope you take this letter in the spirit which it is intended, which is to make Crossroads a better church. Not as a personal criticism levied to attack and detract but instead as reasons why a different approach would edify our fellowship and make us stronger.
One of the greatest qualities of Crossroads to me was its’ inclusive nature, which allows people who were smoking the crack pipe that morning to come to church. People who got drunk the night before, who don’t have a place to live and steal their food, these people are welcomed to Crossroads with open arms. Likewise, your requisite doctrinal statement was relatively short and sweet. Thus people who disagree about pentecostal powers, premillennialism, polygamy, or pretrib rapture could come, disagree, and yet still be members. Which brings me to the new bylaws recently amended. I would like to go through each of the changes and explain my interpretation. Of course you may not agree with all of my proposed changes, but I hope you will at least give fair judgment on each, for their merits and not simply throw them all out in total.
The last line of Article III was added and states “We believe the Bible to be the inspired, the only infallible, authoritative Word of God.” First, I don’t know which Bible you’re referring to? Gutenberg? Sinaiticus or Vaticanus? NIV? KJV? Watchtower? Joseph Smith's? Jeffersonian? Catholic? “The Bible” is a misnomer we allow in common speech, but which really needs to be defined if you’re going to make it part of your statement of faith. The Watchtower edition for example changes John 1:1 to read “In the beginning was the word and the word was with God, and the word was a god.” I know you don’t want to call that inspired and infallible. Catholics have the Apocryphal books included in their text. Is Crossroads now holding those as inspired, contrary to the rest of Protestantism? I think we can agree on all this so far. This next part may not be common knowledge and may require some research on your part to confirm my statements. When it says “only infallible”, I have two different issues. The first is that there are in fact transcriptional errors in most modern protestant texts. Further, there seems to have been additions made to them. For instance the end of Mark with the handling of the snakes, is not in the oldest copies, nor is the story in Luke of the lady caught in adultery. May they in fact be inspired, they may be. But on the surface, the evidence is that they were not written by the original author, and in fact were added by transcribing monks centuries later. As to simple errors I point to these two verses:
1 Kings 4:26 And Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen.
2 Chron. 9:25 And Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses and chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen
Do I feel that such an error invalidates the entire word of God, of course not! But to state that the current text we have is infallible seems on the surface to be problematic. Is it sufficient, yes, infallible, no. Further, I have a problem with the word “only”. Jesus is referred to as the Word. Surely, we don’t want to say a book is infallible and Jesus isn’t. In the paragraph above you talk about the Holy Spirit being active. Isn’t he authoritative? Can’t he bring the word of God to a person? Isn’t he infallible? The Pastor stated that the intent of this line was to be anti-mormon and to demonstrate you don’t hold the pearl of great price, book of mormon, and other such writings to be inspired of God. I have no problem with that. Why not just state that though? The line could read, “We do not believe that the book of mormon is inspired”. This accomplishes your goal, without getting in the morass of other issues.
My next problem stems from Article VIII – Statement of Marriage. Again the purported purpose of this section was to state that the church does not recognize homosexual marriage. Why not just state the church doesn’t recognize homosexual marriage? Why would the church ever want to state that it accepts any civil government’s sanction of union as legitimate marriage? If you truly believe that Marriage is ordained by God, then don’t let the government usurp what does not belong to them. Under this article if a 40 year old lives with a 14 year old for the requisite amount of time and they lie to the neighbors and say it’s ok because they are married, then in certain states they become common law married (South Carolina). So when this couple moves to Yuba City and starts attending Crossroads, since you recognize any state recognized marriage between a man and a woman, you recognize theirs? If they didn’t lie to their neighbors about being married, then they weren’t common law married, so then you wouldn’t accept their marriage? If they lied but didn’t live together long enough for the common law marriage you wouldn’t accept their marriage? So one week before time they move, you don’t accept marriage, one week after, you do? Never was a vow given. No ceremony, before God and men. What makes a marriage? The recognition of the state according to this article in your bylaws. What happens when this country continues its moral disintegration and recognizes incest as acceptable marriage, then you will also? When they get rid of age requirements completely and allow 10 year olds to be married? When they allow necrophilia or bestiality? Our government seems hell-bent on taking God out of every aspect of the nation. Why would you want the church to recognize government marriages in any way at all? We don’t need to tell homosexuals they can’t get married. We need to preach against homosexuality. Their marriage is irrelevant, it’s like getting mad at a murderer for leaving corpses lying around and littering. God never says gay’s can’t get married, he says don’t be homosexual. My next problem is that “one man and one woman” could be interpreted to prohibit polygyny. I know again that many of you will disagree with me. Whether it’s based on dispensationalism, or a different view of how sin works. So please be patient with me while I explain my viewpoint. Marriage is a vow between a man and a woman and God. This vow however does not preclude the man from then making another vow with another woman. Where do I get the idea that polygyny is permitted in scripture? Well let’s see. Almost every Patriarch in the OT was a polygamist. From Abraham through Moses and David to Solomon. At no point did God point to their polygyny as a sin. The closest he comes to that is in the case of Solomon. Where he says that we shouldn’t multiply wives.
Deut. 17:17 Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart not turn away: neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold.
That seems to be speaking to the fact that if he seeks after too many wives or too much gold then his heart isn’t seeking after God. Or in the case of Solomon it seems his frequent marrying was done for diplomatic/power plays and he eventually sought after his foreign brides gods, neglecting his own. This is certainly not a commandment against polygamy but a warning that like most other good things it can be excessive and when it is then it should be avoided, in the same way that drunkenness is to be avoided, though one can have a couple glasses of wine. Now some can interpret Paul to be against polygamy in that he says it’s better to have no wives. But that would apply to monogamists just as well. Or you might point to the passages that say it’s better for the pastor to have only one wife. My answer to that is those references are only to the presbyter and not to the congregation. In my own understanding and in practice of most churches further it seems to be an ideal guideline and not a hard and fast rule. Since I see divorced pastors, pastors with problem children, and ones of notorious repute kept as pastors. Sin is pretty clearly outlined in the OT and never is polygamy listed as such. In the NT when it talks about sins, again never is polygamy listed. So it hurts my heart that just as Pharisees would, Christians would add to the list of sins those things that God did not call a sin. God blessed David with multiple wives:
"And I gave thee thy master's house, and thy master's wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things." 2 Samuel 12:8
Does God give sin as a blessing? Here it seems to be saying that God would have even given him more wives if he had asked. David was punished for stealing another man’s wife and killing him for her, not for having multiple wives. Or would you say that God orders us to sin when in Deut 25:5
“If brethren dwell together, and one of them die, and have no child, the wife of the dead shall not marry without unto a stranger: her husband's brother shall go in unto her, and take her to him to wife, and perform the duty of a husband's brother unto her.”
So then are we going to define marriage contrary to God? If God permits polygamy who are we to say that a man can’t have more than one wife? I would like you to read first Timothy 4, particularly verse 3:
1The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons. 2Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron. 3They forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth. 4For everything God created is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, 5because it is consecrated by the word of God and prayer. 6If you point these things out to the brothers, you will be a good minister of Christ Jesus, brought up in the truths of the faith and of the good teaching that you have followed. 7Have nothing to do with godless myths and old wives' tales; rather, train yourself to be godly. 8For physical training is of some value, but godliness has value for all things, holding promise for both the present life and the life to come. 9This is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance 10(and for this we labor and strive), that we have put our hope in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, and especially of those who believe. 11Command and teach these things. 12Don't let anyone look down on you because you are young, but set an example for the believers in speech, in life, in love, in faith and in purity. 13Until I come, devote yourself to the public reading of Scripture, to preaching and to teaching. 14Do not neglect your gift, which was given you through a prophetic message when the body of elders laid their hands on you. 15Be diligent in these matters; give yourself wholly to them, so that everyone may see your progress. 16Watch your life and doctrine closely. Persevere in them, because if you do, you will save both yourself and your hearers.
Article IX really is just a matter of definitions. If you define a polygamous relationship as being adulterous then obviously I have a problem. I don’t know what you consider pornography. Is Michelangelo’s Venus pornography? Married couples video taping themselves for their own use? If you’re a bit actor in a film that has a topless woman? National geographic documentary on some remote African tribe? I don’t know what is and isn’t pornography according to this article. What about pedophilia? Do we adopt our states definition? Do you have an age of consent in mind? I don’t find anywhere in scriptures where it says 13 is bad and 14 is good. So what is your definition? I find it hard to find scriptures directly on many of the issues outlined in article IX. The missing scriptures seem likewise odd. Why are we going to get excited and upset about transgender lifestyle, and not about a child striking their parent, or about divorce, blasphemy, drinking of blood? We have a Goth sub culture that drinks blood, we don’t have that in the bylaws, how is it that the hot button issues in cultural Christianity is what is being put into the bylaws but issues that have already been abandoned by the church such as divorce or issues that haven’t come to the forefront yet are excluded? It seems that these bylaws are made for political maneuvering and not for the edification of the body.
Article X is where the rubber hits the road. I can be in a church that has silly things in it’s bylaws that don’t make sense, it would pain me, and be a constant thorn in my side, but no church is perfect, so survivable. However article X requires that we affirm the truth of these statements and further, that we can not even be a volunteer in the church without affirming them. So you’ll let murderers and thieves, gossips and liars be volunteers in the church. But not someone who is unwilling to say that the scriptures aren’t clear on pornography and pedophilia? Why is that you desire the people in the church to have a strong stand against homosexuality, but not abortion, divorce, evolution, nationalism, idolatry, etc? How is it that the bylaws have nothing about these issues that are destroying the church, but instead you are going after gays? A child striking his parent gets the same punishment, stoning. Or how about all the parents with deadbeat kids living at home perhaps this can be put in the bylaws.
Deut 21: 18-21 “If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and [that], when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them: Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place; And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son [is] stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; [he is] a glutton, and a drunkard. And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.”
The thing is that Crossroads isn’t a stoning church. It’s inclusive, not exclusive. Lots of churches I’m sure do have a laundry list of items they will disfellowship you for. That’s not what I saw at Crossroads. I saw a church that didn’t have much in the way of a membership requirement because it wanted to open it’s arms wide to all believers, no matter what they might be struggling with. If you want to change the direction of Crossroads to no longer be inclusive but instead exclusive like so may others, then I suppose this is a good first step. But is that what you want? I am hoping that these articles were simply not reviewed thoroughly and this examination will cause you to revise them and improve them to create a bride worthy of Christ.
