I don't think it's the specifics of the contract that matter. It's whether a church has the right to ask extra of those in ministry. In my opinion, they do have that right.
I don't agree with several of the specifics on the contract, and I most likely would NOT sign it. But then again, why attend a church that requires these kinds of things in the first place, if you're not in agreement with at least most of them?
Seriously, I've heard of affirmation papers being singed for borrowing purposes. And I believe I heard someone say that it protects the ministry from new converts or discontented saints who want to come in and try to change beliefs after being put in certain positions. The idea is that is protects the leadership from frivolous lawsuits.
I don't believe that any are sacrificed when you take care of them in the proper order. It can only produce proper balance for all.
From where in scripture do you derive this proper order?
__________________ For you, brethren, have been called to liberty; only do not use liberty as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another. For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this: "You shall love your neighbor as yourself." But if you bite and devour one another, beware lest you be consumed by one another! (Gal 5:13-15/ NKJV)
Really, I don't see the issue here. I can see why leadership would want to (or even need to) make certain a person entering the ministry is committed, and doesn't mind being held accountable, and I don't see that a person is being injured in any way by being asked to abide by biblical principles. (e.g., allowing themselves to be held accountable)
Well, lets take "Jim" for example. Solid Christian. Faithful tithe giver. Productive soul winner, etc.
Now lets say "Jim" has been the Minister of Music at XYZ Pentecostal Church for the past 8 years, and his church now decides to requires him to sign a contact. Since Jim disagrees with 1 of the 20 points in the contract, he decides that he can not sign it in good conscience, and explains why to his pastor.
Jim is now forced to step down from his ministry, and either
1/sit on the pews and not do much, or
2/ uproot his family and look for another church that might need a minister of music. His wife, a Sunday School teacher, also leaves with him, so the church loses a good SS teacher, and his two kids are also taken away from the church's Youth Group which they've been active in.
Maybe you don't think anyone is being injured in that situation, but I sure do. Is the body of Christ well-served when this type of scenario takes place? Personally, I think not.
__________________ http://endtimeobserver.blogspot.com
Daniel 12:3 And those who are wise shall shine like the brightness of the firmament; and those who turn many to righteousness, like the stars for ever.
Must one be sacrificed? I definitely believe that you must have a healthy relationship with God and with family. No arguement there. But why do we always call church or ministry or service out as something so far removed our relationship with God. Ministry service is a response of my relationship with God.
I equate some things with my personal relationship with God, e.g., Priority 1.
Some of those things are:
1. Being faithful to assemble.
2. Giving generously.
3. Charitable acts.
However, as a musician and singer, I feel that expressing my talents, or using my talents in a secondary ministry is NOT and should not be placed ahead of my devotion to my home, husband and children. Women in particular have biblical responsibilities, and they should not neglect them in service to the church.
The Bible states that single women can pay attention to the things of the Lord, but a married woman must attend to her husband. This tells me that a married woman with or without children has a different set of priorities than the single woman.
Furthermore, what kind of witness am I to my husband, children and community if I neglect the very things God has placed in my hands to care for?
One of the requirements for a bishop is that he rule his household well.
1Ti 3:4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;
1Ti 3:5 (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)
This makes it clear that a man must FIRST rule his own house, and then he might be capable of taking care of the church of God.
And of course, we all know that "rule" doesn't just entail being a boss.
God first. Family second. Church obligations third. I agree with those priorities, and I do believe there is bible for that order.
__________________
"God, send me anywhere, only go with me. Lay any burden on me, only sustain me. And sever any tie in my heart except the tie that binds my heart to Yours."
--David Livingstone
"To see no being, not God’s or any, but you also go thither,
To see no possession but you may possess it—enjoying all without labor or purchase—
abstracting the feast, yet not abstracting one particle of it;…."
--Walt Whitman, Leaves of Grass, Song of the Open Road
I don't think it's the specifics of the contract that matter. It's whether a church has the right to ask extra of those in ministry. In my opinion, they do have that right.
I don't agree with several of the specifics on the contract, and I most likely would NOT sign it. But then again, why attend a church that requires these kinds of things in the first place, if you're not in agreement with at least most of them?
I believe the specifics do matter a great deal. Sure, you would expect all to live by the specifics and you do expect extra from the ministry. That's a given.
My only problem is that the specifics speak of distrust and suspicion and it's just not healthy. I would evaluate the leadership in this church as having been hurt in the past and not being able to move past that putting it on the congregation as well, JMHO.
I equate some things with my personal relationship with God, e.g., Priority 1.
Some of those things are:
1. Being faithful to assemble.
2. Giving generously.
3. Charitable acts.
However, as a musician and singer, I feel that expressing my talents, or using my talents in a secondary ministry is NOT and should not be placed ahead of my devotion to my home, husband and children. Women in particular have biblical responsibilities, and they should not neglect them in service to the church.
The Bible states that single women can pay attention to the things of the Lord, but a married woman must attend to her husband. This tells me that a married woman with or without children has a different set of priorities than the single woman.
Furthermore, what kind of witness am I to my husband, children and community if I neglect the very things God has placed in my hands to care for?
One of the requirements for a bishop is that he rule his household well.
1Ti 3:4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;
1Ti 3:5 (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)
This makes it clear that a man must FIRST rule his own house, and then he might be capable of taking care of the church of God.
And of course, we all know that "rule" doesn't just entail being a boss.
God first. Family second. Church obligations third. I agree with those priorities, and I do believe there is bible for that order.
Seriously, I've heard of affirmation papers being singed for borrowing purposes. And I believe I heard someone say that it protects the ministry from new converts or discontented saints who want to come in and try to change beliefs after being put in certain positions. The idea is that is protects the leadership from frivolous lawsuits.
Makes sense. Since there is obviously no other Way to protect them. (Capital "W" intentional! ) (Sarcasm intentional, too! )
__________________
Hebrews 13:23 Know ye that our brother Timothy is set at liberty
Well, lets take "Jim" for example. Solid Christian. Faithful tithe giver. Productive soul winner, etc.
Now lets say "Jim" has been the Minister of Music at XYZ Pentecostal Church for the past 8 years, and his church now decides to requires him to sign a contact. Since Jim disagrees with 1 of the 20 points in the contract, he decides that he can not sign it in good conscience, and explains why to his pastor.
Jim is now forced to step down from his ministry, and either
1/sit on the pews and not do much, or
2/ uproot his family and look for another church that might need a minister of music. His wife, a Sunday School teacher, also leaves with him, so the church loses a good SS teacher, and his two kids are also taken away from the church's Youth Group which they've been active in.
Maybe you don't think anyone is being injured in that situation, but I sure do. Is the body of Christ well-served when this type of scenario takes place? Personally, I think not.
I think I already said something about this, but I don't believe it is the agreement in writing that is the problem. It is the double standard that is the problem.
If all the things on this contract were regularly shared with the entire church, then there would be no injurious surprises.
And, I don't see anything wrong with Jim being asked to affirm his commitment to the church in writing in a biblical manner.
I DO disagree with the specifics in the contract on this thread, and I DO think the double standard is a BIG problem. I don't, however, think that in a normal setting in a church with consistent teachings, that it hurts anyone to put their commitment to the church and certain biblical principles in writing.
Jim, IMO, would not be hurt if the pastor said, "Can you commit to loving one wife, ruling your household well, keeping a good reputation both within and without of the church, never striking your wife, and being sober?" Even if he had never heard these specific requests before...(although he probably should have.)
__________________
"God, send me anywhere, only go with me. Lay any burden on me, only sustain me. And sever any tie in my heart except the tie that binds my heart to Yours."
--David Livingstone
"To see no being, not God’s or any, but you also go thither,
To see no possession but you may possess it—enjoying all without labor or purchase—
abstracting the feast, yet not abstracting one particle of it;…."
--Walt Whitman, Leaves of Grass, Song of the Open Road
I believe the specifics do matter a great deal. Sure, you would expect all to live by the specifics and you do expect extra from the ministry. That's a given.
My only problem is that the specifics speak of distrust and suspicion and it's just not healthy. I would evaluate the leadership in this church as having been hurt in the past and not being able to move past that putting it on the congregation as well, JMHO.
I agree. I know of a church in particular that had a man teaching false doctrine to the youth while the pastor was unaware. Most of those young people (and the teacher) left, and either backslid or went to non-Apostolic churches.
So in this case, the church may be a bit gun-shy.
__________________
"God, send me anywhere, only go with me. Lay any burden on me, only sustain me. And sever any tie in my heart except the tie that binds my heart to Yours."
--David Livingstone
"To see no being, not God’s or any, but you also go thither,
To see no possession but you may possess it—enjoying all without labor or purchase—
abstracting the feast, yet not abstracting one particle of it;…."
--Walt Whitman, Leaves of Grass, Song of the Open Road
) (Sarcasm intentional, too! 
)
Linear Mode
