Contract Question

[Theophil]

Originally Posted by tbpew

GL wrote:



GL,
what do you see as the problem with this kind of MANdate, and its associated life conduct expectations, being public knowledge?

If prophesy should be open to examination, why should one man's idea of a required fidelity statement (such as this example) have its sponsor held secret.

Man-o-man, if the contract has validity CELEBRATE IT.

If the contract creeps people out...CELEBRATE the sound of their fleeing non-conforming footsteps.

If some guy says..."HERES the DEAL in MY CHURCH, ON MY PLATFORM", why should there be ANY RESERVATION to this being common knowledge among the brethren?

Help me out here GL, what is your basis for thinking there is a HUGE problem in the WAY its presentation gave occassion to be linked back to the MAN who developed it?

Again, my feelings exactly.

[Digging4Truth]

After watching the stirring video posted in another thread by Pastor Keith...

If presented with this contract I might just write across the bottom....

It is official.... God is gone from this place.

Man has become god and God has no more place here.

[Sherri]

Originally Posted by Digging4Truth

Rules exist with or without bringing people to actually having to sign some contract.

If you are for making people sign a contract to minister then why not sign the one on this thread?

Because I want to be used in ministry, and I don't agree with the stuff in this contract. So I need to be somewhere that I do agree. By the way, we call it a covenant, not a contract. Covenants are biblical and not to be taken lightly.

[n david]

Originally Posted by Sherri

Because I want to be used in ministry, and I don't agree with the stuff in this contract. So I need to be somewhere that I do agree. By the way, we call it a covenant, not a contract. Covenants are biblical and not to be taken lightly.

I've heard of churches changing wording to "covenant" instead of "contract." It really means the same thing. It may sound spiritual and the implication may be spiritual, but they both are one and the same.

Both covenants and contracts have rules of conduct and various requirements for leadership positions, which includes financial support.

[Digging4Truth]

Originally Posted by n david

I've heard of churches changing wording to "covenant" instead of "contract." It really means the same thing. It may sound spiritual and the implication may be spiritual, but they both are one and the same.

Both covenants and contracts have rules of conduct and various requirements for leadership positions, which includes financial support.

Yep... walks like a duck... quacks like a duck.... must be a squirrel.

Plus... I'd like to see scriptural basis for the type of "covenant" we are talking of. A "covenant" that stated that certain beliefs were to be held to before anyone could participate in a NT church service.

[Digging4Truth]

Originally Posted by Sherri

Because I want to be used in ministry, and I don't agree with the stuff in this contract. So I need to be somewhere that I do agree. By the way, we call it a covenant, not a contract. Covenants are biblical and not to be taken lightly.

So if you attended this church and you were in ministry for a number of years and the contract provided in the opening post was provided for you to sign....

What would you do?

[MissBrattified]

Originally Posted by Digging4Truth

So if you attended this church and you were in ministry for a number of years and the contract provided in the opening post was provided for you to sign....

What would you do?

Isn't this a different scenario? In which someone who previously didn't have to sign or was already in ministry without a contract was suddenly presented with one, or a new/different version?

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)

Obviously what one church or person thinks is biblical is going to differ from place to place, but the IDEA that those in ministry have a greater responsibility to be good examples to the rest of the congregation is a biblical concept.

In a perfect world, people would just behave as they are supposed to; even Paul had to write some of the churches and instruct them in righteousness, and reprimand them for misbehavior. If I recall, he also listed the qualifications for a bishop. I don't recall him listing the same qualifications for saints. To me, the qualifications for a "bishop" are applicable to anyone in leadership or ministry. Ergo, those entering the ministry are given a list of requirements.

I think it's a shame that there is a NEED for such a list, but I don't see the list/contract itself as an anti-biblical concept.

[Digging4Truth]

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

Isn't this a different scenario? In which someone who previously didn't have to sign or was already in ministry without a contract was suddenly presented with one, or a new/different version?

As I understand the situation that is being presented this is a contract being put forth to new people brought into ministry, of course, but those who have been in ministry for years will also need to sign the contract.

Someone feel free to correct me if I am wrong... but if this is not a new church then people who have been there for years will have to sign this contract to continue in their position of ministry.

[MissBrattified]

Originally Posted by Digging4Truth

As I understand the situation that is being presented this is a contract being put forth to new people brought into ministry, of course, but those who have been in ministry for years will also need to sign the contract.

Someone feel free to correct me if I am wrong... but if this is not a new church then people who have been there for years will have to sign this contract to continue in their position of ministry.

I think you're assuming it's a new or different contract. I didn't see anything in the first post that says existing members of ministry were never before required to sign the contract. *Edited--Sorry, it does say that it started just last year*

That said, it has to start sometime. LOL!!! (If it starts at all) So at some point everyone had to sign it for the first time.

Look, I just don't see this as the Big Bad Church is making people agree to be good little boys and girls. I see it as a way for people to either make themselves accountable when they are in leadership, and/or for the church to ask them to commit to certain teachings/guidelines.

How is this different from the special qualifications laid out for bishops in the NT? Do we find any similar list for saints?

All Christians should be exhibiting the fruits of the spirit and avoiding the works of the flesh. But then Paul added to those basics for bishops. Why? And how was it used, practically speaking, back in the day?

Is there a big difference between a verbal requirement/commitment and a written one?

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

I think it's a shame that there is a NEED for such a list, but I don't see the list/contract itself as an anti-biblical concept.

I agree and especially that it's a shame there needs to be a list. When I ran over the contract my first thought was - "Does anyone have confidence in the truth they hold and the anointing power of the Holy Ghost to keep and change people?"

Anyway, that contract is not as bad as one incident I know of - the pastor and his wife fired everyone from their positions and asked everyone that was interested to fill out an application - singers, SS teachers, etc.!

Lord, now that was a big mess! And not really funny - at all!!