church rules
I think I might be out of touch with what church membership means. A membership document from a modern day church was drawn to my attention, and I’m genuinely shocked by this covenant that members are expected to sign. Each frightening bullet point comes with a host of accompanying Bible verses. In this specially selected summary of what the members promise, I’ve given each of the original bullet points an appropriate heading that reflects the nature of the organisation.
POSSESSIVE AND JEALOUS
- I will not function in leadership or as a member in another church family at the same time I am a member of [named] Church
(Heb. 13:17 Have confidence in your leaders and submit to their authority, because they keep watch over you as those who must give an account. Do this so that their work will be a joy, not a burden, for that would be of no benefit to you.)
Em, the Bible quote doesn’t actually say you can’t be a member of more than one church, but it does say you have to obey their authority, so if they say you can’t do it, you can’t do. Is this verse the catch-all, I wonder?
DICTATORIAL AND CONTROLLING
- I have read and understand the [named] Church doctrinal statement and will not be divisive to its teaching. I also understand the importance of submission to church leadership and will be diligent to preserve unity and peace.
(Eph. 4:1-3 As a prisoner for the Lord, then, I urge you to live a life worthy of the calling you have received. Be completely humble and gentle; be patient, bearing with one another in love. Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace.)
Em, do people really ‘submit’ to other people in this day and age? Or do adults in normal organisations have conversations with other equal adults about areas of disagreement?
JUDGEMENTAL AND DISCIPLINING
- I covenant to submit to discipline by God through his Holy Spirit, to follow biblical procedures for church discipline in my relationships with brothers and sisters in Christ, to submit to righteous discipline when approached biblically by brothers and sisters in Christ, and to submit to discipline by church leadership if the need should ever arise.
(Ps. 141:5 Let a righteous man strike me – that is a kindness; let him rebuke me – that is oil on my head. My head will not refuse it, for my prayer will still be against the deeds of evildoers.)
Em, what exactly is righteous discipline? Are we understand from this one of the many supporting verses that a physical strike may be in order? Do adults not deal with their own behaviour? Are these people children?
DISCRIMINATING, PATRONISING AND INSULTING
- I will practice complete chastity before marriage and complete fidelity in heterosexual marriage between one man and one woman by abstaining from practices such as cohabitation, pornography, homosexuality, lesbianism, bisexuality, incest, fornication, adultery, bestiality and attempts to alter one’s gender by appearance or surgery.
(Gen. 2:24 That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh.)
Em, vomit.
Violet, can I ask you why similar rules in a secular context don’t bother you? In the US anyhow, we seem to be living in a country that practices mandatory education, mandatory vaccines, mandatory healthcare, that punishes people for not wearing their seatbelts, that drafts people into military service, that incarcerates a huge portion of our citizens. The list of patronizing, controlling, authoritarian acts foisted by us by the State is endless and yet there is little complaint. Government control which is mandatory and non consensual, is perceived as good while church membership which is voluntary and consensual is allegedly dictatorial. I honestly don’t get it.
Also, I find church membership very kind and compassionate, much like the contract I have in my marriage, both of which I have the power to revoke at any time. Try revoking your relationship with the State and you’ll learn the very definition of dictatorial.
LikeLike
Are you serious? You don’t see a difference between wearing a seat-belt and agreeing never to disagree with someone who has no particular qualification of value?
One is an insignificant action that doesn’t interfere with an individual’s ability to LIVE as he/she chooses, in the greater sense. The other means setting aside autonomy for the rest of time.
At least the state is subject to some degree of oversight- e.g. elections. Authoritarian religious sects function in the shadows, and use age-old tactics of psychological manipulation to proselytize and then keep their followers.
LikeLike
“You don’t see a difference between wearing a seat-belt and agreeing…”
You don’t even hear your own words, do you? One is a voluntary act requiring my consent, hence the word, “agreeing,” the other is an authoritarian dictate with punitive fines if I don’t comply.
LikeLike
Hilarious. I do hear my words and I see a magnificent difference between being forced to wear a seat-belt for safety purposes, and giving up any chance to disagree on any topic for the rest of my life.
Did you not understand my last comment on voting and proving a point?
A few years ago people went back and forth of HRT, the best argument won. Operative word being argument. When arguments are prohibited… you get fools following dogma.
LikeLike
“I see a magnificent difference between being forced to wear a seat-belt for safety purposes…”
Ah yes, fascism is always acceptable as long as it is delivered under the guise of being “for your own good.” Forget seat belts, in the US at least we used to enslave people, force others into mandatory sterilization, have people committed to insane asylums, shoot them for leaving the reservation, draft them into military service, or round them up and put them in internment camps.
It’s incredible how much evil can be hidden behind the promise of being “for your own good.”
LikeLike
P.S. If you don’t agree with seat-belts or vaccinations, you’re FREE to campaign against them, study, prove your point of view is correct!!! Imagine a world where that’s not allowed. That’s the world Violet speaks of. That’s the big difference.
Dissent means exclusion. A bit North Korean, in my opinion.
LikeLike
“Dissent means exclusion. A bit North Korean, in my opinion.”
Ah yes, North Korea, that bastion of Christian values, where citizens are persecuted by the dictatorial actions of the church. Oh wait, no… once again we have a fascist dictatorship that bans religion. Funny how that works.
LikeLike
That’s what we can call dumb as rocks. The issue with North Korea, the Nazis, the Soviet Union etc. isn’t that they’re left or right, religious or non-religious, it’s that they’re totalitarian, authoritarian regimes- which is exactly what Violet is speaking of in the article.
LikeLike
“The issue with North Korea, the Nazis, the Soviet Union etc. isn’t that they’re left or right, religious or non-religious, it’s that they’re totalitarian, authoritarian..”
Ironic because the one thing they all have in common is the complete absence of religion, replaced by the power of the state. When you are confronted by that reality, you suddenly decide that religious, non religious, left, right, are not relevant.
I’ll remind you once again that religion is voluntary, consensual, and those church membership contracts can be revoked at any time. That kind of freedom and free will simply trumps any claims of an authoritarian dictatorship. Attempt to practice some freewill in North Korea if you’d like and let me know how it goes.
LikeLike
No, genius. What they have in common is exactly the same methodology. Methodology which is listed above.
Terribly sorry to be dismissive, but go read a little. North Korea, the Soviet Union, Cuba, the Nazis, Franco, Mussolini, Pinochet- they all used exactly the same system.
There’s a supreme leader, dissent is prohibited, they use iconography, there are enforced rituals etc… etc…
Religion isn’t voluntary if people are indoctrinated, if they’re children, if they’re vulnerable- and those are exactly the ones who they target.
LikeLike
“Religion isn’t voluntary if people are indoctrinated..”
Ah, well fortunately there have been fascists in the world like North Korea, the Soviet Union, Cuba, the Nazis, Franco, Mussolini, Pinochet, who were all committed to saving us from this terrible fate.
LikeLike
Did you ever have a class in political science? You seem to not comprehend the basics and unfortunately I don’t have the time to compensate for the educational system you were a victim of…
In Franquist Spain and Fascist Italy and Pinochet’s Chile, Catholicism was the official religion- you imbecile.
LikeLike
In case you’re not familiar with books, try googling National Catholicism and you might learn something!!!
LikeLike
LOL, a class in political science? Is that what they are teaching you these days? Actually, my grandparents WERE Catholics who fled from Mussolini. That is how I came to be an American. Mussolini was not a Catholic dictator who used religion to indoctrinate people, he was the usual kind of fascist, the kind who viewed God as a threat to his own self image and the church as a threat to his quest for power. Mussolini frequently declared himself an atheist and strove to replace church authority with his own.
It’s a bit like what we see today, all hail the mighty State… because uh, freewill and voluntary church membership is oppressive?
LikeLike
Under-educated imbecile,
The fascists made accords with the Vatican. In fact, priests served the fascist regimes as their eyes and ears in most of the country. In Italy that’s because they were afraid of the post-Garibaldi movement which was anti-religious.
That your family was unsuccessful in Italy and forced to immigrate to America because of their ineptitude doesn’t really give you an insight into history, only on ineptitude.
LikeLike
Sheesh, elitist much? Who are you calling an under educated imbecile? Talking about my family’s ineptitude?
I forgive you for your bigotry and elitism towards the working class, those without political science degrees, women, Italian immigrants, and Christians.
LikeLike
It’s not elitism- it’s educationism 😀
Your monumental ignorance regarding history (including Italian) rather dismisses the merit of your comments.
If you don’t know the role of Catholicism in fascist regimes, I unfortunately don’t have the time to teach you. But there are an infinity of books- I suggest you read a couple before you continue to comment on the matter.
LikeLike
I’ve read thousands of books, even interviewed many immigrants from fascist regimes. Not one of them has ever reported being oppressed by Catholic fascism, rather they have told eloquent stories of how the church was forced to lean into the politics of the day to avoid persecution itself.
My alleged “monumental ignorance” of history actually comes from studying it without wearing your foggy lens of bias and indoctrination.
LikeLike
If you don’t know the role of Catholicism in Fascism, as I said, I don’t have the time to educate you. But I can clarify that it had a major role.
The reason divorce was illegal in Spain until the 1980’s was National Catholicism. The church had a major rule in advising various fascist governments. In fact Franco’s right hand man was J.M. Escriva (of the vatican).
Mussolini signed the Lateran treaty putting an end to the Garibaldi disputes and giving extraordinary rights to the Vatican. Those are basic issues which if you don’t know of yet, only go to show a shallow if not totally insignificant knowledge of history regarding the period.
LikeLike
“Under-educated imbecile” How rude! Your scathing intellectual snobbery adds nothing to your argument. Please mind your manners with people who take time to give their opinions. These posts are for discussion and all opinions are welcome.
LikeLike
Rude indeed! If someone —denies— the links between the Mussolini/Franco regimes and the Vatican- they’re idiots. They either didn’t open a book, or choose to mislead intentionally.
LikeLike
Maybe it’s a translation problem? You’re such a snob, it’s painful.
LikeLike
How would translation be a problem? I attended St. Andrew’s, so English isn’t that much of an issue for me.
LikeLike
You do realize that you’re welcome to move to another country and adopt their rules and society if you like. There are very few places left on this planet where you can exist and not participate in societal functions and contracts.
Let’s consider the intent of the two sides: Laws and other social constructs are generally agreed to by society for the general well being of society. Police forces have to be paid for, roads have to be paid for, public safety is a charge that the populace placed on government and for it to execute that charge compliance with some rules/laws is necessary. You can thank the likes of Ralph Nader for your seatbelt fine. If you don’t wear them I’d guess that you’re tired of living or just to ignorant to know they are safety equipment.
The church membership rules, on the other hand, are there to protect the church and control the members from bruising the reputation of the church.
These are two vastly different motivations. The former is for the good of all at the expense of all and the latter is for the good of a private organization at the expense of members. The latter exists through the beneficense of the former, whereas the church would abolish secular government.
LikeLike
“Laws and other social constructs are generally agreed to by society for the general well being of society. ”
Ironically, so are church rules. They exist to protect the church. The church are the people who are members. Church rules are voluntary. As far as I know, no one has ever been incarcerated for failing to follow them.
“whereas the church would abolish secular government.”
It is so ironic to me, the only reason we have the freedom of a secular government in the first place is because of Christians. It is Christians who created the kind of secular government we have in America today. Prior to that, governments were dominated by either authoritarian dictators or authoritarian monarchies. If you enjoy the freedom of secular government, it would stand to reason you would value the vision and foresight of Christians, not attack them.
LikeLike
Only in the minds of those with an agenda is the USA founded by Christians. The foundational documents were written and signed by many deists and those whose world view was not fit for religions of the time. You might think calling them Christian is correct because they came from a Christian culture but you forget that religion is not genetic. You can’t suddenly say you’re not German anymore. You can say you are not Christian.
Your claim that Christians gave us secular governments is preposterous. The secular government in the USA was formed not because of religion but in spite of it and specifically to prevent monarchs who ruled with religion. You show a marked lack of understanding of the founding fathers of the USA.
At this very moment there are so called Christians working night and day to get their religion taught in schools as science fact while simultaneously fighting to deprive citizens of their rights simply because they do not fit the Christian vision of human. Even as you make stupid claims Christianity is working hard to overthrow the secular government from within, a decidedly anti-Christian thing to do.
LikeLike
Hi Insanity, thanks for your comment. I see you’ve discussed it in further detail with Pink and Myatheistlife. As always, your slant on life makes little sense to me, but I am interested to hear your opinion. I’m not clear why you feel such fear towards your government. I understand you live in the USA – do you feel like this when the Republicans are in power too, or is it just with this government? It’s an unusual point of view for someone living in a democracy with freedom of movement and expression at their disposal. You can discuss anything you want with your government, you can campaign against the leadership, you can enter politics and run yourself. If you join this church you cannot discuss doctrine and you must submit to the leaders. I don’t know anyone in any other organisation who would accept this as an adult.
LikeLike
“to follow biblical procedures for church discipline in my relationships with brothers and sisters in Christ”
Does this meaning stoning?
LikeLike
My Snort of the Day Award invariably goes to Ark, but a) as I’ve not read anything by him this morning and b) I spent far too long over on Ms Extremely Bigoted and Unpleasant’s Blog, I think you more than deserve it. I loved the one about the description of how the Middle Eastern god was unknown to …[insert all the ones quote parroted over there]. And the citations of abortion. No response to that from Tisha 😦 I admire your tenacity and persistence.
I on the other hand, am still awaiting for an answer to my polite request as to how refusing to employ same-sex married couples can manage to circumvent anti-discrimination law.
Violet has suggested that as mere women, we don’t merit the same attention as that worthy species that leads and dominates our patriarchal society.
LikeLike
You think we might have a convert to pro-choice on our hands 🙂
LikeLike
Absolutely. Pro-choice, pro homosexuality and gay marriages plus their ability to adopt, and atheist to boot. I wonder if I can persuade her to be vegetarian too? And rescue animals? Hopefully we will hear from her before she reaches Damascus.
LikeLike
You rescue animals, too? So do we.
LikeLike
I check out their beliefs first and their sexual preferences though.
LikeLike
🙂 Of course.
LikeLike
Oh, pop over and see my latest abortion number. These people are going to hate me. Do they delete comments?
LikeLike
As far as I know Mr EB and U deleted some of Ark’s comments and has banned him, and I think Violet has been deleted or warned or something on Ms EB and U’s.
Don’t be silly. They love you, pray for you and all the rest of that. They want you to move to Seattle, give them a big fat envelope stashed with dollars and do as you are told. Then you will achieve true happiness. Because atheists can’t be happy. SoM said so, therefore it must be true.
LikeLike
What pills are you on? Where do you find the energy to engage with these people who are clearly intellectually incapable, or they wouldn’t believe in Christianity?
I liked your last line, it was a neat summary. Merited another snort. I take it you read Frau M’s disingenuous reply to your question?
LikeLike
That’s what I was replying to. I fear Tisha has curled up in foetal position and is rocking back and forth in the corner of their subterranean bunker/church.
LikeLike
Ah, it’s the way the layouts don’t always work.
Why don’t you get Askthebigot to set up an anti-abortion blog? 🙂 Where she can wax about the ideal role of women looking after endless snivelling kids, cleaning, cooking and doing mummy talk (I think she’s already said she does all that anyway).
One could wonder why they have adopted a Chinese child, but perhaps they have stopped having sex. One could also ask if they have any concerns about global overpopulation but if it means more Christians to overrun the place, probably not.
LikeLike
I wondered that too, because the quote they support it with does sound quite physical. Who would sign an agreement that fellow members are welcome to strike them?
LikeLike
Strange people. Hey, the bigot is talking about you. What did you do to her?
LikeLike
Where? She came over to the ‘an opportunity to talk about me’ post yesterday and started whining. Is it related to that?
LikeLike
Dunno. It’s on her coming out post. Pink is being naughty and she’s talking about outing you. Not that she can, but rather that you said once (apparently) that outing her was necessary, although you wouldn’t like it.
LikeLike
Oh cool, I’m so significant I can be outed! This moment makes me feel special. I said I’d think it was weird if anyone bothered (because there’s nothing to find) but that I’d feel sorry for my religious mum. I’m not popping over to give her traffic to clarify that Pink had reasonable suspicions, and that even if her parenting story is true, it’s good that people can see the hidden church agenda.
LikeLike
I wouldn’t pop over. She seems thrilled so many people are visiting.
LikeLike
Well exactly, it’s a dream come true, all this attention. If you want to get them on double standards, bring up the fact that practicing gays, trans people etc are all banned from their membership yet the more frequently and clearly condemned sin of divorce and remarriage is just fine and dandy for their members. Really shows where their passionate discrimination lies.
LikeLike
Nice analysis Violet. Succinct and accurate. Well, from my perspective at least.
insanitybytes is well-named. Does s/he not understand the difference between a dictatorial church that seeks to impose its will on others, and a civil law which seeks to provide a way for society to live together, promoting equity, looking after vulnerable people (etc etc) within available means?
Sure we don’t all agree with all laws that are passed, or all policies. That’s we go to vote and we have a choice.
Alternatively we could have anarchy. I’m quite interested in anarchy. Pink may even approve -I took a course in political thought at university.
You were very nice to Mr F. I was tempted to reply as usual, but didn’t. I would have asked: ‘Why is it bullying to stand up for the rights of minority groups that suffer discrimination, but trying to rescind those rights is tolerant?’ Explanatory note for the benefit of the dull ones: One does not need to be a member of said minority group to be able to support their desire for equality under the law. Nor does one need to have the opinions of that group forced upon oneself, some people are capable of making up their own minds about moral and ethical issues.
LikeLike
Insanitybytes is interesting. I quite enjoy her comments because I never really understand them, and it does make me think of the issues from a different perspective. I seem to remember going to her blog and finding it painful though … complaining about feminists I think. I’ll have to go back and start following her to understand more where she’s coming from.
LikeLike
Interested in anarchy? You mean being coerced into not accepting any organised form of government, by a group lead by leaders who first convinced them that the only acceptable form of coexistence is one without leadership? Anarchism is viable ONLY as a form of protest against an existing, other form of government. Following that, it becomes just another dictatorship…
LikeLike
Interesting observation
LikeLike
Interesting church …
LikeLike
I thank my lucky stars I was kicked out of Sunday school at 5 🙂
LikeLike
Go girl! I’m ashamed to say I did my time and then went on to indoctrinate the next batch … 😳
LikeLike
I was personally involved in drafting membership/local fellowship allegiance documents. They ARE all about ensuring total and unquestionable control for the leadership. They are literally about selling your soul to a local church. You do as you’re told, what you’re told, when you’re told, in exchange for your time and money. Fair enough, isn’t it?
LikeLike
The question is, why are so many people so keen to sign up for it?
LikeLike
Even if I grew up on Engels’ writing on the English working class, and am as leftist as Chomsky may be accused of being, I am rather cautious with quoting Marx… Nevertheless, I agree with him on religion being opium. Cheap and legal. It is very hard to understand it if you haven’t been truly committed to it, ever… As a former minister, I’m still recovering. Nevertheless, I can’t blame those unwilling to let go their only lifeline of emotional sanity… I’ve severed mine about five years ago, and it nearly cost my life…
LikeLike
There are so many flavours to choose from though, it’s sad that people don’t shop around and find the less harmful ones.
LikeLike
I just question what they think signing this document will do.
If God’s law requires this, do we need to also be bound by a second contract?
LikeLike
Apparently it’s to protect them from legal action. Do you agree that the god God’s law requires all that?
LikeLike
I am not sure what sort of legal action the quoted language could protect the church from. But then I am a lawyer in the U.S. so maybe there is something to it in a different country. But if that is the concern I wonder what sort of discipline they administer.
Perhaps it gets kinky and they worry about sexual harassment?
“I will practice complete chastity before marriage and complete fidelity in heterosexual marriage between one man and one woman by abstaining from practices such as cohabitation, pornography, homosexuality, lesbianism, bisexuality, incest, fornication, adultery, bestiality and attempts to alter one’s gender by appearance or surgery.”
I don’t see anything against spankings.
LikeLike
Pingback: what’s going on over at the bigot’s place? | violetwisp