Non-catholics, How do you "Tell it to the Church"

[JRKH]

James,

I think you might be on the wrong track. It seems highly doubtful to me that anybody who approaches this passage intending to take it literally would perceive the word “church” as meaning “the whole body of believers” since the word “church” is not capitalized within the text. By capitalizing the word “church,” and making it “Church” you are attempting to force onto the text a meaning it does not have. Evangelicals usually call this routine eisegesis. I understand the point you’re trying to make and agree that it’s a valid one but I’d suggest that this is definitely not the passage to use in order to substantiate it.

Respectfully,
Mick

Well - I sould never try to pass myself off as a biblical scholar, so you may be right in your assessment. Yet if we look at the words used in the passage, capitalized or not, and the command that Christ gives us here in regards to dealing with sinful members it STILL implies an authority within the “assembly”, and the Idea that the “assembly” is able to speak with a unified and authoritative voice.

That is what has led me to ask this question and to ask it in as nonconfrontational a way as possible.

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

I think I understand what you’re saying, SSTeacher, but it seems to me that there’s a more fundamental problem with this discussion. Namely the question “Non-catholics, How do you ‘Tell it to the Church’?” doesn’t really make sense. What sort of answer would you expect to receive from, for example, those non-Catholics who are Buddhist?

Well you can blame that on my trying to be too “Politically correct” since some non-Catholic Christians bristle at the term “Protestant”. You are right. I could and should have been more accurate in my title.

Incidentally, in the year or so that I’ve been on this forum, I seen quite a few thread titles that are questions directed to non-Catholics, but I don’t think I’ve ever seen a title-question directed to non-Anglicans. Have you?

Well I suppose that since this is a Catholic website most questions are phrased in the catholic/noncatholic perspective.

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

Originally Posted by JamesRottnek
Protestants who take the Bible literally would probably say that the ‘Church’ would mean the whole body of believers who are Christians (as they understand they term)

Thanks BornAgain.
Now - Would you like to take a stab at answering my followup question to this?

How does one “Tell it to the whole body of believers who are Christians”.

Thanks

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

In context this pretty clearly refers to a local congregation. It is talking about a dispute among members of the congregation. I am not claiming that “ekklesia” always refers to a local congregation–in Ephesians and Colossians it clearly doesn’t. But the basic root meaning of the word is an assembly of people gathered in a particular place, and it seems quite clear that that’s the original meaning intended by Matthew. I do not dispute that in the light of Ephesians and Colossians, and of later Christian tradition, this passage may have a fuller meaning. But the basic, most literal meaning has to do with disputes within a local congregation.

That doesn’t get us off the hook, because it clearly presupposes that there is one local congregation to which the believers in a given place belong.

Edwin

Thank you Edwin.
So - If we keep with the idea that my brother is sinning against me by holding and teaching a false doctrine, then what sould it mean to - Tell it to the “local congregation”.
Would you read this as bringing it before the whole congregation?
Would you think it would go before a “committee” of the congregation?
Or would it maybe go directly to the Pastor of the congregation?

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

James good post. I believe Jesus is commanding us to take this to the visible church with authority. But the authority is not consolidated to Rome if you will. The church has spiritual leaders in it that are the authorities we should submit to. But the authority from which they derive is purely taken from scripture. So in essence all matters should be reconciled against what scripture teaches.

I am glad to see that you recognize this need for authority and the necessity for submission outside of “personal interpretation”. We catholics also agree that authority must derive itself from biblical roots. Of course we disagree on the form of that authority but that is a different discussion.

Let’s take an example of how a brother sins against us. I can give you a real life example of something that took place in our church and how it was handled. Someone within our small group started having an affair with the spouse of another individual within our small group. The individual who was being sinned against brought it to our attention seeing the small group in total as a part of the church and witnesses to the account. The small group tried to intervene and pleaded with the individuals to stop citing the fact they were living in grave sin. When they refused the matter was taken to the Elders of our church who insisted that they refrain from their behavior and undergo counseling. When they refused that they were asked to leave the church and they did. One of the individuals was in a leadership position and had to step down. Based on scriptural principals I think the church in this case handled it appropriately.
PEACE

Based on what you have written here I would say that you assembly did indeed handle it properly based on the reading of Scripture. Of course this is a very clear cut case - Adultery and Fornication.
It can become a very different thing when the issue is not so clear cut and/or is doctrinal in nature.
Suppose for arguments sake, that a person holds a view that you find “False”, your community begins to discuss it and you find, after a time, that the assembly is split 60/40 on who is right. both sides are arguing from a biblical perspective so it appears that Scripture is not 100% clear.
Any Idea how you would handle it?

Peace
James

 

[Contarini]

Thank you Edwin.
So - If we keep with the idea that my brother is sinning against me by holding and teaching a false doctrine

I’m not sure that this is a good premise.

then what sould it mean to - Tell it to the “local congregation”.
Would you read this as bringing it before the whole congregation?
Would you think it would go before a “committee” of the congregation?
Or would it maybe go directly to the Pastor of the congregation?

I don’t think it’s an either/or. The New Testament and the early Fathers such as Ignatius seem to envision the congregation acting as a disciplined whole under the leadership of deacons, presbyters, and the bishop.

In practice, in our Communion as in yours (though less glaringly so among us than among you), the laity tend to be quite passive and the priest would be the person to handle such an issue.

I do not deny the need to have structures of accountability beyond the local church, by the way. But I do see the local church as the starting point and the basic building block, and the fact that your Communion puts little importance on the local church is one of my primary objections to “Roman” Catholicism.

Edwin

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Interesting take on things. So are you saying that we should “Tell it to the synagogue”?

Peace
James

Sure, lol. I mean seriously, after the resurrection and at the time of Pentacost, Peter converted some was it 3000? This occurred at the Temple. He was preaching there. It was a holy day in the Jewish calendar. And frankly it’s a matter of history that the Jews forced out the Jewish Christians as late as 70 CE. It was then that serious church building really began in Jerusalem. In the outlying provinces, there was less of a Jewish presence and no temple, so Paul set organized leaders who used their homes to allow people to meet and share the good news.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Hi SpiritMeadow,
If there was no ‘church’, then why did Jesus say “church”? Why not synagogue or temple? And we know that what Jesus says in Scripture applies to all, from the time it was said to this very day. Just as Jesus foretold of his death and resurrection, do you think he could be foretelling how the church would operate?

Why would Paul then refer to the church as the ‘pillar and foundation of truth’? Surely only the pillar and foundation of truth could settle such a matter as the teaching of faith and correcting false doctrine?

The instruction is simple - tell it to the church - so who do you tell it to and by what authority do they confirm/deny/correct/clarify?

We have no assurance that he did. Translations have varied throughout the ages and with many copies of copies. We have no original to check from. As with most translation it is part art. It would be obvious to later scribes that since a “church” of sorts was now in place, the word used would be church. Since when Jesus spoke, there was no “church” it seems obvious that he was referring to the religious place, which for Jews was the Temple or synagogue, and continued to be so, even for Jewish Christians for some seventy years after the resurrection. I’d check with some really good exegetical books —the anchor book company is redoing Matthew I believe now, or it may be now available. That would tell you where most scholars are falling on the issue at present.

 

[Peter_J]

Well you can blame that on my trying to be too “Politically correct” since some non-Catholic Christians bristle at the term “Protestant”.

Well I certainly wouldn’t disagree with that, anymore than I would disagree with the statement “Some non-Americans bristle at the term ‘European’.”

However, I’m not sure how much this has to do with the matter at hand, since the title of this thread says “Non-catholics” not “Non-catholic Christians”.

P.S

Well you can blame that on my trying to be too “Politically correct”

Looking this statement, it occurs to me that perhaps the root of our disagreement lies in the fact that my idea of “politically correct” doesn’t bear much resemblance to your idea of “politically correct”.

 

[JRKH]

Well I certainly wouldn’t disagree with that, anymore than I would disagree with the statement “Some non-Americans bristle at the term ‘European’.”

However, I’m not sure how much this has to do with the matter at hand, since the title of this thread says “Non-catholics” not “Non-catholic Christians”.

P.S

Looking this statement, it occurs to me that perhaps the root of our disagreement lies in the fact that my idea of “politically correct” doesn’t bear much resemblance to your idea of “politically correct”.

Well since there seems to be several non-catholic Christians who are participating in the intent of conversation I would just as soon let this side bar drop.

Peace
James

 

[NDfan]

I am glad to see that you recognize this need for authority and the necessity for submission outside of “personal interpretation”. We catholics also agree that authority must derive itself from biblical roots. Of course we disagree on the form of that authority but that is a different discussion.

Based on what you have written here I would say that you assembly did indeed handle it properly based on the reading of Scripture. Of course this is a very clear cut case - Adultery and Fornication.
It can become a very different thing when the issue is not so clear cut and/or is doctrinal in nature.
Suppose for arguments sake, that a person holds a view that you find “False”, your community begins to discuss it and you find, after a time, that the assembly is split 60/40 on who is right. both sides are arguing from a biblical perspective so it appears that Scripture is not 100% clear.
Any Idea how you would handle it?

Peace
James

James thanks for the response. Your question is a good one. At our church the Elders are the ultimate authority we must submit too. So in your example our congregation would not be able to say “we” interpret scripture to be this so let’s move in that direction. The Elders set the beliefs for the church which they take directly from scripture. Now we unlike some other non-Catholic churches have a high regard for tradition so we are not afraid to seek direction based on what historically the church has taught. The Elders also must be in agreement 100% before moving in a particular direction.

So let’s take another example. Gay marriage is becoming and will continue to be a huge issue. Matter of fact the Presbyterian church is coming close to splitting over this among some other issues. But scripture is pretty clear on how GOD feels about homosexuality and the definition of a marriage. There are some I suppose that may read scripture and determine that gay marriage is Ok. At our church the majority of the Elders cannot move the church to tolerate gay marriage even if they believe we should. As long as their is opposition from 1 or more Elders the matter is left as is. Right now we will not marry a homosexual couple. We invite them to worship with us and pray for them but we make it very clear we will not marry them.

I have no problem deferring to those that are more qualified than I to interpret scripture. But I don’t excuse myself from reading and studying scripture so that I may be in a position to discern our teachings. I don’t believe in blindly following church authority and that’s why I don’t ascribe to the Pope as being infallible. Satan is very capable of misleading us and I firmly believe all followers of Christ have the responsibility of challenging when necessary church leadership. If you study church history very carefully the initial churches appointed their own leadership which is in line with what the Apostles recorded in the Didache. So we have to be able recognize the wolf in sheep’s clothing.

PEACE

 

[Peter_J]

Well since there seems to be several non-catholic Christians who are participating in the intent of conversation I would just as soon let this side bar drop.

Peace
James

It seems to me that all of the non-Catholics who participated in this thread are non-Catholic Christians.

Which goes back to my original question: what sort of answer would you expect to receive from, for example, those non-Catholics who are Buddhist?

 

[Peter_J]

At our church the Elders are the ultimate authority we must submit too. So in your example our congregation would not be able to say “we” interpret scripture to be this so let’s move in that direction. The Elders set the beliefs for the church **which they take directly from scripture. **

I’m not surprised to hear you say that, NDfan, but I would point out that we Catholics would say that many of your beliefs don’t come from Scripture, and are in fact innovations (much like you might say that some of our beliefs are innovations, even though we don’t see them as such).

Now we unlike some other non-Catholic churches have a high regard for tradition so we are not afraid to seek direction based on what historically the church has taught. The Elders also must be in agreement 100% before moving in a particular direction.

…

As long as their is opposition from 1 or more Elders the matter is left as is.

Interesting. Are you familiar with Apostolic Canon 34?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

The arguments of an “invisible” Church seem to be more justification of the many different denominations in a modern world against the view of one Church in the times that the New Testament scriptures were written.

As Contarini said, the original meaning intended by Matthew, was an assembly of people in a particular place. Those particular places, scattered across Asia, were one Church. This is evident by the doctrinal teachings those individual places received through letters from the Apostles. We can tell by those writings that the instructions were being given to appointed men of those Churches, which establishes a heirarchy. Letters cannot be sent to an invisible Church.

The very words of Christ, as recorded by Matthew, were instructions given to the Apostles, through a discussion with Peter, to be a teaching to be delivered to the people of the Church. It was not instructions to the masses to take upon themselves to understand and enforce on their own.

This passage being discussed, tells us to first try to resolve the offense alone. If that doesn’t work, take one or two witnesses along. If that doesn’t work, take it to the Church. In my opinion, that would be taking it to those with authority in the Church.

This is confirmed by the very next instruction given to the Apostles, “Amen I say to you, whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven.” The only other time we saw, in the inspired Word of God, those words were spoken, was when Christ said He would built His Church, again in a conversation with the Apostles and not the masses.

The Church is made up by believers, but it is also led by an appointed. One of the body of believers doesn’t just take it upon theirself to be appointed, or appoint another, by themself, just as they shouldn’t take it upon themselves to teach themself, or others, without proper instruction. The Apostles didn’t teach themselves, didn’t breath on themselves and become appointed, neither did they just lay hands upon each other and become appointed. They received their authority from a higher authority, in the heirarchy.

The student doesn’t all of a sudden decide they know more than the teacher and go off teaching others, who may all of a sudden decide they know more than the one that taught them and go off teaching others, who may all of a sudden decide they know more than their teacher…

 

[JRKH]

It seems to me that all of the non-Catholics who participated in this thread are non-Catholic Christians.

Which goes back to my original question: what sort of answer would you expect to receive from, for example, those non-Catholics who are Buddhist?

I would expect them to look at the thread and decide it doesn’t apply to them and ignore it. Of course if they wished to contribute that would be fine too.

peace
James

 

[JRKH]

James thanks for the response. Your question is a good one. At our church the Elders are the ultimate authority we must submit too. So in your example our congregation would not be able to say “we” interpret scripture to be this so let’s move in that direction. The Elders set the beliefs for the church which they take directly from scripture. Now we unlike some other non-Catholic churches have a high regard for tradition so we are not afraid to seek direction based on what historically the church has taught. The Elders also must be in agreement 100% before moving in a particular direction.

Since you do not specify a particular denomination in your profile, may I ask whether your local congregation is attached to others? In other words when your elders make a determination, how many “Local congregations” would be affected by it?

So let’s take another example. Gay marriage is becoming and will continue to be a huge issue. Matter of fact the Presbyterian church is coming close to splitting over this among some other issues. But scripture is pretty clear on how GOD feels about homosexuality and the definition of a marriage. There are some I suppose that may read scripture and determine that gay marriage is Ok. At our church the majority of the Elders cannot move the church to tolerate gay marriage even if they believe we should. As long as their is opposition from 1 or more Elders the matter is left as is. Right now we will not marry a homosexual couple. We invite them to worship with us and pray for them but we make it very clear we will not marry them.

OK, looking at this issue and relating to my question above, would elders in another “Local congregation” of your same denomination be able to freely allow gay marriage? I realize that they likely wouldn’t but I’m trying to better understand how your “Authority” works.

I have no problem deferring to those that are more qualified than I to interpret scripture. But I don’t excuse myself from reading and studying scripture so that I may be in a position to discern our teachings.

This is wise. We also believe one should continue to learn and study Scripture. Question.
How do you determine if one is “more qualified” to interpret Scripture.

I don’t believe in blindly following church authority and that’s why I don’t ascribe to the Pope as being infallible.

Setting aside for a moment the issue of infallibility, would you say that the pope is a person “more qualified” than you or I to interpret Scripture. (This is not a trap) Just cusrious based on your statement above. I know he’s more qualified than me!!

Satan is very capable of misleading us and I firmly believe all followers of Christ have the responsibility of challenging when necessary church leadership.

Of course this can cut both ways. Satan is very capable of misleading you or I as well. Maybe even more so since we do not have the kind of Scriptural, Historical, and theological training that others have.

If you study church history very carefully the initial churches appointed their own leadership which is in line with what the Apostles recorded in the Didache. So we have to be able recognize the wolf in sheep’s clothing.

Another thing we can learn from studying this early Church History is how the various church leaders remained in touch with each other in order to make sure that teaching was consistant across all of the Church locations. This can be seen in Clement’s letter to the Corinthians, as well as Ignatius’ letters during his journey to Rome for Martyrdom.
So, while the local Churches did select local leaders, there remained this submission to the universal authority on matters of faith and morals, as well as in certain cases practices.
Thus there would be no chance for one church to forbid “gay marriage” and another church to allow it.

Peace
James

 

[sixofseven]

We have no assurance that he did. Translations have varied throughout the ages and with many copies of copies. We have no original to check from.

Precisely why the ‘Church’ protected Scripture, and precisely why it is only the ‘Church’ who can interpret it, inspired by the Holy Spirit.

As with most translation it is part art. It would be obvious to later scribes that since a “church” of sorts was now in place, the word used would be church. Since when Jesus spoke, there was no “church” (but He did say He would build one, He called it ‘my Church’, and said He would build it on Peter)it seems obvious that he was referring to the religious place, which for Jews was the Temple or synagogue, and continued to be so, even for Jewish Christians for some seventy years after the resurrection. I’d check with some really good exegetical books —the anchor book company is redoing Matthew I believe now, or it may be now available. That would tell you where most scholars are falling on the issue at present.

So, ‘tell it to the Church’ means that they take it to those with authority in their religious community. There was only one church that Jesus started and the apostles carried out and passed on, so the question ‘non-catholics, How do you “Tell it to the Church”’ almost needs an addition - ‘and where does your ‘church’ get authority to solve the matter’? If the answer is Scripture, you have just said we have no assurance that Jesus said what he said because it may have been mis-translated - what else could have been mis-translated then? And waht can be further mis-translated? If there is no assurance, how can we believe anything in Scripture? Furthermore, if by taking it to the church, you would take it to the elders - who are the elders? Who made them elders? Who gave them authority to be the teachers and guardians of faith?

I don’t mean this to be an attack, I’m trying to understand who, outside of the Catholic Church, has the authority to make decisions and judgements on faith matters, and where do they get that authority from?

 

[JRKH]

So, ‘tell it to the Church’ means that they take it to those with authority in their religious community. There was only one church that Jesus started and the apostles carried out and passed on, so the question ‘non-catholics, How do you “Tell it to the Church”’ almost needs an addition - ‘and where does your ‘church’ get authority to solve the matter’? If the answer is Scripture, you have just said we have no assurance that Jesus said what he said because it may have been mis-translated - what else could have been mis-translated then? And waht can be further mis-translated? If there is no assurance, how can we believe anything in Scripture? Furthermore, if by taking it to the church, you would take it to the elders - who are the elders? Who made them elders? Who gave them authority to be the teachers and guardians of faith?

I don’t mean this to be an attack, I’m trying to understand who, outside of the Catholic Church, has the authority to make decisions and judgements on faith matters, and where do they get that authority from?

Nice Post.
I especially want to back up the statement about not attacking.
So far this thread has been very civil and informative. I hope we all keep it this way.
A case in point is the exchange between myself and NDfan that seems to be infromative both directions.

The big reason for posting this is that we get into sooo many debates here where we go back and forth among trying to interpret Scripture. So, as sixofseven has pointed out, it really comes down to a case of authority and “Tell it to the Church” is kind of the passage that tells us how to handle these issues. So I am truly interested in learning how our Bible believing protestant brothers look at and treat this command from Our Lord.

Peace
James

 

[SSTeacher]

I think I understand what you’re saying, SSTeacher, but it seems to me that there’s a more fundamental problem with this discussion. Namely the question “Non-catholics, How do you ‘Tell it to the Church’?” doesn’t really make sense. What sort of answer would you expect to receive from, for example, those non-Catholics who are Buddhist?

Incidentally, in the year or so that I’ve been on this forum, I seen quite a few thread titles that are questions directed to non-Catholics, but I don’t think I’ve ever seen a title-question directed to non-Anglicans. Have you?

Hi Peter,

No I haven’t and you’re quite right, of course. Many non–Catholics aren’t even Christians.

But what term is the best/right one to use to describe the category of people one wants to engage? I suppose, “western Christians who are not Catholics,” fits the bill but it’s rather unwieldy. And using the term “Protestant” doesn’t seem these days to be acceptable to some western Christians who are not Catholics . I suppose identifying people by what they are not can be perceived as insulting – for example, I can’t think of any women who’d be at ease with the designation of “non–man.” The Orthodox Church uses the term *** non–Orthodox *** but here in CAF Orthodox Christians are subsumed into the Non–Catholic Religions forum which is where we are just now.

Perhaps one of us should start a new thread about this? I’m prepared to nominate you.

Helpfully,
Mick

 

[SSTeacher]

SSTeacher;5134355:

James,

I think you might be on the wrong track. It seems highly doubtful to me that anybody who approaches this passage intending to take it literally would perceive the word “church” as meaning “the whole body of believers” since the word “church” is not capitalized within the text. By capitalizing the word “church,” and making it “Church” you are attempting to force onto the text a meaning it does not have. Evangelicals usually call this routine eisegesis

. I understand the point you’re trying to make and agree that it’s a valid one but I’d suggest that this is definitely not the passage to use in order to substantiate it.

Respectfully,
Mick
:thumbsup:Well - I sould never try to pass myself off as a biblical scholar, so you may be right in your assessment. Yet if we look at the words used in the passage, capitalized or not, and the command that Christ gives us here in regards to dealing with sinful members it STILL implies an authority within the “assembly”, and the Idea that the “assembly” is able to speak with a unified and authoritative voice.

That is what has led me to ask this question and to ask it in as nonconfrontational a way as possible.

Peace
James

Fair point – and you have indeed asked in a very non–confrontational way. You set a good example.

Appreciatively,
Mick