I was thinking about the practice of labelling fellow believers as "rebellious". While the following may not be applicable in all cases, much of the time it seems to be a case of "pulling rank".

Definition for 'Pull rank'

If a person of higher position or in authority pulls rank, he or she exercises his/her authority, generally ending any discussion and ignoring other people's views.

Rather than be put in a position where one has to answer the hard questions or seriously evaluate a fellow leader's decision, it's easier to "pull rank" and label the questioner as having a rebellious spirit against 'headship', thereby dismissing their concerns. The other side to this is that it's usually done unwittingly. The leader is simply repeating what was drilled into him as a disciple, and they honestly believe that any questioning of 'headship' is "a spirit", no matter how valid the concern.

This shows the strong grip that these doctrines have and how serious it is when you mix the judgment of God with extra-biblical theories, such as equating a pastor with God. The result is a spiritual guilt-trip that has damaging control over members, causing them to be unnecessarily fearful to ever leave their church. Not to mention causing untold relationship problems because they then condemn anyone else - including family - who move on to another church. All for what? A doctrine that is not even mentioned in the New Testament, and can only be supported by pulling Old Testament stories out of time and context?

A New Testament pastor's role is to shepherd, protect, and cultivate the sheep, not "lord it over" his minions.

One of the scriptures used often to hold a person in their Potters House church is "God sets the members in the body as He sees fit" (I Cor. 12:18). However, the implication in this scripture is more of role and function, rather than geographic location. Even so, note that the scripture says GOD sets the members in the body. The church does not set the members. A pastor does not set the members. Since when did a pastor become equivalent with God? If you feel led to move on to another congregation, then go with God.

This does not mean to ignore a pastor's advice. We'd be foolish to do so as most pastors have a wealth of information and Godly advice to give. We would also be foolish to leave our church on a whim or without any form of conviction to do so. What I'm addressing is an over-reaching and abuse of the pastoral role to a point where they are using unscriptural methods in order to keep members in that church.

If you are:

- Fearful to leave your church because you might be judged by God
- Worried about other christians who leave the church, thinking they'll be cursed
- Feeling a constant pressure to be at every single service to remain somewhat 'right' with God
- Unwilling to be around ex-PH members because they are "in rebellion", even if they're still serving God

Then you really need to evaluate what the source of this fear is. Do these beliefs truly represent what Christ is about? Can they honestly be biblically supported?

It it comes down to, a lot of times, an inability to accept critical thinking. Those in the higher position have an idea or belief that comes under threat by someone who actually thinks and they have to quell this sudden rebellion by pulling rank, 'It's not what I believe or think therefore it's rebellion' and I am the lord's annointed aren't I?'

Isn't that also called fear?

Great post Dave

True Mumsie, fear is a big factor in PH, for God did not give us a spirit of fear...
and people are afraid to leave....afraid to die...afraid because after nearly every sermon preached showing peoples shortcomings you get the age old "come to the altar and get right" or else... etc what ever happened to no condemnation in the kingdom of God??? People start thinking that their salvation has and old worn out on/off switch.

I am being very general here, but hopefully you see the point.

DaVe wrote:

One of the scriptures used often to hold a person in their Potters House church is "God sets the members in the body as He sees fit" (I Cor. 12:18).

The problem with this kind of thinking, is that in the narrow mind's of the people teaching and believing this (what i now call "rubbish") is that they think that the potters house "is" the kingdom (the whole kingdom) of god.

When in fact it's just one tiny little slice of the pie. The kingdom of God is sooooooooooooo vast and made up of many many many people/churches....... What's it to anyone else (PASTORS INCLUDED) if God so chooses to move someone over to another part of "his vast" kingdom to where "HE" sees fit................. I rest my case....

Mythbuster wrote:True Mumsie, fear is a big factor in PH, for God did not give us a spirit of fear...
and people are afraid to leave....afraid to die...afraid because after nearly every sermon preached showing peoples shortcomings you get the age old "come to the altar and get right" or else... etc what ever happened to no condemnation in the kingdom of God??? People start thinking that their salvation has and old worn out on/off switch.

I am being very general here, but hopefully you see the point.

"AMEN" + 1

Yes I agree with all that although the fear I was thinking of specifically is the fear of people thinking critically for themselves, asking questions, etc. -- the fear that maybe what you're doing is only right if everyone else is doing it too.
You know how teenagers have to go everywhere at the same time, wear the same clothes, talk the same language etc? Well a church has no business being like that. It's a sign of immaturity. If the Truth really is the Truth, it should be able to stand up to some hard questions and still be True. And I hope you all know that I understand the difference between a rebellious spirit and a genuine desire to learn for yourself instead of simply accepting what you're told all the time.
Basically just what MB said a few posts back -- leaders should be encouraging the flock to think and mine the Word, not squashing any hint of intelligence.

.I read this and thought I like this!!

I'm seeking the truth. Whatever the outcome. If I start out looking only at those resources that agree with my position, then I'm blind

What is that quote -- "I never learned anything from the man who agreed with me...."

something like that.

.Where two men agree one is redundant?

Depends whether you are simply looking for affirmation....

"iron sharpening iron" we all need someone who thinks differently to us otherwise we'd all be clones with the same vision, dreams, etc boring ... hang on that sounds familiar....

Communication is vital to the christians walk, God shows us this in that He Spoke, He wrote, He said, he gave the 10 commandments, prayer is part of this communication, He does not want us to be ignorant, the problem when you start to ban means of communication radio tv etc you stop a flow of information and have to rely upon the thoughts and idear's of those whom you think know better than you. Isolationism always ends in disaster, as the world becomes smaller and smaller and smaller and control becomes complete when mans word becomes more important than GODS WORD.

All through the ages movements have sprung up with good intent and the first thing they do is want you to cut yourself of from the world yet Jesus told us to go into that world to preach teach and minister, to understand the times and relate to the culture to reach the lost, to become all things to all men that you may win some, I know yes there are extremes as there are in all things but it is the Spirit of the Word that we are to pursue.

The Roman Catholic church banned the congregation from reading the Bible to keep them ignorant, in todays times we need to be able to keep abreast of the times to be relevant to those we witness to to understand the challenge of the hour and to be not ignorant brethern of the times we live in..

My ramble for today

Good ramble.

yes very good ramble, I mentioned information control in another topic, as one of those marks of a cultic organisation.

Question time:
Did the Catholics on purpose stop people reading the bible for them to be ignorant on what is said? Or was it just a case that they would not translate it in the common language in fear of loosing the true meaning(s) of the word?

I think back in the day the were priests on both sides of that fence. You just need to look at the opposition faced when someone finally stood up to translate the Word.

@MB yeh but how much was that due to change??? Even today people go to the same extents (maybe without the physical killing) when a church movement brings change....

'God's church' movement, I don't think so. Man controlled religion will bring change by force if necessary.
In the case of PH, where it is controlled by one man, this one man who refuses to submit to change unless it comes from a personal revelation. I think it all lies with this one man, if he changes the rest will follow, if he doesn't people have to talk with their feet, meaning leave until he has no one to control.

Can't answer that one Germ but know that until the middle 1900 it was very uncommon for Roman catholics to read their bible as they were taught that they as lay person could never understand it.. Again the squashing of the multitudes by reducing the ability of learning and getting knowedge and underderstanding.

It has been the method of tyrants all through the ages and it appears to still have its followers. Bible tells us not to be ignorant, to sift, to study to know GOD. We can't and never will know everthing but we should learn something.

When men put restrictions for our own benifit we must take it back to the garden and remember that God told Adam not to eat of the fruit but then left it up to him and God still gives us the information and he GOD still leaves it up to us, so even God does not try to control us but gives us our own free will, allows us to make mistakes and to go again. That is called grace...

@Humbled - I know it will be hard reading the bible when its not in your native tongue. When was the Catholic bible translated from Latin to the other common languages??

I remember hearing a bit about Luther and from what I remember, the Catholic priests were encouraged to read not the bible but previous peoples writings. It was not until Luther started reading the bible did he become a protester (were we get our Protestant name from).

Just a thought, something I read

"The History of Bible Translation - Modern Translations - In the Middle English Period (ca. 1100-1550), John Wycliffe, John Purvey, and Nicholas of Hereford collaborated to produce the first complete Bible in English. There were two editions of the Wycliffe Bible. They were both translations of the Latin text. The first edition was a literal translation from Latin into English. There was a second edition completed in 1396. It circulated more widely. The focus was on the meaning of sentences, not mere words.

As a result of this work, Wycliffe and his followers, "the Lollards" suffered persecution as heretics. Purvey and Nicholas were forced to recant their work. In 1408, the Constitutions of Oxford included a prohibition against Bible translation without approval of church authorities."

I heard that they deemed the Bible too holy to be translated into such a common tongue as english. It had to stay in latin. It was a skewed self-righteousness where people think they're doing God a service. Just like the act of cutting off people who are deemed in rebellion against God.

Possibly one good reason for leaving it in Latin would be that, as a dead language, the meanings of Latin words would remain unchanged -- unlike the English word "gay" for example -- so maybe they started with good intentions; but we all know where good intentions lead.