Don't cast your pearls before the swine.

WE must use our best judgment between these two! Where would you do the most good and save the most souls, not where would you get the most recognition.

Save the many living under a bridge, those in prison, or spend all your time trying to save the muslims or in old days, the king?

But sit around and debate? No, do something. God will do the judging of your heart far more than your results.

But take this one for instance: We have a large Muslim population in Vienna, especially in the district where I live. You see headcoverings everywhere. Shall we really dare to reach out to them? OK, let's dare! What does that mean?

Are we willing to pray at least as often and regularly as they? If not, how shall we convince them of our sincerity in faith?
Are we willing to at least abstain from blood and strangled meat, and maybe also Pork? If not, what shall we answer when they themselves point us to Acts 15 (BTW we teach in our church that we have to obey these four "necessary things")?
Are we willing to making almsgiving a regular habit? If not, they would not take us seriously?
Are we willing to fast regularly? I don't think that the Ramadan is biblical, but regular fasting is indeed – if we are not willing to abstain from food once are twice a week (as the early Christians did) how are we going to look pious to them?
Are we willing to do our pilgrimages on a regular basis? No, we don't go to Mekka or any earthly place, but to the heavenly Mount Zion whenever we assemble as a church – I think we can explain this "little difference" to Muslims; but if we forsake these assemblies, they won't believe a word we say.
Are our sisters willing to wear the headcovering before a Muslim apologists cunningly quotes from OUR Bibles in order to make us ashamed of our inconsistencies?

Brother, we all have a long way to go when we want to take the example of Timothy's circumcision seriously. Actually, almost all Muslim religious habits have their roots in Early Christianity, even in the Bible (NT!) itself. They put us to shame, and we have nothing to offer to them, except a gospel that sounds like: "Oh, nothing really is required from you, you may live just like the rest of our degenrated western society … See, there is a whole lot more freedom and fun in Christ …"

Alexander

P.S. Just in case that you or anyone else came to the conclusion we could play the same game the other way round with our "wicked western neighbors". How would that work? Paul said something that may sound like that:

1Co 9:21 To those outside the law I became as one outside the law … that I might win those outside the law.

Sounds like all things are permissible, but I omitted an important part of the verse (following the IOEA-hermeneutic):

… (not being outside the law of God but under the law of Christ) …

We might dress as loosely as they do, in order to not be offensive to them, but then we would violate a direct command of God (1Ti 2:9).
We might use the same kind of dubious humor as they do, in order to "laugh" them into the church, but again this stands in conflict with texts as Eph 5:4.
Of course we should discard the hadcoverings and adopt an egalitarian view of male and female, because we surely don't want to offend them by political incorrectness, which – as we all know – forces us to IOEA 1Co 11:2-16 or 1Ti 2:9-15.
We'd need to take a looser stand on divorce and remarriage, because that's the way people are today, and we shall bcome tlike them in order to win them, shan't we?
And, "Hey, it's OK to be gay!" (no, it isn't acording to Rom 1:26-27)
…

It does not make me happy to continue this list, because it is a portrait of too many contemporary churches, and this breaks God's heart, because by acting this way we mock His Holy Word.

But have you notived that even leaeders of that sort are being disobeyed, mocked and not ben followed? It started with Jesus, Paul had many such experiences, even John was not well received by Diotrephes.

So there is a need of the same attitude described in the first paragraph in the whole church. If this attitude is there, even hard issues will be followed in a spiritual way.

As for the CENI-opinion of the leader you quoted: This is just a "tool" – but it is necessary to follow his lead anyway, unless he is causing you to sin. You don't have to agree, though; but you hould not opose him openly either (you may talk to him in private). We will always have different opinions on various matters, but leadership is ordained by God in order to lead the whole congregation in one direction. And they are going to be held responsible by the Lord for their leading, while the sheep are going to be held responsible for their following.

Alexander

When people who claim the name "Christian" and "brethren" disagree over an interpretation, or a method of interpretation, of Scripture to an extent that produces division, accusation, judgment, condemnation, eyes on and fingers pointed to one another, these "works of the flesh" should be a clear waving red flag that the Spirit is not in control and Jesus is not Lord. But the "brethren" are so busy seeing "red" when looking at one another, they can't see the red flag because of the background. Too often people dig into the meaning of Scripture until they find a comfortable place to "camp." Others form "camps" in a different place, and now it time to defend one's position. There is one inescapable conclusion from this chaos – no one is correct, no one has found the truth that the Spirit intended for us. Everyone is operating at a superficial and incomplete level. "Get the log out" so that you can discover that you have also missed the mark. What this means is that, instead of arguing, everyone needs to get on their knees together and pray and study together until the real truth of the Scripture is revealed. What are the signs that brethren have discovered the real spiritual truth? "Love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control.." Where are we on that scale?

"Are we there yet?" "Are we half-way there yet?" "How much longer?" "How long is 10 hours?" "I'm bored." "I need to stop." "You'd better stop fighting with your brother, that's what you'd better do!!" "Waahh." "Look, if you don't stop griping, I'm going to turn this car around and take you all back to Egypt!" Hmmm.

If our eyes are on one another instead of on Jesus, how can we even know we are on the right path?

I hope you change on this as I see only disappointment and hard feelings coming your way and that is not what you the mark is you are shooting for.

I think this is a two-sided story. On one hand, I can get these hard feelings myself (and I have to be aware of this and stay close to my Lord in order to avoid this). But for the better understanding: I have studied this chapter for more than 17 years, and I think i can sum up accurately every objection to it, and I can show in detail where the weak points are. Without much effort i could write a 200 pages book on this. Don't get me wrong, I don't want to boast or brag. But it takes a hole lot of humilty, patience and love to accept an "I don't see it this way" from a person who barely even read the text itself. Do you understand what i mean? When I am in a bad mood such answers can really upset me emotionally.

Yes, I am aware that others may react with disappointment and hard feelings to this. Let me relate a story: At first, when we were merely contemplating the issue and had some private talk about it, many said: "But, Alexander, this is not a really big issue, isn't it? It's not that important, why should we deal with it?" You may know such an approach to God's word. The only fitting answer I know is: "Well I don't know how important this is to God, but it is important enough that He included it in His book. So we should take it seriously, yet at the same time in a balanced way." As long as such conversations remain on an "informal" level, everything seems fine – but a few days before we wanted to teach on this subject in church, the same person threatened: "If you make the headconvering a heaven and hell issue, I'll leave the church."

OK: NONE of us ever saw it as a heaven or hell issue. This is an unfair exaggeration; but it reveals something different: See, when it is just treated as an open question, it is labeled as "not important" – yet when we wanted to put into into practice, it became such a big thing that it would be unbearable to remain in fellowship with us! This is way out of balance! It's ironic BTW that this brother's wife was once with a headcovering in church – not because of 1Co 11, but because she thought it looked nice. I always have to smile when I look back …

Well, both are still in our church, we retreated from the issue (for a while) – but let me ask you, how do you see the spiritual attitude of such persons? Are teachers wise when they always give in if someone has a problem with "minors"? After all, if it is a "minor", it should be no big deal to do it anyway, even though you see it diferently (as long as it is not a sin).

Be sure however, Alabama John, that we won't rush this and we will take emotions very seriously.

Alexander

There is definitely a C in this text – a command, Jesus and the Pharisees were discussing, namely the law on divorce and remarriage
Then there is an E in this text, too, an example we can follow (although not Binding), namely staying unmarried for the Kingdom's sake.
Then there is an interesting NI in this passage, a necessary inference. Why? Because we have statements in th OT where God sems to allow divorce, while in another text He says that He hates divorce. So Jesus "reasoned" why this is so, and the rusult is an inference (though inspired, but nevertheless)

Mat 22:23-33 is different since the debate did not turn on a command but on the resurrection, and since the Sadducees only accepted the Torah Christ had to proove the resurrection from the five books of Moses – which, as we know, is rather difficult. He did it by "reasoning", so again He was making a "necessary inference".

I'd like to know whether i got Curtis' idea or not …

Alexander