Binding and Loosing
Banned by Hwa recently generated an interesting discussion regarding the Philadelphia Church of God's views on the human authority to bind and loosen relative to the church. (Gerald Flurry Upset Not All PCG Members Worship His "New Throne of David" Stone) According to PCOG, this authority is expansive and is largely confined to the "chief apostle" of the church.
But was the authority to bind and loosen intended to cover all of the teachings and work of the church? Does a human leader (or council) have the authority to change Divine directives, rituals, callings or mission statements? In short, does this authority give a human leader (or council) the power to supersede or change what God has commanded?
First, let's notice what Jesus told Peter after he had acknowledged that Jesus was the Messiah and God's son. We read: "And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." - Matthew 16:19 For our purposes, it doesn't matter whether we interpret this passage as applying to a single man or group of men. Instead, we want to examine the parameters of this authority.
In this regard, it is interesting to note the narrow circumstances that Jesus attached to this teaching the next time he mentioned it. After pointing out how precious each one of the saints are to God, Jesus outlines the proper way to handle disagreements among them. In the eighteenth chapter of Matthew, we read: "Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican. Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven. For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them." - Matthew 18:15-20
In this passage, the authority to bind and loosen is clearly limited to resolving conflicts between God's people, and it is also implied that this authority is to be shared among those people. Notice too that there isn't any suggestion within this passage that this authority was to extend to other areas or give carte blanche to any human authority within the church to amend God's edicts or set policy.
Moreover, we know that an expansive interpretation of this authority is inconsistent with what Christ is reported to have told the Scribes and Pharisees just a few chapters prior to this. These religious leaders asked Christ why his disciples violated the traditions which their predecessors had enjoined on God's people. Christ responded: "Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition? For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death. But ye say, Whosoever shall say to his father or his mother, It is a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; And honour not his father or his mother, he shall be free. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition. Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying, This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men." - Matthew 15:3-9 In other words, human traditions (even those instituted by authorities designated by God) cannot supersede or change God's commandments!
In this connection, it is interesting to note that the Armstrong Churches of God would be among the first to point out that no man (or group of men) has the authority to change the day of worship, Divinely mandated rituals or nullify other directives of Almighty God. And, if this understanding applies to one of the chief proponents of a broad interpretation of the authority to bind and loosen (specifically, the Roman Catholic Church), it is hard to see how one could reasonably justify such a broad interpretation of this authority within any ACOG! Likewise, the ACOGs are quick to point out that it is God who calls and places people into His Church. They love to quote John 6:44 in this connection, and then turn around and claim the authority to put that person out of the church!
In the Old Testament, it is recorded that God instructed His people to do exactly what He told them to do, and to be very careful NOT to add to those instructions or take anything away from them (see Deuteronomy 12:32). Moreover, Christ is reported to have instructed his apostles: "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world." - Matthew 28:19-20
Hence, while the authority to bind and loosen enables the Church to deal with disagreements and conflicts between people, it does not confer on that body (or any individual) the power to supersede, change or negate God's clear instructions on a whole host of topics. And, any interpretation of this authority which confers such powers clearly contradicts the spirit and intent of the Scriptures that inform us about it.
Miller Jones
The scripture on binding and loosening is so vague you can make it mean almost anything you want. This kind of nonsense is proof the bible is not inspired.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous 7/28 @ 9:25,
ReplyDeleteArmstrongites are fond of proof-texting, literalism and fundamentalism. Hence, the only way to appeal to most of them is by using the same tools which they employ to point out the error and inconsistencies in their ideology.
Moreover, your statement has some major problems with logic. Most literature is open to many different interpretations - I remember conversations in High School literature class about different interpretations for themes and symbolism in Moby Dick. And, yet, most students of literature would say that Melville's classic novel was/is inspired.
Likewise, your statement smacks of circular reasoning. Being vague or contradictory may constitute proof of problems within a piece of literature, but they do not constitute proof that something is not inspired. Again, these features may also constitute proof that the literalist or fundamentalist view of Scripture is flawed, but they do not demonstrate a lack of inspiration.
And, finally, it is much easier to make something mean whatever you want it to mean when you isolate it from other relevant passages. In other words, take it out of context. Politicians do this on a regular basis and are quite proficient at creating whatever reality suits there particular interest(s) or agenda(s).
It was the WCG ministry who like and argue over the binding and loosing 'doctrine' Miller Jones. The WCG membership as a whole ignored it as rubbish.
ReplyDeleteSimples.
The article you wrote is very good and I appreciate your efforts to bring clarity to a doctrine that has been misused by so many in church authority for so long. I disagreed with some of your writings after the riots earlier in the summer but I enjoy your writings & wish you & yours the best Miller.
ReplyDeleteIIRC, the tense in the Greek implies that what you bind on earth has been bound already in heaven, or "shall have been bound".
ReplyDeleteIt simply means that the holy spirit will guide them. It certainly does not give any man the power to change any of God's instructions.
If Dr Flurry (does he call himself 'Dr' yet?) could only locate the Cot that was used (along with research-assistant Dotty?) for research in what was to be a world bestseller, 'The Missing Erection in Sex' then ,wow, that would be a museum-grade piece of religious iconography, bringing more pilgrims to the sunbaked plains of Oklahoma!
ReplyDeleteA person can use the Bible to justify anything they want to do. I don't find much first person sayings of Christ in the NT, no "Jesus said to me --, or told me that --." So how does anyone really know exactly what He said? My understanding is that the gospels were written decades after the fact, if we today were to write down what Roosevelt said, without the aid of recordings, how much of it would be spot on and how much of it would be embellishment by the writer, slanted to his/her own view of what they think he said? Add to this the business of translation often ideas can't be word for word, how does one really know what was meant? That just leads one back to making it say what they want it to say.
ReplyDeleteJohn 14:26 "But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you."
ReplyDeleteMiller:
ReplyDeleteI appreciate your analysis of this doctrine and agree with the scope that you have given it. Loosing and Binding is a principle that can easily be politicized and weaponized by those inclined to autocracy if it is permitted an expansive scope. The principle has to do with the application of established law and practice and not the innovation of dogma - similar to the Jewish concept of halakah. In other words, my perspective on it is that it is judicial and not legislative.
My notion is that the principle was given to Peter who also had the implementing "keys to the kingdom." But Matthew 18 indicates that Loosing and Binding was also extended to the other disciples. With the dispersion of the disciples to many lands to initiate the church, out of contact with Peter, this must have been a practical necessity.
An observation: Matthew 18 not only limits the scope of the principle it also gives a clear process that is a democratic counterpoint to autocracy. Step 3 in the process involves taking the issue in contention to the ekklesia or the church. The church may then make a corporate decision on the matter (this process given to the disciples may be divergent from the process given to Peter in Matthew 16 on this point). This step involving the church as a whole is totally absent within the application of this principle among Armstrongists. Armstrongists use this as a basis for unilateral, autocratic decision making which is in contravention to the Bible.
I doubt that when the Monday Pentecost error became recognized and controversial that HWA ever took the issue before the church as prescribed. Hence, he never really used the principle of Loosing and Binding as defined in scripture and the decision became political. I think he just did not understand the Hebrew and made an honest mistake. It happens. No need to invoke loosing and binding in some flowery and exceptional way. HWA did not speak Ex Cathedra, that is, with infallibility.
Anon (9:25) wrote "The scripture on binding and loosening is so vague you can make it mean almost anything you want. This kind of nonsense is proof the bible is not inspired."
ReplyDeleteOne the other hand, this vagueness may have been the way that God served the ball into the church's court. Coloring issues black and white doesn't promote maturity.
I believe a good example of binding and loosing was Moses listening and passing judgment on legal disputes. His father in law persuaded him to delegate this responsibility to others in a hierarchical manner, much like today's lower and higher legal courts. These judges role was not to make the laws, but only apply them.
ReplyDeleteAncient Israel had this system with the elder form of government, which the nation diminished when they asked God for a king.
To make this "Binding and Loosing" thing work, requires that there is an "exclusive class" of people in authority.
ReplyDelete1 Peter 2:9, says “You are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession,"
The priesthood today is composed of ALL believers. Jesus came to deconstruct organized religion, not create it or endorse it! The veil was ripped in the Temple for a reason... direct access to the Throne of God thru just one High Priest Jesus Christ!
A work around, that religion tries to impose ,in order to maintain its power and positions, is to then try to claim that the only people who can perform "sacarments" , such as baptism, anointing, laying on of hands, funerals, marriages, counselings, and more, are ONLY the "specially ordained" of some denomination. Same applies to Loosing and Binding.
If the laity attempts to ever perform a "sacraement" this is always met with great disdain. In Armstrongism, theis went so far as to claim that the ministry , especially GTA/HWA were the only ones allowed to be the preachers of the Gospel, and that they were the exclusive and only authorized vehicles to do so.
Ultimately, it is not a church or minister that can grant you conversion, or give you a marriage or loose/bind anything. It is fully and completely done by individual volunteer initiative that such relationships exist. Anything more than that is simply dominance and force, and such things are always temporary.
Matt 20:
ReplyDelete25 But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them.
26 But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister;
27 And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant:
28 Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.
Tonto
ReplyDeleteThe process of marriage is not actually a religious event, or a sacrement. A marriage between individuals has to be legally bound by the law of the specific land. And the requirements and boundaries of marriage law can differ from state to state and country to country.
Therefore no baptised laymember person can perform a marriage, it would not hold fire in the real world.
In fact many countries do not recognise COG Ministry performing marriages as legally binding, they only perform religious blessings and the Church couples usually get married officially by a local official.
To Anonymous on July 29 at 5:17 am:
ReplyDeleteThe NT writings were written under the direction of the Holy Spirit.
As I said in a previous post see John 14:26 "But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you." -- this is also an example of a direct quote from Jesus.
As far as direct quotes of Jesus, have you actually read Matthew, Mark, Luke and John?
They are full of quotes. Get a red letter bible.
I'm sure I've put in my 2 shekels of verbiage on Binding and Loosing before. It's a Mishnaic concept of Forbidding and Permitting actions with respect to Torah Law. Josephus confirmed Jesus' statement that the Pharisees "sit in Moses' seat" which is a seat of judgement, ruling on cases of Law.
ReplyDeleteThe Pharisaic interpretation of the Law fell into two major schools of thought, Hillel, with which Jesus usually agreed, and the more draconian Shammai, which Jesus tended to dispute. To carry on his own interpretation of the Law, Jesus commissioned his disciples, with the warning that they must themselves be obedient to what they decide and teach.
The principle is all about application of Torah Law, not changing or abolishing any of them and not making up new ones.
Interesting Hoss.
DeleteSo the principle is kinda "equality under law?"
When the topic came up on the "flurry thread." The first question I asked was along those lines.
nckJuly 27, 2020 at 12:59 AM
Miller 6:15
From a "legal perspective".
a) Was it a decision ON "What was (already) bound in heaven?"
OR
b) Did the ministry decide "UPON WHICH the ruling was bound in heaven, by God?"
The key word is a "RULING", at least in European Administrative Law a and b would be distinct in the sense of scope etcetera etcetera etcetera. I know HWA was not a Dr in Constutional Law at that time, that only "happened" in 1983."
nck
For sure, GTA was into binding.
ReplyDeleteI don't know about the loosing.
Guess I'm not up on the kinky sex terms.
Knowing GTA, if loosing is perverse, he was all up into it.
The apple doesn't fall far from the tree.
So Herbie was probably into the same.
Hope he didn't bind Dorothy.
Maybe it was the only way he could get it done.
Another little point about this is the "when 2 or 3 are gathered" has to do with making a decision. With three witnesses to something, two must agree for a verdict to be rendered. This is NOT about two or three with a minister ("in My Name") for Jesus to be present - it's NOT the context of what is being discussed.
ReplyDeleteI am late to this party, but will throw in a comment anyway. Others have covered HWA's warped reasoning on this issue, and I think I shared some months ago a quote I found in an old issue of WCG's Bulletin from the 1970s which also sheds light on HWA's attitude on the subject, but I'll quote it again here...
ReplyDelete"Meanwhile, Christ, who KNOWS better than we that He is dealing with fallible humans --but who are HONEST with His Word, has BOUND in heaven what His Church, even in unrealized error, has bound in earth." Bulletin Dec.3, 1974
https://wwcg-archives.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Bulletin/Bulletin%201974%20%28Vol%2002%20No%2016%29%20Dec%203.pdf
This basically corroborates some other quotes by HWA in an earlier post. The problem with this reasoning though is that it actually places HWA or whomever else would believe such a thing in a position above Jesus Christ in authority, because he is essentially saying that even if some prediction he makes, doctrine he proclaims, or edict he issues is discovered to be in error, that Jesus Christ is duty bound to honor and bind that error, which would in essence make Jesus Christ subservient to him, as representing the "church" and not the other way around. This line of reasoning is all kinds of messed up, and should have had people sitting up and paying attention when he wrote such a thing. He believed that Jesus was duty bound to back him up even when he was wrong, all to preserve "God's government". What he seemed to miss the point on though is that God is supposed to be the focus and leader of His own government, not some guy who claims to carry the keys but is always making false predictions or teaching error. The fact is Jesus did not honor his part of this supposed bargain though, otherwise He would have dutifully returned on cue in 1975, or perhaps 1936, when the original prediction of the "end of the age" was published in the Plain Truth, since by HWA's reckoning He would have been bound to honor those predictions.
https://www.hwalibrary.com/cgi-bin/download/viewitem.cgi?PageNo=#Page=1
So, either Flurry and HWA completely misunderstood how this binding loosing thing is supposed to work, or Jesus didn't get the memo.
I appreciated Miller's take on this as well as some of the comments by others above.
Concerned Sister
"that Jesus Christ is duty bound to honor and bind that error, which would in essence make Jesus Christ subservient to him, as representing the "church"
ReplyDeleteAs always I apreciate Concerned Sisters well thought out input.
I do wonder if however she understands "Constitutional Monarchy", where Queen Elisabeth and the Empresses and Emperors of the Realm, before her, DUTIFULLY signed all the laws proposed to her through the Prime Minister by Parliament. Yet she is Head of State and all things are done in her name.
It was a well established wcg doctrine that Christ permits people to, make mistakes, "create armageddon," "sin as the people of Israel did.
So I have no problem with the binding and loosening interpretation, I do however have a serious problem with the fact that these people do not take advice or peer review criticism by others who have studied the topic. Even the Pope who is ultimate arbiter of eclesiastic matters and doctrine has, church legal boards, the holy inquisition, and many critical catholic scolars in catholic institutions that advice him although he does not seem to be accountable to the princes of the church.
Some deem the current pope a modern man with modern views.
The strict legalistic, formalistic scolar who was the former pope, stepping down for health reasons, showed by that action that he was quite modern too. My point. I don't know. I usually don't have a point.
nck
nck
Great point by Concerned Sister!
ReplyDeleteIt's a common attitude by religious leaders. They reduce God to a man, then think that they can put this "man" under their thumb. They are so accustomed to power, that it doesn't strike them as unusual to extend this to God. I believe that their healing doctrine is one example of this. They expect God to yield to their "but you promised daddy" manipulation, even though experience teaches that God does NOT always heal.
ReplyDeleteIt's my will be done rather than thy will be done.
They secretly think that God sits on a toilet seat rather than the magnificent throne described in the book of Ezekiel.