₦airaland Forum

GODSON2009:
well irrespective of what you think this is about,i hope you realise the pastor and elders like mr tv 01 has helpfully pointed out in his comments are spiritual fathers to the congregation,

Hello GODSON2009, Hope you are well. I have every intention of replying to your earlier post as soon as time permits. A point to note, the statement above attributed to me - that was me you were referring to right? - is simply not a view of mine. "Spiritual fathers",  Mummies in Israel" and the like are not notions I subscribe too.

Thanks

God bless
TV

Deep Sight:
Sexual incompatibity has destroyed countless marriages. It is also a leading cause of infidelity.

I'll make my small contribution to slaying the myth that is "sexual incompatibility" (SI/SC) to rest.

But first the notion the "sexual incompatibility" has destroyed countless marriages is simply not true. SI is hardly ever cited as leading cause of diverce or seperation.

Its equally false to say its a leading cause of infidelity. Does it mean that all those who "test drive" before marriage will never be unfaithful? Lack of commitment, understanding, selfishness, weakness, lust, money and a whole host of other things come way higher up that list.

Except in extreme cases, SI is not really an issue/does not apply.


My take

intimacy, is a biomechanical function, so like eating walking or any other BF, unless you are physically impaired it shouldn't be a problem. Like othe BF, it is something that one can practice and learn, understand and improve in.

Physical attraction is good, but at best a starter for ten. On the basis of that, friendship and intimacy of a non-sexual nature can be allowed to develop. Mutual understanding, shared experiences, common aspirations, ideals and values can all be brought to the fore and explored. Real long-lasting compatibility ascertained and built into a real relationship. Or not, if things don't develop aright, in which case the exercise can be abandoned. Can I also say that even without the starter for ten, if you meet someone and the relationship develops more or less as outlined, sexual desire will follow naturally.

So you've built up the relationship, developed the non-sexual intimacy, explored, discussed, agreed and comitted. Then its time to talk about it. In detail. What, when how, why, what if. Are there physical issues. Can they be counselled for or treated? Are there mental or physological hang-ups that need resolving. Likewise? Any potential reasons why we shouldn't proceed? If not you are good to go. Please be be wary of extended courtships.

A right foundation is the way to go. Enjoy. You so will and be blessed too. It'll be secure, fresh, based on love, commitment, trust and a mutual desire to satisfy each other. Icing. Icing, as it won't be all of the relationship, but an intimate, delightful and exclusive pleasure that further binds you as one. SI or any such notions will be effectively non-existent.

You see physical love which is bourne out of the above will only make things better, deeper, stronger. Physical love in and of itself will not engender compatibility, commitment or any of the essentials for an enduring and satisfying relationship. What it will do, is leave the genders confused and at loggerheads, leave psychological scars, bring disease, lead to abortion, STD's, unwanted preganancies, unwanted children and transient relationships.

What if after ensuring SC, you meet someone, who you suspect you'd be more SC with. Someone with whom you share "mad chemisrty". Does that give you the right to leave? Chemistry/attraction as a basis, no. As a starter, yes. People change, situations change, unfortunate things happen that can alter the sexual dynamic for a period or forever. Is SI the out you were looking for. You'll probably need one if the foundation isn't right. What will keep you together?

This wasn't written for those that seek to; slake lust/natural urges? or are driven by them, hook-up, test-drive, experiment, "give-reign to their sexuality" or any other such notions. Its aimed at Christian believers for review and scrutiny in light of their understanding/beliefs. No offense.

God bless
TV

estrella:
I'm a young lady who loves God and is trying to walk with him as honestly as I can.

In truth - and if true - you are blessed and the recipient of grace. But there will be tribulations to all who desire to live godly in Christ Jesus.

estrella:
I have one problem however;

Just the one? Envious looks all round

estrella:
i feel extremely carnal when I am around my fiance!

If you mean "feel carnal" as in "physically attracted to", that is to be expected and even welcomed if he is your fiance - that is you are engaged to be married no?

If you mean "feel carnal" as in you act on those feelings, that is another matter entirely.

estrella:
we have been together for over five years now and we are talking about getitng married.

So are you, or are you not engaged? Are you what is known as boyfriend/girlfriend, engaged, or courting? As has been noted, 5 years is a long time to be in a close relationship without completion. In all but extreme cases, it would be described as folly. Are you old enough and physically and psychologically mature enough to marry? Do you understand the institution, the expectations, the roles and responsibilities, the holiness and beauty of the God-given covenant? If so and if you are agreed, please send out invites.

estrella:
We made a vow to keep ourselves till we get married

Vow or no vow, that is the expectation as a god-fearing, Christ loving Christian. Non-negotiable

estrella:
and even imposed a no kissing rule, just hugs.

Given Christian licence, I wouldn't fault that, but if you are weak and it leads into "no go" areas, then you are just settng yourself up for a fall and the consequent problems.

estrella:
however,we have broken that rule a couple of times and its mostly because we both have mad chemistry. A peck can cause as much damage as a french kiss for both of us.

The chemistry does not alter the expectation. You should not allow it or use it as an excuse to alter the dynamic. As previous, don't set yourself up.

estrella:
The thing is,when he isn't around me,Im perfectly fine.I feel like Im making progress with God,I read my bible and Im on a lovely spiritual plane.

Fortify yourself here. My experience, was this;
1. Believe abstinence whilst single is what God expects
2. Renew your mind and let this be your express will - matching His
3. Trust God for the grace to resist and to change
4. Don't take the grace of God for granted or tempt Him (yourself) by being in settings that could make you stumble
5. Persevere

estrella:
The minute he comes around,I always have to fight the urge to sleep with him.

If that is an error you have made or repeatedly made, I would suggest you go back to my point above and even before.
1. Take a long hard look at yourself and consider "do you really love God"? That doesn't mean you love singing or any other a number of other things people tranlate loving God too mean. It means;

a. Trusting
b. Believing
c commiting
d. Obeying

2. Genuinely repent and commit the issue to God. Don't make promises - you mentioned a vow earlier, no? - just ask for forgiveness and help. Cast yourself on Him and ask for mercy and grace.

estrella:
I think thoughts that shock even me when i see him and it bothers me greatly.I don't feel this way for any other person except him

What should bother you are your actions as a result of those thoughts and if you are "seeing him" in settings that are conducive to those actions being the wrong one's. Flee temptation.

estrella:
As a christian, does this make me carnal?

Christianity is a journey. And every walk is individual. Until one becomes "as He was in this world" we are to a degree carnal/immature. You said earlier this was your "one problem", its a biggie, but not for Him. Recognising the desire to act on the urge as carnal is right though. If you try and sell yourself the notion that acting on it is godly, you could exacerbate things.

estrella:
does this mean I'm not really born again? Is it wrong for me to want him the  way I do? please I need the advice of mature christians,

1. There are varying understandings and uses of of born again, suffice to say you are a believer and put your faith in Christ?
2. The desire is God given and not wrong in itself. Satisfying it out of the God given context of marital union is.
3. What you need more is a true desire to follow and grace to obey. In taking advise, please seperate the wheat from the chaff.

Apart from the vow - which is not really operative - you said little about the man in question? Is he a believer? If I were to query him on maturity, understanding etc as I did you earlier, I would question his readiness as a man to be a husband. Men are supposed to take responsibility physically and spiritually. You have said nothing to suggest he is doing that?

Apologies is my replies come across as perfunctory or harsh. I am in no way condemnin or judging you, just giving my best response to the situation as outlined. But I wouldn't wan to wink at this weither. I would hope the counsel is to a degree generic.

I wish you well in your walk and a deeper love for The Lord. And I hope you are able to regularise the relationship however it develops.

God bless
TV

JeSoul:
TV you sef you try no be small to read and respond to that epistle which was nothing more than a caveman whipping up a smoke screen  

Ai! no kidding?   I'm going to put on Arte more often now  

I sense that GODSON - despite our myriad differences - is genunely open to discussion here. I hope to engage in the same vein and hopefully we shall all be the better for it.

Hope you are well.

God bless
TV

Missed the posts immediately after my last one as I was preparing this offline. I'll hopefully outline how I see the role of pastor at some stage, but to move things along and give some insight as to my postion and convictions, I put together the following;

In order to further facilitate progress and ultimately conclusion of this discussion, permit me if you will, to state some of my own convictions. Of course these are subject to question and scrutiny in the light of scripture.

1. A congregation is to be shepherded by a plurality of suitably qualified elders. With non having the pre-eminence or being in someway elevated amongst the others.
2. The five-fold functions detailed in Ephesians 4:11 for the most part should have a finite/limited use in the life of an individual believer. They represent one aspect – mostly physical, not spiritual aspect - of Christian need and development
3. Church – as fellowship – is a part of the life of a Christian, but it is but one of many spheres of life, not the most important and the others are in no way subject to it.
4. Your Christian faith, beliefs and worldview should of course colour and drive all your actions.
5. Aggregating 3. and 4. above, please note “church” as fellowship is not the full articulation of the Christian life or the sum total of it. In extreme’s may not actually be a part of that life and in any event, can take forms other than that generally espoused by CRG’ today.
6. The word rendered pastor in the bible is synonymous with elder, bishop, episcopas, presbyter, shepherd etc

Of blueprints & patterns;

In the NT narrative, God gave a blueprint for Christian fellowship. The apostles – most notably Paul – were charged with rolling out and fully disseminating this blueprint for church. This work was foundational. Not to be and not required to be endlessly repeated. Once rolled out, the church would be self-propagating. Akin in some ways to the creational seeding and the subsequent “after its kind” propagation.

The apostolic in terms of what Paul et al were doing, in terms of rolling out the pattern, is no longer required. That job is done. In reading the scriptural narrative, we must align, function, role, and above all context.

So when Paul wrote to Timothy at Ephesus? and exhorted him to “raise suitably qualified elders”, that was so the church there could be fully functional and stand alone. He was writing as an apostle (master builder), to Timothy (helping build). He was not writing to Timothy as a sole authority regional pastor developing a network of overseen churches.

Wherever Paul rolled out the blueprint of church it was the same. Raise up suitably qualified elders and move on. In writing to these same churches, he always addressed the elders/shepherds/bishops in plurality. The blueprint did not give leave to a SAP.

I’d love to go on and explore this further. The why, what, when and the how. Also happy to expatiate on and  substantiate from scripture my own convictions

GODSON2009, you must be amazed at how fast I’m growing  !

God bless
TV

GODSON2009 said;
just like your friend,you skillfully side step issues you dont have answers to and then pick and chose that which will score you the most cheap points, irrespective of whatever you say at this point the fact that "a pastor"is reffered to in the nt has proven that they have a specific role to play

TV01’ response;
Agree. There is a function which can be referred to as pastor and they do have a role to play (notice how I ignore your sly invective and stick firmly to the question at hand )

GODSON2009 said;
in the absence of a bible verse showing that role a dictionary is a proper source to use in defining the role of a pastor seeing as it has a basis in the bible.

TV01’ response;
Disagree. Why? As follows;

1. Primarily because there is no absence of “bible verses” detailing what a pastor is, what a pastor does, specifics , detail and limits. Your not seeing or accepting that,  in no way changes it.
2. If the bible is silent on what a pastor does, how does your personal conviction  or preferred practice in any way become binding on other believers. Or why is anyone compelled to follow the norm or accepted practise.
3. A dictionary does not “define”. What a dictionary does is “describes”. Further, it describes based on current usage –although it may refer to meanings from antiquity – not necessarily on original meaning. The scripture is complete, do you assert otherwise?

GODSON2009 said;
you cant quibble it with me cause i have backed up my assertion with biblical evidence namely the bible verse where the pastor was mentioned as part of the leadership

TV01’ response;
Disagree. Why? As follows;

1. I glad you used the word “assertion”, unfortunately you have in no way “backed it up with evidence”. Indeed, you contradict yourself, as you also asserted that the bible is absent of verses outlining the role of a pastor.
2. The pastor was mentioned of one of 5 functional/enabling roles. So as not to digress, I will not get all expansive regards “leadership”, but the Bible also outlines specifics and limits to these function. A dictionary is not required.

GODSON2009 said;
as for explaining i dont need to as the world wide congregation of christians has done that for me why dont you show me a church where they have five leaders as co leaders leading thew church with equal powers?

TV01’ response;
Again, the completeness of scripture is not validated by CRG practice, rather CRG practice should be scrutinised in light of scripture. I don’t need to show you a church as outlined, as that is your warped interpretation of my view. All I need to do is show the blueprint outlined in the scriptural narrative. And this I will endeavour to do, grace and time permitting (note how I slipped in a little piety for effect at the end there !)

GODSON2009 said;
you see why i have accused you of not being objective and jumping in?? even your friend/boss or leader will tell you that i have quoted the same ephesians 4;11 in my earlier comments,you can simply backtrack and you will see the comment but you had to show off that you knew ephesians 4 ;11   your leader must be soo proud of you for embarassing yopurself in your haste to show me up, in other words do i take it that you and your mentor dont have any role for the pastor in the church??

TV01’ response;
Abeg, pele 0, e ma binu sir! Sowwy!

GODSON2009 said;
dont mind me o,im just trying to clarify seeing as its a nigerian sickness if you dont get their proper titles right,they get angry

TV01’ response;
Indded your obsession with “constituted authority” – which is really thinly veiled veneration of persons – is much more likely to engender that particular sickness – Nigeria or elsewhere – I have never resorted to entitling myself as leader,  GO, Cardinal, Spiritual Father, Mummy in Israel, Pastor to Pastors or my personal fave - Prophetess to the nations etc, etc, which all obtain in the CRG’s you revere. Having said that, henceforth, kindly address me as Elder TV!

GODSON2009 said;
in cutting through your preamble,are you now saying that all churches as presently constituted are at variance with  the scriptures? also your comments and its understanding are nebulous,so i ll really appreciate some clarifications,what has catholic congregation got to do with redeemed??

TV01’ response;
Empiricaly? No I am not. What I am saying is view how one and all are constituted in light of scripture. Clarification enough?

GODSON2009 said;
sire,im appaled at your crass naivety i dont worship a pastor or any human being,but i give respect to every constituted authority

TV01’ response;
Will you fall off that “constituted authority” horse already? I mean scap that! It makes you sound like a “follow follow”

GODSON2009 said;
i am eargerly awaiting your religious convictions because so far all you have done is pick up from where your friend left off,side stepping direct questions while answering my questions with more questions in a typical naija manner,thanking you in advance and have a nice day as well  shalom

TV01’ response;
The discourse will ultimately reveal who is “side-stepping”. I have asked you just the one question so far, which you failed to answer or justify scripturally. I am anything but “typical Naija”, but won’t belabour the point if you choose to label me as such. I will stick to the points in question. Oya, bo si ile ka ja !

God bless
TV

GODSON2009:
i have not come across where the nt catalogues the specific job of a pastor

But at the very least, your "personal conviction" is that "A/The Pastor"is the head of the local church/congregation/body of believers. No? Can you find anything scriptural to back that up?

GODSON2009:
however i have come across the biblical section where the pastor is reffered amongst four others as needed for the nuturing and growth of the church,therefore the pastor evidently has a role to play or they would not have been included in the five fold

I won't quibble "the pastor/al" certainly has a role to play. Please explain why your convictions suggest that role includes headship in the absence of any biblcal outline to that effect. It is your conviction right?

GODSON2009:
it would have been four fold, like i retorted to your friend/boss or mentor's comment because i v not found the specific place in the bible i looked for and posted the dictionary meaning of the word"pastor"

Ephesians 4:11 was difficult for you to find? Even a pre-schooler like me can reel that off. I may be a kindegartner, but I can see how by reading the NT thoroughly and approaching the scriptural narrative without bias exactly what a pastors role is, what its aims are and what its limits should be.

^{and if na paddy, oga or guru nko. Wish one concain you sef ?}

GODSON2009:
in adittion,the overwhelming evidence supports my assertion as can be seen in the constitution of every single church or christian religious group all over the world where pastor are always the head of the parish/church, ill conbtinue with this later as i need to work

And if we see that the construction of every single church or christian religious group is at variance with the scriptures (let us not even discuss recause to the Holy Spirit yet), who does one follow?  What CRG' - thanks for the acronym by the way, good to see your acada is not completely wasted - do or do not do is not evidence in support of scripture. Before the advent of the Redeemed, there were a billion Catholics. Surely  - according to your lofty scholarship - evidence enough that the few million redeemers are sorely misguided?

Come? what was your result in pastor worship 101 ?

Enjoy work sir - see as respec full ground 0! - Hopefully we can continue this soon. I'll endeavour to progress things by submitting a few of my convictions to the scrutiny of your academic rigour.

God bless
TV

GODSON2009:
hello mr president of supporters club and cheerleader

Loyalty is a rare thing these days. Not to be confused with the slavish devotion those of your ilk typically demonstrate.

GODSON2009:
due to my personal religious convictions

Sorry to burst your bubble buddy, but you are 100% corn-fed religionist. Ain't nuthin' "personal" about your convictions.

GODSON2009:
if simple english comprehension is a massive issue with you,

You really shouldn't have gone there, but I'll let that one slide while I expose your unclothedness on bigger issues.

GODSON2009:
read comments and address them objectively, internet gangster i9m quaking my boots already lol

I'll take you up on that shall I? Ok lets go - I am yet to meet a Redeemer who could do more than shout "touch not" when the heat is on - Oya, Mr. Self proclaimed academic, since I'm the infant here, I'm sure you'll allow me to pose the first question?

1. Please detail what according to the scriptures - NT  - the remit of a "pastor" is. If your acada stretches that far, please also show from the scriptural narrative where a single pastor heads a congregation or body of believers. Being aware of my precarious grasp of her Majestys English, could we make that grammatically simple please  . If you can, I am transitioning to a 100% maize diet with immediate effect and will almost certainly commence tithing shortly afterwards !


God bless
TV

JeSoul:
Lol, nuthin mischievious. This ID was unrighteously suspended by the "sophisticated" spambot for posting "spam" . . . perhaps my post was too "organized" and hence looked like spam? lol I dunno. After a week and no response from the mods I decided to open a new acct as some juicy topics such as this were too good to sleep on 

Good to hear. And welcome back.

JeSoul:
and yeah I deliberately spoke like a "seasoned" NLder in the few posts I've made so that people might get some hint who it was. I did enjoy my 2 days as Arté . This ID just got liberated with an apology so I am back to normal.
Lol, me i no fit fight oh, so na the only tool i sabi use I employ
Lol  I'm glad someone else was noticing how he has been tripping all over himself. Hehe.

I percieved Arté to be a good 'un, but I've learnt to ally patience wth my discernment. The way you launched in without breaking stride suggested you were not new to NL. I certainly didn't twig. If anything, with hindsight, I would say you were slightly more commanding 

JeSoul:
Godson,
    where is the scripture that says "the pastor is the spiritual father and head of the church"? 

You will wait so tay for that one 0!. Hmmmm!


God bless
TV

yinx007:
I'm a plus size

Is losing weight an option ?

[quote author=Arté link=topic=397372.msg5509694#msg5509694 date=1266096019]Gbam left, right and center

Which is why I have repeatedly asked godson to show us his scripture where the pastor is the head of the church. Of course he can't cos no such verse exists. All these man-made doctrines enslaving people . . .

_{TV look behind the facade of the new id and see a very huge fan of yours. Hint beantown} [/quote]Hey you! Hows things? Hope alls well. I knew straight off Arté was not a new poster, but can't say I was anywhere near to figuring it was you. 'Sup with that? Hope all is well?.

Love the way you've let GODSON2009 talk his way into a corner and neatly parried side attacks at the same time. Kudos.

See the way he mashed up apostleship, shepherding  and then tried to introduce "dictionary definitions". The reply was so disjointed, if I hadn't been quoted, I would have thought he was addressing someone else. Religious minions, turning up for gunfights with water pistols . Its no fun anymore.

God bless
TV

_{Warning - I couldn't procure a Valentine' date for love or money, so I'm taking my ire out on religionists, monetizers, haemaphrodites or any other purveyor of nonsense  that strays into my path!}

@ OP a few points

1. There is no such thing as "The Pastor". Suggesting that one man - shepherding is not open to females - runs/heads/leads a congregation.
2. Congregations are shepherded by a "plurality" of suitably qualified elders - I'm referring to the norm here, not exceptional circumstances.
3. Marriage is between families, as the bible makes clear. Church involvement is not essential, although permitted and possibly useful.
4. There is only one Head of the Church - the body- The Lord Jesus Christ blasphemers please take note.
5. Church - the gathering of believers - is but  part of the Christian existence and the authority of church should be mostly limited to the fellowship. 6. Your Christian faith of course, should drive, colour, and motivate all spheres of your life.

woye77:
a lot of churches and pastors believe this should be the norm - pray, then speak to d pastor and pastor speaks to lady on your behalf - what do you think?

Religious organisations and their officers can enact whatever laws they deem fit. If you don't like it don't join or pay their subscriptions.

Come? Do they go as far as suggesting frequency and position? Its only that some of these organisations are run by very old, very staid people?

davidylan:
lol its just a little weird, this thread is chockfull of your own assumed self-importance.

Abi 0! It took me all of one post to figure that out.

Mavenb0x:
As much as this will shock some of you, and may not even surprise a possibly greater number, I am MALE.

He, she or it, no surprise I always had you down as a dickhead!

Mavenb0x:
I have quite a following on facebook.

Please do yourself a favour and piss off back there. If you remain here you’ll forever carry the stench of the thoroughly discredited like lady-boy Pilgrim.1/Viaro.

Mavenb0x:
I tried to quit NL in December but many people implored me to stay.

I blame these butt-wipes. I also doubt they actually exist. Popular on Nairaland indeed! Another one whose presence provided mostly nuisance value and mistook volume/lenght of output with acclaim. Why on earth does this section draw those of doubtful provenance?

Mavenb0x:
Thanks for the audience.

Not just self-important, but also delusional. Abeg, comot!


^{Oya, take your beating like a man – but then again!}

viaro:
The one I pity most is TV01.

Pilly! Pilly!! Pilly!!! This is the second time today you are taking my name in vain. The first time you co-opted my moniker to buttress you deceit about "spiritual principles". Sladerously implying that I considered tithing a "principle". Its not and I don't. Tithing is a practice, which doctrinally has pretty much zero relevence in Christian life. Practically, some may find it useful in a purely religious sense, but the mature and/or Spirit-led will really just scratch head at the notion.

The only other concession I will give is to the sovereignty of God. He does as He pleases and could indeed ask one of His own to tithe. Once, occassionally, for a period. He is sovreign. But that would not constitute a body-wide re-institution of tithing - unless of course He asked it of each and every believer, and even then it wouldn't be doctrine - that would be to contra.indicate scripture. See me bending over backwards to help you cover your unclothedness . Please don't take this and run dat your mouth in contrarily fashion 0! . Nonsense & ingredient!

Now to principles, these are essentially derivatives of love. Loving God and your fellow man. Love does no harm to a neighbour. Indeed it makes you willing to act sacrificially on his/her behalf. It means you will render fair justice (equity, judgement), be merciful and have faith in them even in the face of the most appalling behaviour.

Its on that count that  I have relented this once and address you directly. As while you have totally discredited yourself and been glaringly exposed thereto - A Pilly word   - having to re-incarnate as Viaro to cover your shame - and unfortunately continue your falsehood - I wish you well and can still remember that your presence and contributions were in many regards a blessing to many. Why reduce youself to adding only nuisance value? I have long harboured deep suspicions about your motivation and spiritual provenance. Please prove me wrong.

As ever God bless
TV


^{Now, has anyone figured out the alias "Traugott", or do I have to do everything around here  !}

For the avoidance of doubt and to clarify some of the deceitful sleight of hand labelling that some insist on employing let me state simply as follows;

1. Tithing under the law has been abolished along with the law of which it was part.
2. There is nothing to suggest that Abrahams tithe to Melchizidek constituted a practice - mandatory or otherwise that Christians are to follow.
3. Tithing as a notion is superceeded by the Christian imperative of needs based or Spirit-led giving
4. If anyone wishes to tithe or is led to do so, no problem, but there is no "Body binding" tithe.
5. There are no tithe specific blessings that are withheld from those who simply give, nor curses for non-tithers.

The principles and spirit of Gods laws are eternal and unchanging. The way of fulfilling their demands is not and has. Please note point one above. Justice, mercy and faith will always be in view, however Gods righteous requirements are spelt out or satisfied.

Does that mean that the "weightier matters" are indivisable from the way of fulfilment given in previous dispensations as some claim in order to imply that The Lord taught tithing? No. Hebrews 7 clearly shows the annulling of "written-law" based righteousness. However the principles and spirit  behind them remain, there's just a more excellent, more glorious way of fulfilling them.

So there you have it. The headline news about tithing in a few short and simple sentences. With no need for multiple id's, lying in Hebrew, foul mothed vituperation, co-opting some religious leaders & theologians and castigating others. No dissertations, treatises, tomes or lengthy turgid pieces of discourse that will make you feel like chewing your own tongue, which you'd pay not to have to read them - which is really what they are after .

Monetizers, religionists oya !

God bless
TV

Hi @ Zikky,

I am a bit confused by this talk on levi paying tithe to melchizedek. My understanding of such talk here would amount to saying Zikkyy  is a tither because his grandfather paid tithe. Maybe you need to educate me more cos I don’t think that is the message being passed across by Paul here. I think the emphasis here is on the superiority of Christ priesthood over the levitical priesthood (this I have seen in your posts and agree with) and not tithing. Hope you will be able to take some time out to educate me on how verse 8 shows“continuity” to tithing.

I agree. The emphasis is on priesthood. Specifically the superiority of Melchizedeks over the Aaronic/Levitical. The paying of tithe by Levi via Abraham was to underline this. Verse 7, the lesser is blessed by the better.

The lesser Aaronic/Levitical type and the law that undergirded it including mandatory tithing has been done away with as it made no one perfect and crucially did not engender intimacy with God  - which is  the whole point.

Verse 8. Here - under the law/Levitical priesthood/Judaism - mortal men recieve tithes, but there he - Melchizedek - recieved them of whom it is witnessed that he lives.

Now, is that saying that as the High Priesthood of Christ is after the type of Melchizedeks, therefore Christ recieves - or indeed requires or needs - a tithe from believers now? Or need/requirement apart, is there some other  significance? In annuling the old law was a new one introduced that encouraged or mandated tithing? Since the Levites forward tithed a tithe of the tithe they recieved to the High Priest, how would we, a nation of priests forward tithe to The Lord under this new law/commandment/dispensation? And what is it to be used for? And by whom?

In my opinion, based on what I believe scripture teaches, no. But if anyone differs no problem. And if anyone can make bold to show differently I am happy to engage. Indeed if it can be shown simply and conclusively that I am in error, I am happy to repent, recant and renounce my position.

I seek truth, not my own, I have no vested interet and nothing to defend.

God bless
TV

Hi TV01

Long time no greet!!

You know you are going to cop some of the abuse in a minute.

Anyway, you've always been thicker skinned than me!

Great post though and reflects my underlying thinking and indeed my reason for persevering on this topic over time.

God bless you, my brother.

Salute Enigma, I trust you are well and once more, appreciation for your unflagging focus in your efforts here. As you can see, you were somewhat generous in your estimation of time . Knowing the reality of Christian witness, I am not unaware of what to expect.

As ever, I have no doubt that God will reveal His truth in Christ to those that truly seek Him.

God bless
TV

KunOsh, Enigma, et al, greetings and great work.

In your sincerity, you may well believe this discussion is merely about the truth of tithing as a Christian practice in regards to it is mandatory or not. Please be mindful that is not the aim of those who are ever so subtly championing the practice.

Their aim is to keep it in view, ensure that it remains out there as a notion that Christians ascribe too, on any basis, under whatever terms.
At one point or another, they have claimed that it is not based on the law and prophets, not necessarily 10% and not mandatory - essentially ending the debate right there - but they care little about scriptural or moral backing for tithing. They just want to ensure there is modicum of doubt as to its validity and ensure that it remains afloat in believers minds.

They will seek to tire you on the minor, the inconsequential, or artfully employ as Enigma put it, "Semantic Pedantry". Note the lengthy discourse on "honouring God", based on Malachi 3, but never once discrediting Malachi 3 as a reason for Christians to tithe - which was the thinking of the original posters reference to that portion of scripture. Or skipping around “abolished” or not abolished. Don’t be fooled by talk of “non-tithers, “anti-tithers”, “pro-tithers” or observers. Whatever it takes to keep it out there.  

Note the cry that "it’s a lie that Jesus did not teach tithing", knowing very well that it was to those under the law, referring to produce and not money and was not intended as a blueprint for Christians. They are not seriously or honestly discussing, just keeping it in view, seeding doubt.

They will continue to use it interchangeably or lump it as one with “freewill giving”. They will ally this with their attempts to spiritualise it in reference to Abrahams one off tithe to Melchizedek, which was in its essence to demonstrate the superiority of the Melchizedek priesthood over the Levitical, not to presage tithing as a worship form for Christians. They will mix in anecdotal testimonies of the benefits of tithing – seemingly different to the blessings of freewill giving – they are deepening the impression, if not the understanding.

In all the aim is to enable the practice to be retained whilst transitioning it from a "mandatory" to a seemingly "freewill" practice, thus ensuring their control and source of filthy lucre remains intact.

There is a practice whereby animals are chained or tethered within a limited locutory ambit. After a while, when unchained, they still will not move outside this ambit. They are keeping it in view, ensuring it stays afloat.

What they won’t do is permit the discussion to venture on to broader theme’s around tithing and money in the body of Christ. To do that would pose too great a risk to their control and source of filthy lucre. As it would also expose many other “commandments of men” that pervade what many mistake for Christianity these days.

Note the introductions as such things as the clergy/laity split, or notions of upkeep for “leaders”, again non-Christian. The tithe underpins the whole thing, if that goes it all collapses.

Like the missing president saga, be it a case of death, coma, or incapacitation to a degree that renders him physically unfit for office, the cabal behind the throne realise that as long as no one has sight of his true condition just calling him president, will be enough for many to continue to believe that he is and refer to him as such, regardless of the constitutional imperative about length of absence, handover and succession.
Spiritual deception is real and the physical outworking of this deceit ever more fluid. Please keep contending for the faith.

God bless
TV

Joagbaje:
There are different levels of truth in God. There are lesser truths and higher truth.

Really

Joagbaje:
In primary school, 1 minus 2 is imposible but in secondary school ,1 minus 2 has an answer which is -2.

For posterity' sake you understand ?

Joagbaje:
So you must have faith in the finished work of christ that you have an inheritance. You draw ffrom your heavely account with your mouth rcognising you are blessed already,God knows your need and has mad provisions for all your needs. You call forth what you need. " i receive my car this year  in the name of Jesu"  You Thank God For them " Father I thank you,I have my admission in Jesus name" etc.¦

Just taking notes here ;

Maturity => Access to heavenly bank account with physical withdrawals.
ATM Card => the mouth
Pin # => In Jesus name.

At OP

estrella:
Hi folks! I would really appreciate it if the bone crushing Christians in the House help me with this issue.I've always been the independent kind of girl who would rather die than to ask anyone for money.When i became born again,I noticed that it spilled over into my walk with God.I would heistate about asking him for money because I was always afraid that he would let me down.I pay my tithes and give offerings but i also try as much as possible to have a littel cash so i wont have to ask him.
Is it unchristian to ask God for a certain amount of money when you don't have it? Like if you were dead broke and you asked God for a certain amount by a certain day and you didn't get it,what are the factors that would have caused the delay in your prayer? Is there a process involved in asking him for money? I'm at a point where I want to trust him with all including my finances and I want to get it right, when it comes to money and God,what is the christian way to do things?

The Lord will supply the needs of his children. Notice my emphasis on need. So if you need food, the supply may be a meal, not necessarily cash for a burger. How He does or will do this may not be clear to you. Your aim should be to know God and walk in His will for you as an individual - easier said than done I know - but the true way to perfect peace aboout such things.

Oft times what we desire is driven by our own desires - however righteous they may appear - and not necessarily Gods will. Also one thing many fail to realise is that Gods express will is to bring us to maturity, which may at times mean withholding, denial or scourging. The Christian walk is not a gauranteed bed of roses or satisfaction of every wish.

Hope this helps. Be encouraged

God bless
TV

Pastor AIO, good evening,

Thanks for your post below. It both encouraged and enlightened. I pray you reap as you have sown this day.

The "monetizers" it seems will always be with us. There is seemingly no quit in them. As it suits them they spiritualise their position, imprecate, employ legalism, twist scripture, employ outright deceit - especially when it comes to the languages of antiquity - and at times bring weighty intellucts to bear.

Tragically reducing the reward of eternal life in Christ and intimacy with God to a physical, temporal, debt instrument

I repeat, there are only two reasons to preach - in any guise - mandatory giving to Christians as divine writ; because you are either 1. mischevious or 2. misguided.

And for the sake of those who fall under 2. above, I thank everyone for their perseverance, ask that the discussion be kept about issues and not people and remember that many are being strengthened in their walks. Spiritual deception is real!


Gods truth in Christ Jesus will out.

Pastor AIO:
Why shouldn't I expose my lack of understanding, if indeed I lack understanding? After all how else will I learn unless it is evident that I need to learn. Menh, don't gag me. Let me talk and if in talking it turns out that I lack knowledge and subsequently acquire the required knowledge then isn't that a good thing. Unlike you, I don't claim superior knowledge to anybody, but I know what I know.

But I know why you said what you said. You are trying to claim superiority to me. and having done so you hope to gag me from speaking my mind at all. Well I'm afraid it won't work. I am not impressed by you and your shenanigans and I will always state what I believe. And right now I believe that you are an hoax.


Actually, "Mr superior knowledge" what the bible says is He who [b]LIVES [/b]by the sword shall die by the sword. But that apart, you actually have a point and now we're getting to the crux of the giving and receiving matter.

What is sown is not the gifts (whether of money or otherwise) but something altogether more subtle. The spirit with which the gift is given. If I give money solely for the reason that I want to receive money in return than what I'll reap is that manipulative spirit with which I sowed in the first place.

However if I give out of compassion, no matter how much, then what I will reap is the compassion. I'll be repaid by compassion in my dealing with others. The attitude and the spirit in which an act is done is what goes forth and then returns to the actor in multifold.

If I give money in church so that God can smite my enemies, then that wicked intention will manifest against me in my life.

If I give money in church so that my business can profit better then I'll possibly find that my employees do not care for my business but rather are only there for what money they can make out of it. Their level of commitment will be low. Subsequently, my business will do badly.

If I am a thief and I tithe of my earnings because I believe that that way God will help secure my ill-gotten gains, I'll might find that those gains will sooner or later be appropriated by another thief in as callous a way as I acquired it.

Yes, but what is of the essence is not the material aspect of giving but the spirit of the giving. Very true that God hates a grudging giver. He also hates a hateful giver, and a covetous giver, and a greedy giver. He loves the Joyful giver, the loving giver, the truthful giver.

God bless
TV

Pastor Bakare's

Prophetic Blunders

By Ihechukwu Njoku

I feel obliged to write this piece based on an article I read in ‘The Nation’, entitled ‘I was wrong about Yar’Adua, says Bakare’ (Monday 25th January 2010). The title says it all I guess. On the waves of several public demonstrations and passionate calls for Yar’Adua’s resignation and handover of power with Latter Rain’s Pastor Tunde Bakare at the forefront, it is pertinent to remember that the same Bakare had proclaimed Yar’Adua as Nigeria’s coming messiah upon his crooked assumption to office in the ridicule we called an election of 2007. “We have been ruled by base men, but now a servant-leader has arisen,” declared Bakare of Yar’Adua. “I have fought every leader since 1979, but now I will stand and watch over the president, that no evil shall befall him. I can’t stop blessing him, because I believe God has prepared him for the good of the nation.” The tune has now changed. “I deceived myself and I shouldn’t blame anyone,” Pastor Bakare is quoted to have said in his church on Sunday 24th January 2010. “When they brought Umaru, I danced here before you. You know I prayed for this man; you were here… We sang because they said he did not steal from where he was coming. That he left so much billions behind. I got excited. I said wonderful. I was not thinking well. The best of men are still men at the very best. It is better for me to admit – I was not thinking well… They didn’t put all the cards on the table for us. I danced useless dance, I have taken my dance back. Even my prayer I’ve withdrawn it… I was wrong. I’m only human.”



With the admission that such opinion presented in the guise of divine proclamation was formed purely from hearsay and incoherent reports, it casts a deep and worrisome aspersion on the other words the man has purportedly revealed from the Almighty. Don’t get me wrong or misunderstand this to be a blind vendetta mission. I respect and admire Pastor Bakare’s fiery stand against corruption, injustice and hypocrisy in our land, a belief I share whole-heartedly with him – but there is a huge difference between the words of a zealous activist and an anointed prophet. My problem is not in advocating your stand, but in using God’s name to present these personal opinions under the appellation of sovereign prophecy, confusing and misdirecting many followers in the process. God cannot lie, is not induced or influenced by current conditions nor does He change His mind at whim. As The Sun’s Femi Adesina said on the issue, “Tunde Bakare, the man, has a right to take a position on the state of the nation. It is his fundamental and constitutional right. He can go back and forth on any issue for as many times as he likes, it is his inalienable right. But can Tunde Bakare, the prophet, do the same? No. That is incompatible with the office of a prophet. Prophets hear from God, and deliver the messages to we lesser mortals for guidance and instruction. And because God watches over His words to perform it, such words are not frivolous, not flippant, not something you take with levity.”



It is also of note to remember that in 1999 Bakare said he ‘eavesdropped’ on a conversation in the heavenly realms regarding Nigeria where Jesus Himself had said, “Obasanjo is not your messiah. He is King Agag and the prophetic axe will fall upon his head before May 29.’ ” If we held his words sacrosanct, it would appear as though the Lord had erred. Good intentions, inspiring sermons and noble principles aside, the scriptural standard is very clear on this issue: “You may say to yourselves, "How can we know when a message has not been spoken by the LORD ?" If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the LORD does not take place or come true, that is a message the LORD has not spoken. That prophet has spoken presumptuously. Do not be afraid of him.” (Deuteronomy 18:21-22) Durability, consistency and accuracy confirm the words of a true prophet. It has nothing whatsoever to do with preaching prowess or political persuasion. A prophet is a communicator between the seen and unseen, the visible and invisible. Declarations ending with ‘Thus saith the Lord’ leave no room for even the most miniscule of errors. When such appears, it merely points to the fact that they were of human origin from the very onset.

Joagbaje:
Must they be poor like you to serve Jesus. If the faith they teach work for others why wont it work for them.

2 Cor. 8:9
For ye know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that, though he was rich, yet for your sakes he became poor, that ye through his poverty might be rich.

I said redeemable, but surely it will take divine intervention? Spiritual deception is real. May The Lord deliver us all.

For you to wrest the meaning you are alluding out of this scipture, you have to be totally ignorant, utterly decieved or an unabashed servant of Mammon.

~ If it was for physical riches, then He didn't die for the rich
~ If it was for physical riches, then He needn't have died as the gold and the silver are His.

No matter how rich people become unless the riches are absolutely evenly spread, there will always be some who are relatively poor. And the worlds system means that inflation and purchasing power will shift accordingly, not to mention there will always be those, who by one way or another, differentiate themselves in terms of wealth. The system we labour under will also ensure the disparity will always exist. Until His kingdom comes in its fullness.

"The poor" He said "will always be with us". Physical wealth has no bearing  on one's walk with God, but a love of money and covetoussness certainly do.

I beg whoever subscribes to this kind of notion to rethink. Eternity is in view.

God bless
TV

Joagbaje:
This is a demonstration of your miopic knowledge of scripture and the church. The church is not a charity organisation. Whatever the church does is for the purpose of the gospel . charity may be involved. The CHurch calling is to witnes to people the saving grace of Jesus .

As wrong as I believe you are in you conviction and zeal regards the legalistic, OT derived mandatory tithing doctrine, the consequent misunderstanding and hence misapplication of prosperity and wealty to be physical and here an now, your obvious and quite tragic veneration of self-styled MOGS, you are actuall pretty much on point here. I thank God that nobody is beyond His reach, no one is utterly irredeemable.

Pastor AIO:
Kai, if only the taxman could see this. So all those churches that are registered as charities are just lying in order to evade tax. No wonder they came down hard on Ashimolowo. Please go on talking my guy, we are collecting evidence.

@ Pastor AIO, how far? we are thrashing that very point, at this very point on another thread. I have always insisted that regardless of the rights and wrongs of that case, giving the state authority to intervene in church affairs - other than on general point of law - is nothing less than spiritual adultery. Forget the taxman, he knows the score. Those that serve mammon, they will do anything for a few shekels.

God bless
TV

JeSoul:
These quotes TV I found most worthy of being highlighted: I guess when it comes down to the nitty gritty state involvement really isn't about just accountability or oversight, we christians know who really runs the state and not to acknowledge that their ultimate aim is to prevail against the church would be being spiritually shortsighted. You're right TV.

I'm a bit skeptical of that assertion - it doesn't hold true at all times. When the Spirit of the anti-Christ takes over (Now that opens another debate - has it or hasn't it?) then the ultimate aim of the state will be to prevail against the church.

A whole new debate indeed. Again we are agreeing in what, but differing on how. Will it be a "flip of a switch" takeover, or a gradual shift in societal perception, mores, morals, values laws and then like play, like play. The anti-Christ is already in the world. Is it a question of waiting for an opportune moment then striking, or grdually setting the stage? Is the enemy just idling around twiddling his thumbs? or working largely unseen through kingdoms and "false religion" which he both controls?

However, in many jurisdictions today, in certain areas - protection of the family, and improving social conditions of the down trodden - both central church goals are identical with the aims of the state. In that regard, the state even looks up to the church for leadership in these areas.

I could pen a rebuttal to each of these aims for both the state and what obtains in most (mostly false) churches. But not to digress or derail

It has been very beneficial reading both JeSoul and TV01's viewpoints - we enrich each other.

At last. Total agreement !

God bless
TV

debosky:
The mentions of Babylon and the LovePeddler are references to a world system, not the state or government per se - the endless desire for material gain, for 'progress' and the like, not the state which often is acting contrary to those forces.

The beginnings of an answer to my earlier question. Again, I do not see that we that far removed. Allow me to be somewhat pre-emptive and say that Babylon and the LovePeddler (or The Beast and the LovePeddler) to me represent the state and "false religion" respectively. I also feel they will ultimately ally to persecute the true church. A thought just came into my head, "all the worlds authority is pretty much political or religious (and say some corporate muscle)".

The kingdoms of this world are the evil ones to give and under his control. No matter how benign or even "church-friendly" a state or government might appear, we mustn't lose sight of that.

debosky:
While I fully agree that being unequally yoked is completely reprehensible, it now depends on where this 'authority' emanates from. If I, as both a Christian and a taxpayer request my tax funds to be given to my church, I cannot regard my money given directly to the church and my money given through the state as being materially different, as they both originate from me.

That is where I feel we differ fundamentally.

As a Christian and a taxpayer, your taxes go to the state, as the should. Render unto Ceeasar. For the church to take advantage of any refunds, they have to place themselves  under the states jurisdiction. If it could be accomplished without the subjection, I'd have no problem with it. So a part emanates from you unconditionally and a part emanates from you via the state with conditions that make the church obligated to the state (I'm not blaming you 0! )


tbc

Hi debosky and thread,

debosky:
where we disagree is on the role of the state as it were.

Narrowing it down to the states relationship with the church, my position is that the state has no role. Seperation. Even where there stated aims are the same, the motivation and often the means will almost certainly be different.

debosky:
In my view, it is the 'world system' (in which the state may or may not be the prime player).

May I ask what in your view are the main elements or who are the main players in the "world system"? As we both acknowledge it exists, there may ultimately be some convergence in our positions.

debosky:
the government in the sense of seeking probity and accountability.

The church does not need the government to ensure probity within it. When the Lord says He is coming for a bride without spot, blemish or wrinkle and that he will build His church (His bride), I don't believe there was anything to indicate He would use the state to ensure her chastity or moral/spiritual purity.

Indeed, the government is unable to truly do so, as its idea of what probity is differs from the churchs and like I mentioned earlier, whilst the aims may seem identical, motivation and means will differ.


tbc

sonate:
is it necessary for one to go to church to know God intimately?

Absolutely not.

sonate:
with the way churches are this day

You seeking to know God will almost certainly be hindered or compromised by a good many of them.
But if you put your faith & trust in Him, set your heart and desire on Him, you'll get there, as He will draw you to Himself.

sonate:
If so which one do you recommend

Pastor AIO:
I recommend fellowship with other like minded christians. Praying with them and breaking bread with them. Even if there are only 3 of you.

sonate:
and why

It will be a simple gathering consisting of those seeking God and earnestly doing so. Please do try to keep the religious and anything other than pure undefiled religion at bay.

May The Lord grant the righteous desire of your heart.

God bless
TV

JeSoul:
TV and Debosky, very good convo guys. I've picked up a thing or two.

These quotes TV I found most worthy of being highlighted: I guess when it comes down to the nitty gritty state involvement really isn't about just accountability or oversight, we christians know who really runs the state and not to acknowledge that their ultimate aim is to prevail against the church would be being spiritually shortsighted. You're right TV.

Debosky, you make very very good points. I am however afraid you haven't truly attacked it from the spiritual angle as TV hinted in his last post.

The scriptures are deep. Some of the theme's, the nuances, the subtleties once unlocked will truly astound. If you want a plot, if its a storyline you are after, where else you gon' go?

Sometimes you catch a narrative within the narrative and its so crystal clear you think "surely everyone can see this? Sometimes its by revelation, sometimes by knowledge, by understanding, by teaching, even by chance - perhaps? You read, study, search, pray, listen. But when you hear, its simply chilling, when you understand its like wow!

One that runs throught the scriptural writ is the "Bride and the LovePeddler". Its told and retold and is at once ever unfolding. It runs from Genesis to Revelations, it is truly an epic. And I'm pretty convinced I still only see it in part.

"Oh - he cried- the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and His ways past finding out!"

God bless
TV

JeSoul:
TV, I think a thread for you is a-coming somewhere in the Travel section, I will keep ya posted

Travel section ke? Nairaland has one ! I need to get out the Religion board more. Geek me, lol! Please lemme know.

A gathering of individuals cannot but be under the state in some shape or form - churches are permitted by the state, while other groupings are not, so I don't know if you can avoid being subject to the state in that regard.

I diasgree. And that is anathema to the whole nature of church. Church is not somewhere we go, it is what we are by virtue of our faith. That does not make us subject to anyone or anything other than Him. When it loses its essence and morphs into a religious organisation or a legally incorporated company or a charity, then, oh dear, then.

Not quite - for a while that was true, but the church was effectively promoted when it became the official Roman belief system. There should be clear demarcations and the use of tax returns or any other income (originating from the individual in the end) MUST be managed properly to avoid undue scrutiny from the state, whether friendly or malevolent.

Type II outlined earlier. A state sponsored, neutered church. Not His.

When the believers "had all things in common", what would have been, should have been the states role? In the instance of Ananias and Sapphira, how should the state have intervened to a) judge what they did and b) judge the Holy Spirits sanction?

Debosky its been good discussing this and I don't want to adopt the "spiritualisation" ploy loved by many, but there are real spiritual overtones here. But they also translate practically.

Thanks again.

God bless
TV

I agree, so is ensuring that tax revenue to which all citizens contribute continues to be used in the most judicious way possible - that involves not causing offence.

Not at the expense of - potential and legal - state intervention.

Well maybe, but this 'sovereignty' you are proposing might lead to the same type of mistakes - the church cannot be a law unto itself when it comes to things like finances - the opportunity for abuse is immense. See Nigeria for numerous examples.

The church is not a law unto itself. Its His church. He leads it. I outlined the type of the "true church", "religious church" and the state typified by JTB, the Pharisees and Herod. The numerous examples in Nigeria are not the "true" type. Do they unabashedly rail against the abuse of state? No. And they can't, because thay are corrupt and compromised. John 10 says "they were concerned about losing their place" The status wealth, privilege and influence. God ke. He has nothing to do - for the most part - with what obtains in Nigeria.

Now to the true church. Is anyone sold out to and utterly faithful to God - to the point of death - due to state intervention? If state intervention - even without a yoke - sorted out church finances, would it speak to holiness, purity, faithfulness, zeal, salvation or anything that is at the heart of true church? No. Incorporation, tax credits and silver in any guise is about compromise, subjection and control. A strong unaligned church is too much of a threat to the state .

tbc.

We disagree fundamentally here - it is MY money which I have given to the state to be my custodian. My getting back some of that money is by no means obligating me to the state. Any obligations put on the church or charity body by the state are at MY behest - ostensibly to prevent abuse of MY money, which the state is the custodian of on my behalf.

I appreciate that. And may I also say your position is well thought out and articulated. For an individual charitable giving and tax reclaims in no way change the individual/state dynamic, for a church it does.

I disagree - you might as well argue that the church should keep all of it's money in cash since opening an account in a bank means it is under financial regulation and money laundering laws. There is no yoke to the state - the state is a custodian of the taxpayer and simply acts, as decided by the taxpayer, to ensure judicious use of the funds.

And that is a good thing. The money is subject, not how the church utilises it, or more importantly preaches. The church is subject to some and some are actually beneficial, but not where the church is yoked and compromised.

Even with the 'consensus of the congregation', you cannot act in contravention of the law. As I mentioned, I am yet to come across case where the state has prevented a church from doing something led by the Spirit because of the charitable giving laws.

Again you are right and I am not saying that the church should. I have cited how churches are compromised in their preaching due to charity commission and ultimately government policy.

If they church could not be subject due to being unequally yoked, the government would have to persecute them in order to compromise their message. That would be game on!