Bible idioms and the NT jewelry scriptures

[Truthseeker]

Intereesting thought her from portion of a study from keithhunt.com

What does the Bible say about these things? The two passages
which, supposedly, tell Christians not to wear jewelry are as
follows:
First Timothy 2:9,10 says women should be properly adorned -
'not with braided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array,
but.....with good works.'
And.....
First Peter 3:3,4 says a woman's adornment should 'not be
that outward adornment of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of
gold, or a putting on of apparel; but let it be the hidden man of
the heart.....even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which
is in the sight of God of great price.'

What many have failed to understand is that these verses are
using a very common HEBREW IDIOM. An 'idiom' is a manner of
speaking distinctive of a certain people or language. In this
case, the idiom was a manner of speaking which would minimize a
first clause in order to emphasize a second clause. Today, in
order to express the thought contained in this type of idiom, we
would place the word 'ONLY' in the first clause, and 'ALSO' (or
perhaps 'rather') in the second clause, as follows: Let not
a woman's adorning be (only) that of outward things - such as
fixing her hair, wearing gold, or pearls, or apparel - but (also,
rather) let it be the inward adorning of a meek and quiet spirit.
With this idiom, the emphasis is on the SECOND clause, but it
does not do away with the FIRST clause. IT IS IN ADDITION TO IT.

We now ask the reader's patience as we cite many verses in
which this idiom is used in the Bible. As the PULPIT COMMENTARY
says, it is 'a common Hebraism' and quotes for example, John
6:27, ' Labor not for the meat which perisheth, but for the meat
which endureth unto everlasting life.' If we do not recognize
the Hebrew idiom here, this verse would sound like a command not
to work for our food! But other verses say men should work for
their food, they should provide for their families, etc. The
actual thought, then, is that we should not work for the material
necessities of life (ONLY), but (ALSO, RATHER) for that which
will endure unto everlasting life.

[Truthseeker]

Or notice Genesis 32:28, ' Thy name shall be called no more
Jacob, but Israel.' The meaning is that his name would no more
be called Jacob (ONLY), but he would have another name (ALSO),
the name Israel. The proof that this is the correct meaning is
seen by the fact that he was called Jacob many times after this,
even by God Himself: 'And God spake unto Israel.....and said,
Jacob, Jacob' (Genesis 46:2).

Joseph's brothers sold him into slavery, yet Joseph stated:
' So now it was not you that sent me hither, but God' (Gen.45:8).

Understanding the idiom, it could be worded: ' So now it was not
you (ONLY) that sent me here, but it was God (ALSO, RATHER) ' !
During the journey of the Israelites in the wilderness, we
are told that they murmured against Moses and Aaron (Exodus
16:2). But in verse 8, we read: '.....your murmurings are not
against us, but against the Lord.' Considering what was just
plainly stated, we recognize the idiom: 'Your murmurings are not
against us (only), but against the Lord (also, rather)' !
When Israel rejected Samuel and cried out for a king. God
said: ' They have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me '
(1 Samuel 8:7). Yet verse 8 shows that they had rejected Samuel.

Again, it is the Hebrew idiom, the meaning being: ' They
have not rejected you (only), but they have rejected me (also,
rather). '

The use of the idiom seems clearly indicated in the wording
of Joel 2:13, ' Rend your heart, and not your garments, and turn
unto the Lord.' rending garments and putting on sackcloth (2
Sam.3:31) was a common mourning custom. In view of this, the
meaning of Joel was: ' Rend not (only) your garments, but rend
your heart (also, rather)' ! The emphasis is thus on the heart,
not on the outward forms of religion.
When Peter said he believed Jesus was the Christ. Jesus
replied: ' Flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my
Father which is in heaven ' (Mat.16:17). But Peter had heard this
from 'flesh and blood' - before he ever met Jesus. Peter's own
brother had told him: ' We have found the messiah, which is,
being interpreted, the Christ'(John 1:41). All is clarified once
we recognize the idiom. It was not flesh and blood (only) which
had revealed this to him; it had been revealed to him (also,
rather) by God Himself !

In John 4:21-23, Jesus said that the hour was coming, and
then was, that true worshippers would not worship in Jerusalem or
in Samaria - that God must be worshipped in spirit and in truth.
But after this men did worship God at Jerusalem (Luke 24:52,52;
Acts 2, etc.). Recognizing the idiom, we realize that people
would not worship at Jerusalem (only), but (rather) in spirit and
in truth - regardless of location.
Or look at Jesus' words in Mark 9:37, ' Whosoever shall
receive me, receiveth not me, but him that sent me.' In our way
of speaking it would be: ' Whosoever shall receive me, receiveth
not me (only), but him that sent me (also, rather). ' Thus the
use of the idiom is seen also in John 12:44, ' He that believeth
on me, believeth not on me, but on him that sent me.'
When Lazarus was sick, Jesus said: ' This sickness is not
unto death, but for the glory of God' (John 11:4); that is, this
sickness was not unto death (only) - death did not end this
matter, for Lazarus was raised form the dead. Peter used the
idiom when he spoke to Ananias: ' Thou has not lied unto men, but
unto God' (Acts 5:4). Ananias did lie to men, but the emphasis
is on the fact he lied to God. Thus we could say: ' You have
not lied unto men (only) - your sin goes further than this - you
have lied to God ' !

Paul said: ' I labored more abundantly than they all; yet
not I, but the grace of God which was with me ' (1 Cor.15:10).
Paul labored. This is clear. Yet to emphasize the grace of God,
he used the idiom.
John also used the idiom when he said: ' Let us not love in
word, neither in tongue; but in deed ' (1 John 3:18). The context
speaks about a brother in need. If we have this world's goods and
do not help him, we do not really have love. We can tell him we
love him - we can love him in word - but this is not enough. Thus
the instructions: ' Let us not love in word (only), but (also,
rather) in deed. '
In Luke 14:12-14.........A comment in the CAMBRIDGE GREEK
TESTAMENT on this verse says: ' We must take into account the
idioms of Oriental speech......the 'not' means, as often
elsewhere in Scripture, 'not only.....but also' or 'not so
much.....as.' '
Other examples of the idiom are given including the text
regarding jewelry, 1 Timothy 2:9.

With these things in mind, we look again at out text and it
will be clear that jewelry was not forbidden: '.......whose
adorning let it not be (only) that outward adorning of
plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of
apparel, but (also, rather) let it be the.....ornament of a meek
and quiet spirit.'

[Truthseeker]

The emphasis is on the INWARD adorning, but the outward
adorning is not eliminated.........."

Mr. Woodrow goes on to give examples and scripture after
scripture proving that many of God's people down through the ages
used jewelry upon themselves in one form or another, with no
disapproval from God. Of course we have one of the most famous
passages in Ezekiel 16 where God uses jewelry in a good light as
He describes how He found, cleaned, dressed and adorned Israel
with the finest in clothes and jewelry. How God made her very
beautiful to look at.
There is Jesus' use of jewelry in many parables, one such as
in Luke 15:22 about the wayward young man who repents and returns
home. He is given a ring for the hand.

There a few other verses in the Bible that seem to be
against the use of jewelry. These I have explained elsewhere in
other articles on this subject. I will not take the time to
explain them here.

There are many types of idioms and what we call "figures of
speech" used in the Bible. In fact so replete is the word of the
Lord with figures of speech, that Mr.Bullinger devoted a whole
book to its expounding. The book is called "Figures of Speech
Used in the Bible" and it is 1104 pages in total. I have it as
part of my library, very interesting and instructional.

1 Timothy 2:9 and 1 Peter 3:3 DO NOT contradict the rest of
the Bible concerning the right and Godly use of jewelry for the
Christian. When the truth is known these verses show that there
could be a time when even elaborate, costly, expensive, clothes
and jewelry, and hair arrangements are quite in order and proper,
for the Christian, under certain situations, cultures and events.
This being the truth of the matter, Peter and Paul knowing this
was so, were emphasizing to the children of God, that what was
MORE IMPORTANT than outward appearance, was the inner heart,
mind, attitude, character of the person. It is that part of us
that God is mainly interested in, for indeed it is written:
"man looks on the outward appearance, but God looks on the
heart."

[Truthseeker]

No input???

[*AQuietPlace*]

I enjoyed reading it. Very good point he makes.

[mfblume]

I agree totally. Great explanation, TS.

[OilCityCajun]

I think it sounds great. But, when you realize the first part specifies a type of clothing which is immodest in that it is costly and draws undue attention to the wearer, while the second part speaks of the opposite attitude it doesnt hold up. "Don't only dress proud and loud with the intent to impress, but also have a meek spirit?" Sorry. I aint buying it.

[Truthseeker]

I think it sounds great. But, when you realize the first part specifies a type of clothing which is immodest in that it is costly and draws undue attention to the wearer, while the second part speaks of the opposite attitude it doesnt hold up. "Don't only dress proud and loud with the intent to impress, but also have a meek spirit?" Sorry. I aint buying it.

1 Tim 2:9

9 In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;
KJV


I do think the whole things hinges on what this scripture is saying for there's no OT law to guide or any other NT scripture that supports the anti-jewelry stance.

Anyone else have any input on what oilcitycanjun points out??

[A.W. Bowman]

TS - You realize that you are challenging another sacred cow? Go for it.

Good luck kid! :grampa

[A.W. Bowman]

Okay, an additional note.

A great many believers think, hope, believe, 'know' that they have "The Truth" because they have been told that they have the truth, a common circular argument within the religious community. Yet, where did all of this mishandling of scripture come from? The truth? Most misinterpretation of scripture comes from the same folks that teach that ‘scripture is to interpret scripture’ and who have received their biblical instruction from teachers who, themselves, were ill equipped in their knowledge of the original biblical languages. The same teachers who could not correctly decipher the meanings of scriptural passages because they did not know nor understand the historical, cultural, religious, or linguistic context of what they were teaching.

The fundamental problem is twofold. First, as noted above, there is a serious lack of knowledge and understanding in the foundation of teacher’s own believe system. In other words, teachers attempt to teach with absolute authority, biblical subjects that they themselves do not truly know nor understand. For example, Emperor Constantine was successful in divorcing his Western Church from its biblical roots, thereby cutting the Western Church loose from its foundation, the Jewish Rabbi, the Hebrew Messiah, Jesus Christ (HaMaschiah Yeshua Natzeret Ben HaAdonai Elohim) and even erased Christ’s religion from its doctrine/ Then to make matters worse, we have completed the job by recasting Jesus into a Western European, who migrated to the North America continent about 300 years ago.

The second problems is once one has become convinced that they have ‘the truth’, they have stopped learning – they are no longer teachable. Most people will reject anything new to their understanding because they fear that the others around them will reject them, for even considering making any changes to their personal believe system. Frequently, when a church leader speaks of studying the Bible, they are not talking about discovering more of the truth of God contained within those scriptures, they are talking about a religious indoctrination according to the currently acceptable church dogma, as prescribed by a group of self-appointed men who authorized themselves to make such decisions on behalf (and independent) of everyone else. Accordingly, it seems that Pastors think of themselves as another latter-day Mosses, and that they now sit upon his seat at the head of the congregation, whereby they issue their personal Bible commentaries for all to hear and obey – questions and discussions are not allowed, only obedience.

Are these harsh indictments? Yes, but they are also true. In addition to the testimony of hundreds of others (even thousands), I have witnessed firsthand many such failings within spiritual leadership myself, in a good many churches all across this land. What passes for teaching among so many churches are right/wrong games, where the pastor’s view of scripture puts him/her and if you will agree as instructed, above all of those other churches in the world – even better than some that are pastured by men/women in the same religious organization! Like the Roman Catholic Church with their history of child molestations, sooner or later the spiritual molestation that goes on within the Protestant communities will burst forth and will have to be dealt with.

The lesson to take away from this thread is this. Anyone who manipulates scripture, in any manner whatsoever, regardless of their purpose or justification, does violence to the word of God to their own destruction, and perhaps to the destruction of many others. Even so, what is one to do when the teachers themselves are uninstructed?

Fear God and Him alone, is not a cry you will hear from many pulpits. Nor will you hear the words, “Follow me as I follow Christ, and test everything I say and do to see if it be true.”, where the speaker actually means and practices it
:grampa

[BeenThinkin]

Okay, an additional note.

A great many believers think, hope, believe, 'know' that they have "The Truth" because they have been told that they have the truth, a common circular argument within the religious community. Yet, where did all of this mishandling of scripture come from? The truth? Most misinterpretation of scripture comes from the same folks that teach that ‘scripture is to interpret scripture’ and who have received their biblical instruction from teachers who, themselves, were ill equipped in their knowledge of the original biblical languages. The same teachers who could not correctly decipher the meanings of scriptural passages because they did not know nor understand the historical, cultural, religious, or linguistic context of what they were teaching.

The fundamental problem is twofold. First, as noted above, there is a serious lack of knowledge and understanding in the foundation of teacher’s own believe system. In other words, teachers attempt to teach with absolute authority, biblical subjects that they themselves do not truly know nor understand. For example, Emperor Constantine was successful in divorcing his Western Church from its biblical roots, thereby cutting the Western Church loose from its foundation, the Jewish Rabbi, the Hebrew Messiah, Jesus Christ (HaMaschiah Yeshua Natzeret Ben HaAdonai Elohim) and even erased Christ’s religion from its doctrine/ Then to make matters worse, we have completed the job by recasting Jesus into a Western European, who migrated to the North America continent about 300 years ago.

The second problems is once one has become convinced that they have ‘the truth’, they have stopped learning – they are no longer teachable. Most people will reject anything new to their understanding because they fear that the others around them will reject them, for even considering making any changes to their personal believe system. Frequently, when a church leader speaks of studying the Bible, they are not talking about discovering more of the truth of God contained within those scriptures, they are talking about a religious indoctrination according to the currently acceptable church dogma, as prescribed by a group of self-appointed men who authorized themselves to make such decisions on behalf (and independent) of everyone else. Accordingly, it seems that Pastors think of themselves as another latter-day Mosses, and that they now sit upon his seat at the head of the congregation, whereby they issue their personal Bible commentaries for all to hear and obey – questions and discussions are not allowed, only obedience.

Are these harsh indictments? Yes, but they are also true. In addition to the testimony of hundreds of others (even thousands), I have witnessed firsthand many such failings within spiritual leadership myself, in a good many churches all across this land. What passes for teaching among so many churches are right/wrong games, where the pastor’s view of scripture puts him/her and if you will agree as instructed, above all of those other churches in the world – even better than some that are pastured by men/women in the same religious organization! Like the Roman Catholic Church with their history of child molestations, sooner or later the spiritual molestation that goes on within the Protestant communities will burst forth and will have to be dealt with.

The lesson to take away from this thread is this. Anyone who manipulates scripture, in any manner whatsoever, regardless of their purpose or justification, does violence to the word of God to their own destruction, and perhaps to the destruction of many others. Even so, what is one to do when the teachers themselves are uninstructed?

Fear God and Him alone, is not a cry you will hear from many pulpits. Nor will you hear the words, “Follow me as I follow Christ, and test everything I say and do to see if it be true.”, where the speaker actually means and practices it
:grampa


Well said, as usual, my Brother!

I find it interesting how so many, and especially some on this forum, manifest such a harsh spirit when some one states something that crosses their beliefs. They immediately throw up a barrier, (or at least that's how it comes across to me,) indicating there is no way they could be wrong.

I wish I could say I have lived all the years I've been given, preached all the many sermons over those many years, and never have I been wrong!

I have been wrong, I have changed, I have LEARNED the error of my ways. But only when I was open and honest and really wanted to learn. I think, (my opinion), that there are some on here who don't want to learn anything else. Their minds are made up, they know it all and no one can tell them anything different. Hope that doesn't sound harsh. Didn't mean for it to. Just stating my thoughts. As I said, just my opinion!

Been Thinkin

[Truthseeker]

TS - You realize that you are challenging another sacred cow? Go for it.

Good luck kid! :grampa

So what's your take on the scripture regarding jewelry. The "not with" does seem to prohibit jewelry, costly array etc.....

[The Lemon]

HaShaliach,

Great post, as usual. I am unsure if I am correct in my thinking, however, I have said many times before that it is not my job or mission in life to try and convince someone that there understanding/application of Biblical principle is either wrong or right.

Anotherwards, if an individual or even a congregation feels that long hair means uncut, or that in this case "not with" means abosolutely NOT, then so be it. It does no service to those people or myself to try and persuade them differently. In some cases there very foundation and identity in Christ is so intertwined with that application of principle that to try and "surgically" remove it may damage other more critical areas in there walk with God. At the very least I would be risking a scism in the body over an issue that is not salvational (at least to some, in this case, me).

In issues that pertain soley to the Gospel, that being the salvation of mankind, I am obligated to fulfil the call to preach, beyond that, in my own opinion, I have to be very careful what I present/teach, and my motives for doing such. Often times some things are preached because we/me are trying to possibly get the "Amen" of someone who we admire or aspire to be.

Bottom line is that I have no right to strip an individual of there identity in Christ as they know it, unless it is truely false doctrine. And IMHO, uncut hair, prohibition on jewlery, pants, shorts, swimming, etc. does not qualify as "False Doctrine", UNLESS it is preached as a means of securing ones eternity in one place or the other. Beyond that if it is preached and taught as a safety net and principle, I am swimming against a rip current trying to convince them otherwise, and I just don't see how it is productive.

[A.W. Bowman]

So what's your take on the scripture regarding jewelry. The "not with" does seem to prohibit jewelry, costly array etc.....

I have read the article(s) you quoted in the initial posting. Excellent material. The language lesson is very good. In the biblical context (the entire body of scripture) we see examples of every human endeavor being used for both holy and unholy applications, that includes the making and wearing of jewelry! Even the bride of Christ shall be decked out in the finest of jewelry, as befits God's bride (His Queen).

To the scriptures in question, in addition to the 'correct' understanding already presented, I would append a personal English interpretation:

Don't let your beauty rely only on (be dependent upon) your adornments, but rather let your adornments be worn as accents to what God has already created, as befitting your status as His espoused bride.

------------

On a more personal note. My beloved wife holds to a more traditional UPCI view concerning clothing standards. That is a personal conviction that she holds for herself. I support that conviction, as she supports my conviction on church traditional 'standards'. The point? Don't inflict your standards (or any other personal convictions) upon another - that's God's job, not yours! Neither is one to temp another into what they consider to be sin. For example, I will not buy my wife jewelry and 'require' her to wear it - besides, it saves me a ton of money!

So long as my wife does not follow after any biblically defined sin, then neither I, nor even God, have any bases for making spiritual corrections (admonishments, rebukes), and neither does anyone else! :grampa

[A.W. Bowman]

For The Lemon-

If only there more preachers/teachers who approached their calling with such integrity, as you have demonstrated here.

Shalom Aleichem

[Justin]

HaShaliach,

Great post, as usual. I am unsure if I am correct in my thinking, however, I have said many times before that it is not my job or mission in life to try and convince someone that there understanding/application of Biblical principle is either wrong or right.

Anotherwards, if an individual or even a congregation feels that long hair means uncut, or that in this case "not with" means abosolutely NOT, then so be it. It does no service to those people or myself to try and persuade them differently. In some cases there very foundation and identity in Christ is so intertwined with that application of principle that to try and "surgically" remove it may damage other more critical areas in there walk with God. At the very least I would be risking a scism in the body over an issue that is not salvational (at least to some, in this case, me).

In issues that pertain soley to the Gospel, that being the salvation of mankind, I am obligated to fulfil the call to preach, beyond that, in my own opinion, I have to be very careful what I present/teach, and my motives for doing such. Often times some things are preached because we/me are trying to possibly get the "Amen" of someone who we admire or aspire to be.

Bottom line is that I have no right to strip an individual of there identity in Christ as they know it, unless it is truely false doctrine. And IMHO, uncut hair, prohibition on jewlery, pants, shorts, swimming, etc. does not qualify as "False Doctrine", UNLESS it is preached as a means of securing ones eternity in one place or the other. Beyond that if it is preached and taught as a safety net and principle, I am swimming against a rip current trying to convince them otherwise, and I just don't see how it is productive.

Therein lies the problem, those things which you listed are almost always taught under the umbrella of "Your Pastor teaches it, therefore you must obey, otherwise you are rebelling against the man of God/watchmen, which is a SIN".

So then it DOES become a salvational issue.

[A.W. Bowman]

Therein lies the problem, those things which you listed are almost always taught under the umbrella of "Your Pastor teaches it, therefore you must obey, otherwise you are rebelling against the man of God/watchmen, which is a SIN".

So then it DOES become a salvational issue.

I know that this post was intended for The Lemon. However, his post was in response to something I published, therefore, please allow me to make a comment, and The Lemon can share his own ideas concerning your question.

This response is to all of the readers of this thread:

The assumption that anyone has to accept and obey any 'spiritual leader' simply because that leader 'says it', has no biblical foundation. Rather, the teaching of the entire scriptures includes just the opposite, i.e., everyone is instructed to (1) judge all things for themselves, (2) not to put their trust in any man (or woman), (3) to reject any false doctrine that is not firmly established in scripture, and to reject the one who teaches it, even if that teacher has assumed the title of Apostle, and (4) to study the scriptures for themselves to rightly divide the word of truth.

It is the responsibility of the church elders (even as Peter identified himself as being a church elder) to lead by example and to teach the word of God without inserting his/her personal bias! All of these things are the responsibility of each and every individual disciple of Christ. The pastor is to lead and to teach the assembly in how to grow into spiritual maturity and to maintain their relationship with Jesus Christ - according to our Lord's desires, and NOT according to our own good ideas (the wisdom of men)! Therefore, YES, everyone one is to obey those appointed over them? Yes - but only when all of the above elements of individual responsibilities have first been met.

If any of these individual responsibilities are not observed within the body of the congregation, neither are they meeting their ordained responsibility of working out their own individual salvation! In this case, everything certainly becomes a salvational issue.

Even the concept of the one-man spiritual rule over an assembly is derived from the practices of Roman paganism, as established by Emperor Constantine (circa 325-350 AD), and not from any biblically supported doctrine. This failure to rightly divide the 'word of truth' and practice it has contributed to much of the excessive abuses within the Western Church throughout history, and what Jesus Himself instructed His disciples to avoid.

Today there are no 'real' spiritual checks and balances in place, and the congregations have failed in their responsibilities to minister to themselves, one another as a congregation, or to society as a whole - as Jesus commanded, as the Spirit leads, and as Paul outlined as a general pattern for the church at Corinth.

Bible study: Who is the "man of God", according to the Bible? Clue, it is not just a pastor, or even the 'five fold ministry'. Who is "God's anointed", according to scripture? Clue #2, it is not just a pastor, or even the 'five fold ministry'. May your studies be fruitful.

Okay, so this post turned into a rant. Even so, no apologizes for it because the rant is centuries late in coming, and now time has all but run out for getting our house in order.

[A.W. Bowman]

One more follow up question for anyone who will:

Can any spiritual leader, regardless of religious office or title, be accepted as a true "man of God" if they do not preach and teach only that sound doctrine that has been established and prescribed in the word of God?

My answer is, No. Anyone who adds to or diminishes from God's own instructions for righteous living, according to Deuteronomy 4:2, and by definition, can be no 'true' man of God.

Perhaps it is time for some serious soul searching and even repentance on the part of some of our spiritual leaders, as well as for some self professed disciples of Christ.

[mfblume]

One more follow up question for anyone who will:

Can any spiritual leader, regardless of religious office or title, be accepted as a true "man of God" if they do not preach and teach only that sound doctrine that has been established and prescribed in the word of God?

My answer is, No. Anyone who adds to or diminishes from God's own instructions for righteous living, according to Deuteronomy 4:2, and by definition, can be no 'true' man of God.

Perhaps it is time for some serious soul searching and even repentance on the part of some of our spiritual leaders, as well as for some self professed disciples of Christ.

:thumbsup. Good answer.

[The Lemon]

Justin,

I completely understand what you saying, and with that I understand the frustration that can come to an individual who is exposed to the work based salvation rhetoric. I can only speak from two vantage points on this particular issue, and one is of course my own finite experience.

First, in my very short time in the only OP organization I have been involved in (Which is UPC), I have not encounterd to many individual ministers and or pastors who hold to the standards equall salvation stance, although I both know they are out there and also I have a limited view. For example the Pasor I now sit under does not hold this view, but my previous Pastor might have to some extent - although I never asked him personally if he thought they were salvational.

Secondly, I know from some of that experience how difficult it is to try and look at principle issues such as standards with an objective viewpoint. Once an individual has experienced the "wrath" of "The man of God" for not obeying some decree that is not biblical, that same persons view tends to be scewed, and tha ability to see standards as ways of expess worship or personal conviction becomes hard if not impossible.

I would say, more candidly, that in my owm opinion, and within my own household, if I were to sit under a pastor who decided his every decree was biblical just because of his position, and not because his stance was biblically based or sound, I nor my family would attend there anymore. That is abusive, lording, and mishandling of a position that is meant to be of service, not dictatorship. The nature of sheep is to be lead, not driven.