100% agreement !Originally Posted by Hans Deventer
100% agreement !
"And as we pass the collection plate, please give as if the person next to you was watching."
-Rev. LovejoyPost Thanks / Like - 1 Thanks, 0 LaughingGina Stevenson - "thanks" for this post
No I am not kidding at all. This is serious business, it's too serious to be dealt with in a way that seems right to man. We have God's instruction on this we need to follow.
-Jim
To know and to serve God, of course, is why we're here, a clear truth, that, like the nose on your face, is near at hand and easily discernible but can make you dizzy if you try to focus on it hard. But a little faith will see you through.
Garrison Keillor
We also have God's example we need to follow.
"No scripture can mean that God is not love, or that his mercy is not over all his works" (John Wesley - Free Grace, 26)Post Thanks / Like - 2 Thanks, 0 Laughing
With due respect Kyle, this sounds like you have been caught off guard by those who sound reasonable, yet are choosing to ignore scripture's clear instruction. Could you take the time and read 1 Cor 5:11 and respond to how you live out it's instruction. Should you feel that I'm only proof texting here, I would encourage you to read all of chapters 5, 6 and 7 just to get a feel for what the Lord is saying to us here.Seems to me that Heidi said she was forgiven, but even if she wasn't I would eat with her. Well.... with my wife by my side of course! Why?
I'm not going to sit there and tell her that her actions are ok. I am going to work to make sure that someone in the church, me if necessary (with my wife next to me), develops a relationship to the point where Heidi would give me permission to speak to her heart and begin to lead her towards the saving grace of Jesus and onto discipleship.
Jesus ate with all sorts of bad characters. In fact most of what Jesus did centered around food! Which is why Pastors are so fond of taking people to lunch! It is simply an attempt to be more like Jesus!
Now regarding the larger question at hand....I don't know. I do agree with having a more open and honest discussion, but then again I must admit I am embarrassed at the thought of attempting to have the discussion. But if I really care about my church I probably need to get over it.
As to eating with sinners, yes no problem there, none at all, that's not the point. As to eating with hypocrites, that is the subject of the verse. Should one claim Christ as their own and also presently be a fornicator? With such a on have no association, not even to eat with. I don't believe that Jesus ate with hypocrites, he preferred sinners, there is a huge difference.
-Jim
To know and to serve God, of course, is why we're here, a clear truth, that, like the nose on your face, is near at hand and easily discernible but can make you dizzy if you try to focus on it hard. But a little faith will see you through.
Garrison Keillor
Before you embark on something as complicated as this. Could you address the one little issue that you chose to throw in my face please?
In your previous post you indicated in the present tense that you are a fornicator. You also indicated that you are forgiven, to wit I understand that you consider yourself as belonging to Christ, i.e. you are a Christian. My question to you was in regard to those two statements, I'm asking if they are both true?
-Jim
To know and to serve God, of course, is why we're here, a clear truth, that, like the nose on your face, is near at hand and easily discernible but can make you dizzy if you try to focus on it hard. But a little faith will see you through.
Garrison Keillor
I would gladly be there should Heidi clarify her statement about her presently claiming to be a Christian and currently being a fornicator. I'm thinking the best of her and I'm assuming that she spoke in error. If her statement is not in error, then no, I'm sorry but I won't be there. For me to do so would be sin, regardless of the heckling I might get from other good intentioned Christians. I don't have a need to be popular in Church, I have a need to follow my Lord.
-Jim
To know and to serve God, of course, is why we're here, a clear truth, that, like the nose on your face, is near at hand and easily discernible but can make you dizzy if you try to focus on it hard. But a little faith will see you through.
Garrison Keillor
Which is exactly the one I am following. Have nothing to do with hypocrites.
You seem to be saying that God's clear instruction contradicts His own way. Not the case at all. Lets not consider hypocrites and sinners to be synonymous, this isn't the case. Should the Church not be able to make this simple distinction, then it's no wonder that we can't speak to folks about sex.
-Jim
To know and to serve God, of course, is why we're here, a clear truth, that, like the nose on your face, is near at hand and easily discernible but can make you dizzy if you try to focus on it hard. But a little faith will see you through.
Garrison Keillor
Indeed. Not every sinner is a hypocrite, but every hypocrite is a sinner.
All the same, Jesus ate with whores, as we all know. And I don't want to be part of the group that condemned and crucified Him for it.
Sometimes I think nothing changed since AD 30.
But I apologize for being and thinking.
"No scripture can mean that God is not love, or that his mercy is not over all his works" (John Wesley - Free Grace, 26)Post Thanks / Like - 1 Thanks, 0 Laughing
Hans, this isn't really helpful, could you please read the 5th, 6th and 7th chapters of 1 Corinthians and then respond?
You seem to be hung up on sinners and that isn't the case at all. I've had many friends over the years that were/are whores, no problem there. I've had friends who were/are child molesters, adulterers, thieves, drug addicts etc... So what is your point?
-Jim
To know and to serve God, of course, is why we're here, a clear truth, that, like the nose on your face, is near at hand and easily discernible but can make you dizzy if you try to focus on it hard. But a little faith will see you through.
Garrison Keillor
I'm just not sure how the love of Christ gets expressed in a scenario like that. I'm all for calling members to a standard of living and enforcing it. We expect certain things from people we take into membership. But 75% of the country calls themselves Christian, including lots of people who attend worship in my congregation on Sunday (and do so with live-in partners). The pastors don't shy away from pronouncing the Christian standard in regards to relationships and sexual health, when appropriate, from the pulpit. There's no one unaware of the stance our congregation takes - and many have refused to seek membership because they know they don't meet the requirements.
Are you suggesting we refuse to allow their participation in the congregation unless they either stop sinning or stop claiming Christ?
The issue is not rally about what a congregation tolerates - I think most are pretty clear in what the standard is - the real question is whether congregations have a duty when it comes to sexual education.
...just my $.02.
First I would suggest very strongly that the love of Christ is defined by His instructions to us and our following him. Our human estimation is sometimes over emphasized.
Not sure by what you mean by participation in the congregation, but yes. They are not to be considered to be Christians, which is not to say that they are not, only to say that they should not be acknowledged as such. Nor should they be welcomed into fellowship, the teaching is clear we must speak the truth in love. To not speak the truth is not love, thus the truth must be spoken, regardless of the difficulty in doing so in a loving way.
As to the larger question, how do we speak to sexuality and marriage. The short answer is that we don't, we lack the qualifications and the moral capital to do so. Why would anyone listen to the morally bankrupt church, why would anyone listen to us? Should we not take marriage and sexual sin seriously, then we have nothing to say. All we do is flap our gums, and folks will come for the singing and the food, most assuredly they won't take the time to listen to the preacher. Preachers are incredibly easy to ignore you know.
Don't kid yourself Ryan, the fact that folks with live in partners regularly attend your church and feel no need to change is truly indicative that the congregation and the church has no problem with them. And by extension, God has no problem either. That is what you are really teaching, regardless of the words that emanate from the pulpit.
-Jim
To know and to serve God, of course, is why we're here, a clear truth, that, like the nose on your face, is near at hand and easily discernible but can make you dizzy if you try to focus on it hard. But a little faith will see you through.
Garrison Keillor
Perhaps someone else can explain it. I obviously cannot. I apologize for even trying.
"No scripture can mean that God is not love, or that his mercy is not over all his works" (John Wesley - Free Grace, 26)
Scripture is clear. Fornicators are to be killed.
Yes, I'm using the argument ad Old Testamentum, which is slightly less of a trump card than argument ad nazi.
Dan Hamlin
The straightest distance between two points is a straight line.
Where are the fudge recipes?
Post Thanks / Like - 1 Thanks, 6 LaughingSusan Unger, John Kennedy, Valisha Trammell Hall, Gina Stevenson, Dennis M. Scott, Heidi Anderson - thanks for this funny post
IMO a theology of sexuality might address some of the following:
- We are created as sexual beings.
- All creation is declared “good” and is “good” when it fulfills it’s intended purpose.
- The purpose of our sexuality is two fold: procreation and intimacy.
- The purpose of sexual intimacy is to create a one-flesh bond that reflects the goodness that God intends.
- Anytime we use part of our created purpose in a way that violates God’s intent, we diminish that part. It is not possible to have sexual intimacy with another without a bond forming. When we allow this to happen outside marriage we diminish the potential of the one flesh bond.
- A consequence of diminished purpose is damage in our relationships. This damage occurs on at least three levels; Our relationship with God, our relationship with self, and our relationships with one another.
- God has established boundaries regarding expression of our sexuality – not to keep us from enjoying it fully, but so that we can enjoy it fully.
Loving God . . . Loving others.Post Thanks / Like - 3 Thanks, 0 Laughing
"I the chief of sinners AM, but Jesus died for me." Perhaps we could grant that Paul and we have the same spirit.
In the I Corinthian passage Paul is apparently dealing with a church type fellowship where rampant sinning hadn't been left behind. He includes a list of "categories" of sin - some of which pertain to sexual sin. He points out the church in Corinth should realize that their behavior needs to be different from that in the world around them. It appears that there has been a pre-I Corinthian letter, in which he attempted to address some of the same issues, but went unheeded. There were those who were embedded in the church who were sleeping with people other than their spouses, and involved in incest, and who weren't living as Paul understood leaders in the church should, so he addresses the issue apparently more strongly than he had previously. He indicates that their behavior should have changed by now from what it was like when they first became believers. It seems that Paul doesn't reject them all because of their lax attitudes or behavior, but encourages them to move closer to the kind of community consistent with Christian values. His point seems to be, "The church must not continue to be like it is now: it must get better." It is also rather clear that the issue at hand was not universally the case. Paul addressed this specific fellowship because it had unique problems. The Church was becoming. It still is.
There are a couple parts in the passage that are a little "different". Paul says that some of what he says isn't from the Lord, but his personal opinion, and he assures some who are not married that since the Lord is returning soon, they could "put off" marrying for a little while. That "little while" has turned into a couple thousand years, which was not what Paul wanted his single readers to think. While we may appreciate his human-ness, our understanding of scriptural inspiration might benefit from a little re-consideration.
Our position is that all scripture is "God-breathed", and requires from time to time we balance passages, like this section and that of Jesus' admonition to not "yank out the tares". It is not always easy to walk that balance.
Forty years ago, a college prof and friend gave me a plaque that at the time I thought was a joke. It says, "Education is man's journey from dogmatic ignorance to thoughtful uncertainty." It makes more sense the longer I live, and hopefully the more "educated" I become. I'm not confused: my condition is intentional.
Post Thanks / Like - 10 Thanks, 0 Laughing
I'm not kidding myself. I don't believe the people in the congregation care all that much about holiness. I've said that before.
At the same time, it seems unlikely we'd ever have anyone walk in the doors if we refused to let people in who didn't conform. That's the sort of legalism that paralyzed the church for two generations.
I can't control what people call themselves and quite frankly, I won't tell them they're not a Christian. I'll talk to them about the things in their lives that don't match up with Christ - but usually those people won't allow for a conversation in the first place.
As I said, I'm all for strong accountability and discipleship among those who seek membership, but I'll welcome anyone into the life of the congregation who wants to be there.
Every week they'll get the same scriptural pronouncement - "go and sin no more." There's really not much I can do to ensure they do it and I certainly don't want to tell them not to come back if they don't.
...just my $.02.Post Thanks / Like - 2 Thanks, 0 Laughing
Let's see, what were Jesus' commands? LOVE, God and everybody else. Love one another. Feed the hungry, house the homeless, clothe the naked, give comfort to the ailing whether they are in prison or hospitals or wherever.
Jesus' harshest comments and criticisms were for those who held to rules over people, law over love.
Paul also says that one Christian should not sue another Christian, that disputes between believers should not be taken before the secular authorities. Would you eat with a Christian who sues another, has another arrested by secular authorities?
I have no problem with your position so long as you are not trying to force it upon me. It appears that we have a situation where Paul and Jesus are at odds. I'll choose to follow Jesus. I am not saying that you don't, but I cannot use Paul to interpret Jesus, I must do it the other way around. I read your views on John 4 and John 8 and disagree. I do not see Jesus "calling" the Samaritan woman on her sin. I see a woman ( a person for it seems John has no problem using female characters to portray the everyman) who has sought fulfillment through relationships, having a relationship addiction, He is naming her pain, her hurt, her wound and offers her true fulfillment, Himself. He never tells her to move out or get married or to remain celibate, it isn't even suggested in the text. Again in chapter 8, we have a woman, who could be anyone of us trapped in an Egypt of sin (the Exodus theme plays a big role in John's Gospel, IF I read it correctly), in bondage, in pain, doing that which she hates, yet is stuck. Jesus non-condemnation and His freeing statement, Go and sin no more, break those chains that hold her in her dungeon, her slavery, her Egypt. I do not see a rebuke, but a statement that tells her that she no longer has to live this way. That's what love does it frees people from their bondage. But this is just my opinion.
I'd be happy to share a meal with you, but because I share meals with hurting and broken brothers and sisters, who are works in process, who are still struggling with the old while being recreated, while I still struggle with the old while being recreated, you may choose not to share one with me. That's okay Jim, you're in process too.
You can be right or you can be in relationshipPost Thanks / Like - 5 Thanks, 0 Laughing
Thanks, Paul, for the reminder that you, Jim, Hans, Heidi, me - all of us, are still progressing. I have observed in some of my parishioners, progress is three steps forward, two back, recover and take another step. Sometimes they need my encouragement to move forward, and some times they need me to help them up and catch their balance. Together, however, we're working on "forward"
Post Thanks / Like - 3 Thanks, 0 Laughing
Thank you for this post. I think it is too easy for us (at least me) to forget we are sinners being saved by grace, and that we who are Christ-followers are in the process of working out our salvation. Hopefully our goal is to be fully engaged in the process of being shaped into the image of Christ, which implies that we currently have things in our life that are not yet God-glorifying. If we threw everyone out that was not yet "fully formed" there would be no one left and if we refused fellowship to those who did not live a fully holy life there would be no fellowship. My sense is that Paul gave the instruction he gave to the Corinthians because certain sins had become rampant and had come to define who they were. It seems like to me that they were so far over the line that he felt compelled to take drastic action.
I do believe that sexual sin is one of the most damaging sins there is in terms of the consequences, many of which are life long. This is especially true in that no one who sexually sins can limit the consequences to themselves or to a time and place. While I recognize that God forgives, that doesn't mean the consequences magically go away. Many of us know that all too well. And yet, is someone who sins sexually "more wrong" than someone who gossips, slanders, lies, is gluttonous, etc.? I don't believe that is the case. Every choice we make, good or bad, has a consequence and in some way affects our relationship with God and others.
Loving God . . . Loving others.Post Thanks / Like - 7 Thanks, 0 Laughing
Or maybe we just have trouble really understanding what they're saying? Maybe . . .
Loving God . . . Loving others.Post Thanks / Like - 1 Thanks, 0 Laughing
I have seen churches where the teaching is such that IF one recites the little, miraculous incantation one is saved and a Christian, from simply saying some words. The saved Christian will always be saved and their behaviour no longer matters. As a matter of fact any attempt to obedience is seen as works, and whoa and behold we are saved by grace alone, must never do anything that smacks of works. Seems that the Corinthians passages address a similar situation.
You can be right or you can be in relationshipPost Thanks / Like - 2 Thanks, 0 Laughing
I'm not going to elude to whether I'm a fornicator now or not-in the sexual sense. I'm not sure how you, Jim, would describe that sin (lust, looking at a man or woman for that matter in a lustful way, sexual acts) so either way I could be guilty. Grace, to me, is ongoing perhaps even daily. So, I suppose that as I face today I may be in need of God's grace at some point - therefore, I would still be a fornicator. Did I just confess that I am un-entirely sanctified? It just bums me out that if I came to your church I wouldn't be welcome. This is the true disease of "the church".
Post Thanks / Like - 5 Thanks, 0 Laughing
Ok, guess I got called out. I have read 1 Corinthians. So how does this scripture apply to our lives today? Can I ignore it? No. But I do think that I must allow Jesus to speak to me through His scripture in the context of where I exist. The church Paul was dealing with would have caused most of us to run for the hills. I imagine a group of people coming together and pretty much violating all of the Jewish laws all in the name of Jesus. If I was in Paul's place I would have been pretty ticked off and would have been upset about it and used some pretty stiff words. Wait, that is what Paul did. Now would Paul or Jesus have used that same tone with another church? Is it required that we behave this way in every church? Is this behavior a clear and good example of what Jesus would have done. I certainly don't think Jesus was a hippie who walked around throwing flowers all over the place, but I do believe that even in his judgement there was compassion, except perhaps for the religious leaders.
The church where I currently serve had a pastor who followed this to the letter. His job was to cleanse the church. He did a good job of it too. Someone was known to drink alcohol. They were kicked out. Someone went to movies. They were kicked out. Someone wore makeup. They were kicked out. Someone questioned his authority. They were kicked out. From what I understand that was a long time ago, but a good portion of the town remembers our church as the church that kicked everyone out. There is a certain group that will never give us an opportunity to speak to them and so now they live in sin with no influence from the church. Actually, some of them weren't necessarily in sin at that time, but they are now.
So do I take an angry outburst at a church that was flaunting its freedom in Jesus name and apply it to everyone? Do I take the person who claims to be a Christian, because someone told them all they had to do was say a prayer, but does not live as a Christian and condemn them? If that is what you are asking me to do then I must tell you that 90% of the people I have encountered in our denomination including pastors must immediately leave. (Because I believe that you are not living as a Christian if you are not making disciples of Christ and I don't know too many Christians right now that are actively making disciples like Jesus did.) Oh, yeah by the way let's not even recognize how many pastors are broken and worthless because they are a slave to sexual desires and unable to seek help or tell anyone or they will be immediately condemned. Let's not create a way to provide safe restoration for those pastors. Instead let's create an environment that instead forces them to hide in fear and let the sin take away all of their power to speak in Jesus name.
Is a person a hypocrite if they claim to be something they don't understand? We encourage people to accept Christ, but as a church we have failed miserably to teach them how to live. We preach, we talk, we have classes, but do we live with them? Do we forge relationships and begin to share their life with them and speak to their hearts and begin to show them where they need to work on things and then work with them to over come them.
We act as if a person accepts Christ and is instantly sanctified and purified and should be free from all sins and all faults. Now if that person who accepts Christ turns around and fails or sins then we should get rid of them!
NO SIR! I point the finger at me. I must bear some of the blame of their sin and their failure. I am a part of their community who is responsible for not only holding them accountable, but for providing them love, support, and training. For far too many years I failed in doing this. I have been involved in leading over 100 kids to accept Christ. I have been involved in discipling zero of them. I have set them up to be condemned by people who see 1 Corinthians as a guidebook. I got them a title and apparently the responsibility to automatically know how to be perfect, but I did nothing to train them. OK, I did teach them. I did provide them foundations. But I did not live life with them. I did not gather them into a community of support. I attempted to speak to them only through words.
I will not, I refuse to, and you can kick me out if you want, but I will not blindly apply 1 Corinthians to every situation I encounter. If I am aware of a Christian who has been discipled, who does have full knowledge of Jesus, who had given Jesus full control of his life, and then turns against Jesus and proclaims that sinful acts are acceptable to Jesus, then I will have no choice but to disavow my brother and remove him from my presence and if necessary from my church and my denomination. But let's not confuse the Christian who is out there trying to figure life out, who barely even knows who Jesus is other than they hope He will somehow rescue them from their life, with the Christian who has experienced all that the Spirit has to offer.
The Corinthian church was acting like a bunch of thugs. They may have been worse than the society around them. They were advocating a Jesus that didn't exist. They were preaching a Jesus that was wrong. Yes, that I am against and will do everything I can to remove it.
Come to think of it, I'm not sure I should give any credibility to anything Paul says because he is a murderer. Paul killed Christians. How is it that someone let him in? I mean Paul decided that it was OK to kill Christians. In fact Paul's position would have put Jesus' blood on his hands. Paul was a Jew who knew all of the prophesies but He still denied Christ and attempted to kill his followers. If there is anyone who should not be allowed in a church it is Paul. Yet, for some reason, Jesus forgave Paul and helped him become a great leader of our church. Isn't it possible that we can take those same people who claim to know Christ but are sinning and help them become great leaders in our church?
So do we follow a life long example of Jesus exposing sin and entering into relationship with the sinner to heal the sinner, or do we take an example of Paul chastising a church for false teaching and immoral behavior in the church and apply it to every sinner in our churches?
I am not in any way saying I will ignore Paul, but I will choose to attempt to understand the context in which Paul was speaking and seek guidance from not only Jesus but my community before applying such measures.
I suggest that since the term "Christian" is claimed by so many, that a different measuring stick needs to be used in terms of heresy. I am beginning to feel that a person has no idea who Jesus is until they have fully given all of their lives to Jesus. Their job, their family, their heart; everything. They have no clue regarding the power of Jesus in their lives until they have given up control of their lives to Jesus. I am afraid that most of our churches are full of people who claim Christ because they were told He would save them. That is the extent of their commitment and involvement no matter how many years they have been in church. To them it is all about the perfect retirement.
You want to condemn someone, condemn me. Place the burden of responsibility upon me. But I beg you. Do not put those who do not truly understand Christ out of the church simply because they claim Christ but do not follow Christ. Instead let us forge ahead and determine to gain the right to speak to their hearts. Let us dedicate ourselves and sacrifice ourselves to have the chance to introduce at least one person to the true Christ. May I be able to interact in relationship with at least one person and help them become a follower of Christ and to give Christ full control of their lives. May I be willing to be uncomfortable in the presence of one who sins so that I might introduce them to Christ. May I be willing to devote time to the Christian who claims Christ but does not know Christ. May I be willing to help them find Christ and become a follower.
Enough ranting for today. I have a sermon to write. I hope that I have not spoken in an unkind way to any of you. Rather I chose to express an anger I sometimes feel towards myself for having done so little to lead others to follow Christ in the past and instead chose to judge my fellow brothers and sisters for their indiscretions while ignoring my own.
Post Thanks / Like - 10 Thanks, 0 Laughing
Thanks, Kyle. Go write your sermon. I had one to write, but I think I may be all set now.
I would ask the privilege of struggling along with you. When you get it all figured out, please don't let me know. But as long as you need to keep your arms out to your sides to maintain balance, I consider us to be fellow travelers.
Post Thanks / Like - 3 Thanks, 0 Laughing
Wow. That's pretty much my sermon for Sunday. It must be of God!
Last edited by Jon Bemis; May 4th, 2012 at 12:43 PM.
Loving God . . . Loving others.Post Thanks / Like - 1 Thanks, 0 Laughing
Kyle, I cannot thank you enough for your post. You say so eloquently what I feel.
"You want to condemn someone, condemn me. Place the burden of responsibility upon me." Let me share this burden with you.
You can be right or you can be in relationshipPost Thanks / Like - 3 Thanks, 0 Laughing
But you already have said so. Given the context of of 1 Cor 5:11 to which you responded, you said and I quote "I'm a fornicator." My first thought was that perhaps you misspoke and didn't mean to say this. I've asked for clarification in the hope that you may have misspoke.
Not at issue at all, we haven't even touched upon any of this. My interpretation has nothing to do with this, your so far ahead that I can't really see where your at. What seems to be at issue is that I brought up what scripture says that our response should be, to which I'm hearing you say something like this. I fit the bill, whatever Paul is saying, I am presently guilty and so what, If you won't associate with me I'll call you out on it. Maybe your saying something different but that's what I'm hearing.
It doesn't appear that you would give us the chance. Sorry to find that you are so combative.
-Jim
To know and to serve God, of course, is why we're here, a clear truth, that, like the nose on your face, is near at hand and easily discernible but can make you dizzy if you try to focus on it hard. But a little faith will see you through.
Garrison Keillor
Heidi is combative? C'mon Jim. You told her, in general terms that you would not share a meal with her and would put her out of the fellowship. All Heidi has admitted to is past sin and current struggle while being re-created, just like the rest of us. She is saying what Paul, himself, said in Romans 7, I do not do that which I want but what I hate. Let's put Paul out too based on what Paul says and an overzealous overboard application and interpretation. So, it seems based on your understanding of 1 Corinthians and your understanding of Heidi's statements you have rejected her, not her you.
You can be right or you can be in relationshipPost Thanks / Like - 3 Thanks, 0 Laughing
In my home town, we're dismissively known as the church where you can go to if nobody else wants you. Sounds pretty Christlike to me.
Which is actually the way Hannie and I got there too.
"No scripture can mean that God is not love, or that his mercy is not over all his works" (John Wesley - Free Grace, 26)Post Thanks / Like - 8 Thanks, 0 Laughing
Sorry to bail on this, but I leave in a few minutes for Endicott, NY, for a men's retreat. This thread will do just fine without my input. I look forward to catching up when I return. blessings, dms
Pretty good sermon Kyle, thanks so much for the condemnation, I appreciate it.
First off, I did not "call you out", I asked you to look at what I've been saying in context. If you felt that you needed to lash out at me, so be it.
As to this first part, I'm in full agreement with you.
Couldn't disagree more. What part of this pastor's actions bears any resemblance to the admonitions given in Corinthians? I don't see a single thing here that is in any way reflective, not one thing. Nor would I agree with anything that you describe this pastor as doing. In short, you are way off base here, I don't understand how it is that you hear me saying anything like this.
You appear to be continuing off of your last paragraph. Your way off base here, I said nothing that would remotely elicit this response. Again, go back and read Corinthians, examine the admonitions and instructions given and go no further, not one bit. Now if you meant to say that 90% of the pastors you know are currently having sex with folks that they are not married to, then yes they should leave. Are you suggesting that they should stay?
Of course someone cannot be a hypocrite without understanding, why would you even suggest this? The term implies understanding and deception, that is why I have used it. I have taken the time to distinguish between sinners and hypocrites much the same as Paul does. Please tell me how we go about this disciplining process in a way that gives someone the impression that sexual sin is something that they can work out over time. I'm missing something here.
Huh? And I really mean this so I'll repeat it. Huh? I have no idea where you are getting this from. I know for sure that you didn't get it from me.
Not sure what you are saying here.
No confusion at all Kyle. You have in fact just agreed with me. I'm saddened that you don't realize this.
Again, glad to hear it, and sad that you haven't heard me when I've said the same thing here.
If your still responding to me, then man you are very confused. Paul is not a murderer, he was a murderer, there is a difference. Paul "killed" Christians, past tense, makes all the difference in the world. Of course he could and was forgiven, we aren't talking past tense here. Paul "denied" Christ! So what, we all have, scripture tells us that we were all once at enmity with God. Again we are talking about fully informed folks committing overt sexual sin here, present tense.
It is not an either or situation. Jesus was far tougher than Paul was on hypocrisy. We aren't talking about sinners here, they are most welcome.
Very much in agreement with you here.
I can agree with so much of this. This is a real issue, and it is sad that we have gotten to the point where our message is so confused and fractured. All the more reason to embrace holiness and all the more reason to disciple folks.
But the issue here is in regards to the church advocating that single folks use contraception, my answer remains heaven forbid. To do so puts us further in sin that the Corinthians had been.
Kyle, I have said nothing that should have ever given you this impression. Nothing!
While I do feel that you have been unkind, I'm ok with that. Could you please look at what I am saying rather than react to what you think your hearing?
-Jim
To know and to serve God, of course, is why we're here, a clear truth, that, like the nose on your face, is near at hand and easily discernible but can make you dizzy if you try to focus on it hard. But a little faith will see you through.
Garrison KeillorPost Thanks / Like - 1 Thanks, 0 Laughing
I think it's time to step back and regroup, Jim.
You're coming off in ways I know are out of character for you.
...just my $.02.Post Thanks / Like - 6 Thanks, 0 Laughing
Sure. But rubbing elbows with those in dirty robes might soil us. ...and if we share the good news and are nice to them and they don't change quickly enough, we fret over whether we have condoned their dirt, and thus soiled ourselves in the process.The Church is made up of forgiven, cleansed, born again, "new creation" (former) sinners. If our robes are white robes are clean, we should be sharing the GOOD NEWS that their robes can be white and clean again!
Added former sinners (as we once were), did not want to imply that their is no difference between a sinner and a Christian.
That's the thing about switching into evangelist-speak mode...it preaches well but doesn't live in the real world.
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us wthout end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."
- C.S. LewisPost Thanks / Like - 1 Thanks, 0 Laughing
This is not true Paul. I ask that you go back and check for yourself.
Heidi has very clearly said "I'm a fornicator." I have asked if she really meant to say this. I don't want to believe this is true. Now I have no idea how she is defining this, but she does appear quite firm in her assertion.
She has most assuredly presented herself as combative. I have brought up where I feel scripture speaks to sexual sin, in this case specifically 1 Cor 5:11, to which Heidi clearly stated "I'm a fornicator." After which she has taken the stance that she indeed fits the bill and is defiant.
So let me ask you this Paul, and I'm looking for a serious answer. I'm going to pattern this along the lines of how I would define "fornicator." Lets say that I'm a friend of yours and perhaps we go to the same church although we don't need to. lets say that I claim to be a Christian, as do you. So far so good, now lets add in what I think Paul was speaking to. Lets say that I have found an attractive young lady or perhaps an older one, and lets suppose that I was sucessful in getting her to sleep with me on a regular basis. All the while I'm proudly proclaiming that I;m a Christian, I still go to church, I still stand up and give testimony, and pray out loud from time to time as well. And I'm going to continue sleeping with this woman, but don't worry, it's a loving and consensual relationship. Oh yeah, for the sake of the argument I'm also single.
Tell me Paul. What are you going to do?
-Jim
To know and to serve God, of course, is why we're here, a clear truth, that, like the nose on your face, is near at hand and easily discernible but can make you dizzy if you try to focus on it hard. But a little faith will see you through.
Garrison Keillor
What does it mean to put them out of the church? One could easily make a biblical case that one who is divorced and remarried is committing sexual sin, regardless of the reason for their divorce. Should they be banned from the premises, or just prevented from doing or anything beyond warming a pew? Would you abstain from their jello salad at the church potluck?
What if you happened to notice a well-respected male board member looking just a little too long at a woman's chest at a church gathering? Would you start a Matthew 18 process to confront him? According to scripture, he has committed adultery with her, so should he be removed from the board? ...from the church?
My point here is not to defend sin, but to point out that a Christlike response is not as simple as casting out sinners.
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us wthout end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."
- C.S. Lewis
I don't think so Ryan. I've had all manner of untrue criticism thrown my way and I am trying my best to explain myself.
My take is that I must step back away from what scripture is telling me here. This I cannot do. If I have misinterpreted scripture, then I'm all ears, so far no one has addressed what Paul is saying here without extending it out into hyperbole.
Can we at least say that there must be a situation where this scriptural admonition is true and should be followed?
I'll give three examples where I have found a need to do so. Mind you I have only found three instances in thirty years.
First one involved a woman who was very involved in the music program at her church. She was involved in an affair with a married man. She and her husband divorced as did the man and his wife. She proclaimed pretty loudly that none of this had anything to do with her walk with the Lord and that she loves God now more than ever, insisting that her actions be accepted.
Second one involves a friend of my wife. Her husband was in charge of the video ministry at their church and I believe he served as a deacon for a time as well. He left his wife to take up a sexual relationship with another man. At one point he was hopeful that they could have what he referred to as an "irish divorce" whereby they could stay married while he continued to have sex with this man. He continued to stay involved at church, even bringing his boyfriend with him, until they had to vote to remove him from membership.
Third one is fresh and ongoing, and it hurts me deeply. A very close Christian friend of mine has been involved in an affair with a long time ago girlfriend who he found on facebook. Ignoring Paul's advice, I pleaded, implored, begged and counseled with him to move past this sin. My heart has been shredded and broken to watch this man destroy his life. He has since left his wife of 38 years to go and live with this woman. His wife has written to us a couple of times, she is utterly devastated, she has been a good Christian wife to this man and her thoughts and prayers are toward restoring their relationship, not one unforgiving thought have I heard from her. She has asked me to disassociate with her husband, not out of anger, but from the trust that the route back is to follow God's instruction. She didn't have to ask me, I knew that I should have done this earlier. I spent two hours with him, and I've told him through tears that I dearly love him, but I must follow the Lords instruction. I pray that one day he will do the same and return to his wife, she will wait for him.
So there are three actual examples, I have no more than this. Tell me where I've elicited the responses given here?
-Jim
To know and to serve God, of course, is why we're here, a clear truth, that, like the nose on your face, is near at hand and easily discernible but can make you dizzy if you try to focus on it hard. But a little faith will see you through.
Garrison KeillorPost Thanks / Like - 4 Thanks, 0 Laughing
I agree with you Billy, there is no easy answer. The further we stray, the harder it will be.
Clearly we must be loving and compassionate, no doubt there. At some point we do advocate sin, can we go there?
I'm thinking that advocating contraception is advocating sin. Despite the reality of our present day culture, we cannot go there, can we?
-Jim
To know and to serve God, of course, is why we're here, a clear truth, that, like the nose on your face, is near at hand and easily discernible but can make you dizzy if you try to focus on it hard. But a little faith will see you through.
Garrison KeillorPost Thanks / Like - 1 Thanks, 0 Laughing
Jim,
Guess I wasn't really responding to you. You pointed out 1 Corinthians and I have experienced others, including myself, who have taken a rather harsh light on the sinful actions of Christians. As I pointed out I felt a need to express the anger that I sometimes feel towards myself for past behavior and a failure to make disciples. If any of my rant speaks to you then let it speak, otherwise I am simply sharing with a community that I hope accepts me, that I am dedicated to doing better.
Post Thanks / Like - 4 Thanks, 0 Laughing
I'm going to love you right where you are. (I'd hope you're single and she is too, or I'd have to stone you for adultery. ) If you think that I am going to abandon you, put you out of fellowship with me you are sadly mistaken. I'd ask you what you were doing and where you see that relationship going. If it is a committed relationship but doesn't have the ties of a secular state marriage license, I'm okay with that. But if you are using her for your gratification, objectifying her (and by extension yourself) I'd counsel you that I don't think what you are doing is loving either her or yourself. I'd try to delve into the causes of why you'd objectify yourself, why are you trying to find fulfillment in a meaningless object oriented activity. Try to help you see that there is a better way.
I know many people who for one reason or another find themselves stuck in these types of activities, not wanting to be, that find them painful. Yet, keep doing it because they don't know how to stop. It's a brokenness that love, of Christ and community, can heal. It certainly isn't healed by legalism.
Let me ask you: If Paul, himself, does that which he finds hateful and not doing that which he knows he ought (Romans 7) how do you reconcile that with put them out of the fellowship?
You can be right or you can be in relationshipPost Thanks / Like - 1 Thanks, 0 Laughing
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
