Should churches advocate contraception for singles?

[Paul DeBaufer]

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?

I have read all of her posts and all of yours. She, like many in the Evangelical community is saying that she is a sinner like all of us. A sinner being saved, being sanctified, being made new, just like me, and just like you. Now you might not have chosen her wording. None of us has reached perfection in all areas. Heidi also invoked Matthew 5:27-30 in response to your request for clarification. I submit it is you that misunderstands Heidi and not I, but I could be wrong. Let's let her decide which one of us understands what she was saying better.

[Bill Morrison]

On one side of this debate, I see those who admirably desire to show the love of Christ towards the sinner. On the other side I see Jim's concern (based upon Paul's NT admonition) that we must deal appropriately with open sexual (or any other type of) sin within the church and not as some oldtimers used to say "wink" at sin. I can only imagine the devastation that is caused when those young in the faith see wife-swapping and other types of activities taking place before them in church by those who openly claim to be Christian and who seem to be supported in their sin by the silence and inaction of the church. This does happen: Jim's three illustrations are not the only ones. Some of us could give other stories from right here in the COTN. Perhaps the phrase about "not eating with such people" is causing some of the heat in the argument. How do we transfer to modern church culture the love of Christ for the sinner appropriately balanced with a desire to keep Christ's Bride pure?
And I do think true love for a sinner can sometimes mean the church taking drastic action as recommended by Paul, with such action being the appropriate response of love towards both the sinner and the Church.

BILL

[Paul DeBaufer]

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?

I would urge you to reconsider what you are doing and to stop However, if you won't or can't I would certainly urge you to use contraceptive protection. No child should be brought into any such objective oriented situation.

[Hans Deventer]

How do we transfer to modern church culture the love of Christ for the sinner appropriately balanced with a desire to keep Christ's Bride pure?

Bill, I don't think anyone advocates for an "anything goes" approach. Jesus certainly did not. However, contrary to what the Scribes, the Pharisees and in fact most of the people of Israel did, He did not walk away from open sinners. In stead of casting them out, which, if anyone, He had a right to do (including throwing the first stone, for He actually was without sin), He searched them out as the faithful shepherd. He wasn't afraid to be contaminated or made filthy, instead, He cleansed the unclean and filthy ones.

Now I have to be careful here. He wasn't always what we call "soft" (wrong word, btw). He did in fact speak harsh words. Not to the sinners though, but primarily to those who considered themselves righteous. And they were the ones responsible for crucifying Him, not the whores and the tax collectors and other sinners.

In fact, it is the whores and tax collectors who might enter the kingdom before the righteous ones who were so keen on keeping things pure.

I don't think anyone of us will accuse Jesus of tampering with the standards of a holy life. In fact, if anyone thinks holy living is easy, the Sermon on the Mount will teach you differently. But the Holy One did not cast sinners out. He was not too Holy to see sin. He wasn't clearing the his threshing floor as John the Baptist thought He would, but rather explained that weed and wheat would grow together till the harvest (Matt 13). In due time, the weed will be burned. He'll take care of that.

So my plea is, as much as we possibly can, to walk with people, eat and drink with them as Jesus did, and seek to bring salvation. I understand there can be situations that are so damaging that the drastic measures Paul recommends must be taken. But these are not the norm. We should not turn into a church as Kyle wrote about. The norm is Christ. For He is the way, the truth and the life, and if we claim to be His body, we cannot but walk in His steps first and foremost. Jesus showed the way, IS the way. Paul applied the way in certain specific contexts. We should not reverse those and make them the norm. Jesus' way is always primary.

[Doug Ward]

Absolutely not!!! There are countless organizations whose purpose is to advocate for contraception - I will let them do their thing. Our job as a church is to counsel and place sexual activity into the sacred role to should possess. Every minute I spend putting a condom on a banana is one less minute spent doing what we should do best.

[Bill Morrison]

Bill, I don't think anyone advocates for an "anything goes" approach. Jesus certainly did not. However, contrary to what the Scribes, the Pharisees and in fact most of the people of Israel did, He did not walk away from open sinners. In stead of casting them out, which, if anyone, He had a right to do (including throwing the first stone, for He actually was without sin), He searched them out as the faithful shepherd. He wasn't afraid to be contaminated or made filthy, instead, He cleansed the unclean and filthy ones.

Now I have to be careful here. He wasn't always what we call "soft" (wrong word, btw). He did in fact speak harsh words. Not to the sinners though, but primarily to those who considered themselves righteous. And they were the ones responsible for crucifying Him, not the whores and the tax collectors and other sinners.

In fact, it is the whores and tax collectors who might enter the kingdom before the righteous ones who were so keen on keeping things pure.

I don't think anyone of us will accuse Jesus of tampering with the standards of a holy life. In fact, if anyone thinks holy living is easy, the Sermon on the Mount will teach you differently. But the Holy One did not cast sinners out. He was not too Holy to see sin. He wasn't clearing the his threshing floor as John the Baptist thought He would, but rather explained that weed and wheat would grow together till the harvest (Matt 13). In due time, the weed will be burned. He'll take care of that.

So my plea is, as much as we possibly can, to walk with people, eat and drink with them as Jesus did, and seek to bring salvation. I understand there can be situations that are so damaging that the drastic measures Paul recommends must be taken. But these are not the norm. We should not turn into a church as Kyle wrote about. The norm is Christ. For He is the way, the truth and the life, and if we claim to be His body, we cannot but walk in His steps first and foremost. Jesus showed the way, IS the way. Paul applied the way in certain specific contexts. We should not reverse those and make them the norm. Jesus' way is always primary.

I agree that we must avoid pitfalls at either extreme of this issue. Both the church and eternal souls of individuals can be damaged if we aren't very careful. (Isn't that true in so many life situations, as well as in the church?) People may seem to be farther apart when they debate issues in a broad general way on a website than they might be if they were dealing with a specific situation. I would expect a new Christian still dealing with a drug problem and shacked up with his third girlfriend would find a welcome and concerned love and help from any Nazarene who is participating in this thread, just as the Master treated the woman at the well. I also suspect that a long time church member who abandons his wife and openly testifies his new sweetheart is God's perfect will for him and everyone should accept that would find the love of his fellow members expressed differently than before, perhaps even to the point that regular fellowship could not continue as if nothing happened. The wronged wife deserves better support from the church than people continuing to "eat and drink" in fellowship with her scoundrel husband as if nothing had happened.

BILL

[Jim Chabot]

I have read all of her posts and all of yours. She, like many in the Evangelical community is saying that she is a sinner like all of us. A sinner being saved, being sanctified, being made new, just like me, and just like you. Now you might not have chosen her wording. None of us has reached perfection in all areas. Heidi also invoked Matthew 5:27-30 in response to your request for clarification. I submit it is you that misunderstands Heidi and not I, but I could be wrong. Let's let her decide which one of us understands what she was saying better.

Paul, she was clear on this. I asked her twice if she meant what she said. In the end she said that she would not answer. That's combative.

Look at my questions to her. I'm pretty clear that I'm hoping for what you claim to see. I'm hoping that here reference was to past sin and present imperfection. To call someone a fornicator is pretty strong language if you ask me, I wouldn't do so lightly and I'm taken aback that someone would basically say something like this and then refuse to back away from it.

Yes I did see the reference to Matthew, I chose not to pursue it due to her combative responses so far. The verse in Matthew speaks to marital fidelity, sure the physical act may be the same, but there is no corollary there regarding a single person claiming to be a fornicator.

I'm at somewhat of a loss for what she is actually saying about her sin. Nothing to do other than to take her word for it and move on. I tried to get some clarity, to be honest I still don't actually believe she is a fornicator.

Combative? Yes not much doubt there.

[Bill Morrison]

Every minute I spend putting a condom on a banana is one less minute spent doing what we should do best.

I don't disagree with you Doug........but I do think this would make for a much more interesting Sunday School class session than some I have taught

BILL

[Paul DeBaufer]

Paul, she was clear on this. I asked her twice if she meant what she said. In the end she said that she would not answer. That's combative.

Look at my questions to her. I'm pretty clear that I'm hoping for what you claim to see. I'm hoping that here reference was to past sin and present imperfection. To call someone a fornicator is pretty strong language if you ask me, I wouldn't do so lightly and I'm taken aback that someone would basically say something like this and then refuse to back away from it.

Yes I did see the reference to Matthew, I chose not to pursue it due to her combative responses so far. The verse in Matthew speaks to marital fidelity, sure the physical act may be the same, but there is no corollary there regarding a single person claiming to be a fornicator.

I'm at somewhat of a loss for what she is actually saying about her sin. Nothing to do other than to take her word for it and move on. I tried to get some clarity, to be honest I still don't actually believe she is a fornicator.

Combative? Yes not much doubt there.

We are just going to have to disagree, because as third party observer I do not see her combativeness. And we may both be wrong as to what Heidi was saying, we both may have misunderstood.

[Kyle Borger]

Ok, I will go with you a little bit here. So what about the person that accepts their actions are wrong but have difficulties changing?

[Jim Chabot]

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 probably shouldn't have asked and I apologize, it wasn't my aim to set you up. No sense debating this back and forth, but you wouldn't be helping me. I'm guessing that I wouldn't respect you enough to change if you were just talking. initially that is what I did with my friend in example three. He left his wife anyways, I will always wonder if perhaps God's method would have possibly changed things. I know that I acted out of concern and love, still I was mistaken I should have heeded the Master's advice. Still there is hope, I pray for them many times during the day, it's incredibly sad. Funerals are so much easier than divorce.

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.

I'm not advocating for legalism. Christ and community lacks the ability to heal if they aren't following Christ's instructions. We are powerless when we lean back to our own understanding. I don't believe that we recognize the line between helpful love and enabling. I'm guilty of this myself.

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?

Let me ask you this. Do you believe that Paul is speaking to the same issue in Roman's 7 as is contemplated in Corinthians. I don't believe this is possible. Paul's concern in Corinthians is a serious concern about a serious sin. Again Dwayne has put this in proper context, people die directly due to this sin. Teens commit suicide, Husbands kill estranged wives, and Wives kill their husbands, it happens all of the time, I don't think I can remember a day when this wasn't one of the stories in the news. We are not talking about a piddlin little sin here, we are talking about something that has the power to create incredible satisfaction and well being on one hand, and yet has the power to totally destroy on the other. This is literally playing with fire.

As an aside, I brought this up on another thread and got ignored. I honestly believe that Treyvon Martin was an angry young man, everything about him points to this. I honestly believe that his parents divorce could very well be the reason for his anger.

[Cam Pence]

Ok, I will go with you a little bit here. So what about the person that accepts their actions are wrong but have difficulties changing?

Thanks Kyle. Against my better judgement I will add to this thread. I haven't seen anyone make this distinction yet between denial and recovering. It seems that Jim sees hypocrisy in this conversation as someone who blatantly sins and simply does not care about it or acknowledges it as sin (denial), yet still claims to be a Christ follower. I would guess that others have spoken about sin as Kyle has demonstrated here. Acknowledging something as sinful yet still struggling with it. If I consider fornication to be a sin, yet still struggle and stumble into fornication, then even though I struggle with it and seek from God and the church to stop it, I am still a fornicator. I may be recovering, but am still a fornicator. Alcoholism comes to mind. If I struggled with alcoholism for years and I have been sober for 3 years, I am still a RECOVERING alcoholic. I am sorry if I missed this somewhere in the thread, but it seems like it might be helpful to the discussion to make sure we are distinguishing between these two understandings.

[Kyle Borger]

I only have a few minutes before I have to take my daughter to ballet.....

Should a church hand out contraceptives? My tradition, my culture, everything that I am says no. Will I condemn another church that does? I don't really know. It would make me very uncomfortable as I just am not sure that it is the right message. But I do agree that we are ignoring sex and it is causing harm in the church. Sex is a topic everywhere but the church unless we are telling people not to do it. The church has such a negative stigma that even some Christian couples struggle with what is acceptable behavior within their marriage.

We have got to stop letting the world define what is acceptable sexually. It is creeping into the church and we must be preemptive and not reactive.

Jim's last post helped me see where he was coming from because his interaction with Heidi kind of put me in the wrong spot. I have also experienced those situations and the members were removed. I'm not saying never. I'm just saying let's try and find a way to restore the person or the couple if possible. When they refuse to accept that their behavior is wrong and refuse the guidance of the church then it is time begin the process.

I don't sense that Heidi was saying that she thinks it is permissible to fornicate, rather I sensed that she was saying that she sought the saving grace of Jesus concerning her behavior. That is where I am going to stand up and defend a person. If they are seeking redemption, then I will do all that I can to help them find it.

[Heidi Anderson]

Not sure why Jim is so interested in my sex life. (THAT was combative Jim...)


I don't feel I am combative simply because I do not wish to disclose to you, a stranger, whether or not I'm sleeping around. I admit that I have been combative in the past on NN particularly surrounding issues like this, but I am open and honest in my descriptions of things I have struggled with. I'm thankful for a Nazarene pastor and church that has loved me in spite of my PAST sin and continues to be a place for me to serve in leadership on the DAB and Delegate to Assembly.


To set the matter straight I am not currently a "forincator" and have not been since my twenties. I feel badly that the discussion has come to this and sorry if this is TMI for all of you!

[Jim Chabot]

Not sure why Jim is so interested in my sex life. (THAT was combative Jim...)


I don't feel I am combative simply because I do not wish to disclose to you, a stranger, whether or not I'm sleeping around. I admit that I have been combative in the past on NN particularly surrounding issues like this, but I am open and honest in my descriptions of things I have struggled with. I'm thankful for a Nazarene pastor and church that has loved me in spite of my PAST sin and continues to be a place for me to serve in leadership on the DAB and Delegate to Assembly.


To set the matter straight I am not currently a "forincator" and have not been since my twenties. I feel badly that the discussion has come to this and sorry if this is TMI for all of you!

Heidi, I have zero interest in your sex life. You came out with guns blazing and declared "I'm a fornicator." My only interest was/is to give you the benefit of the doubt. Whereby I have been asking only if you really meant to say this.

Thank you for clearing this up, it was a simple question aimed only toward your benefit.

No need for all of the drama, you have been most assuredly combative. Good grief!

[Paul DeBaufer]

I probably shouldn't have asked and I apologize, it wasn't my aim to set you up. No sense debating this back and forth, but you wouldn't be helping me. I'm guessing that I wouldn't respect you enough to change if you were just talking. initially that is what I did with my friend in example three. He left his wife anyways, I will always wonder if perhaps God's method would have possibly changed things. I know that I acted out of concern and love, still I was mistaken I should have heeded the Master's advice. Still there is hope, I pray for them many times during the day, it's incredibly sad. Funerals are so much easier than divorce.

Of course you wouldn't change for me. I don't really think you'd change at all, but I would hope. If you think people change in the face of rejection you are sadly mistaken. The only change I do when rejected to to get bitter and angry and write off the rejecters. And I really do not think that I am all that special, especially in this regard. Tough love works for the families of addicts, for their good they need. As far as your not respecting me, thank you. Really I am good with that,

I'm not advocating for legalism. Christ and community lacks the ability to heal if they aren't following Christ's instructions. We are powerless when we lean back to our own understanding. I don't believe that we recognize the line between helpful love and enabling. I'm guilty of this myself.

You seem to be advocating a legalism in this one area by your seeming insistence on a general and ubiquitous application of Paul's admonition to a specific church facing specific problems. Are there churches that do like the Corinthian church? I think I have seen one or two. And it seems to me that that church had unapologetic sinners that claimed to be Christians, not people who acknowledge that they err and are struggling (something we ALL do in one area or another).

I agree with you that the line between enabling and helping is very thin, oft indiscernible. With the same person what is helping one moment may well be enabling another.

Let me ask you this. Do you believe that Paul is speaking to the same issue in Roman's 7 as is contemplated in Corinthians. I don't believe this is possible. Paul's concern in Corinthians is a serious concern about a serious sin. Again Dwayne has put this in proper context, people die directly due to this sin. Teens commit suicide, Husbands kill estranged wives, and Wives kill their husbands, it happens all of the time, I don't think I can remember a day when this wasn't one of the stories in the news. We are not talking about a piddlin little sin here, we are talking about something that has the power to create incredible satisfaction and well being on one hand, and yet has the power to totally destroy on the other. This is literally playing with fire.

As an aside, I brought this up on another thread and got ignored. I honestly believe that Treyvon Martin was an angry young man, everything about him points to this. I honestly believe that his parents divorce could very well be the reason for his anger.

I believe that Paul is addressing specific instance of sinfulness within the church at Corinth and not making a general statement. I believe that there are churches and individuals who live to sin more so grace abounds more, abusing their freedom making a mockery of grace. But I said as much above and in other posts in this thread.

[Jim Chabot]

Of course you wouldn't change for me. I don't really think you'd change at all, but I would hope. If you think people change in the face of rejection you are sadly mistaken.

However I'm mindful that this is God's advice given the situation. Therefore I'm not mistaken and I need to trust Him rather than man's designs on what works and what doesn't.

The only change I do when rejected to to get bitter and angry and write off the rejecters. And I really do not think that I am all that special, especially in this regard. Tough love works for the families of addicts, for their good they need.

Can't argue with that, I'm the same way. Again, I need to trust God.

As far as your not respecting me, thank you. Really I am good with that,

I may have worded that badly, I do respect you. What I meant to say was that, should I be the person caught in sin, I would not respect the person acting in the manner you have outlined. My apologies.

You seem to be advocating a legalism in this one area by your seeming insistence on a general and ubiquitous application of Paul's admonition to a specific church facing specific problems. Are there churches that do like the Corinthian church? I think I have seen one or two. And it seems to me that that church had unapologetic sinners that claimed to be Christians, not people who acknowledge that they err and are struggling (something we ALL do in one area or another).

The legalism angle is a non starter. Telling folks that they must walk with and love people is every bit as legalistic.

Are there churches like Corinth? Huh? Yeah buddy, there are plenty of them. But enough of that. It seems that we hear a lot of commentary on scripture and how it was written and who it was written to and all of that. Sometimes enough of that will cause us to miss actually reading it for ourselves. If these are not general admonitions when the situation presents itself, then lets just tear out a few more pages. Can't go with you down the hermeneutic highway, it all boils down to he said she said and lets go scholar shopping.

I agree with you that the line between enabling and helping is very thin, oft indiscernible. With the same person what is helping one moment may well be enabling another.

No doubt it's a tough call. Even worse when you care for the person, then it becomes a heart wrenching call and endless worry about doing the right thing. That's what scripture is for, to lean on someone much smarter than we are.

I believe that Paul is addressing specific instance of sinfulness within the church at Corinth and not making a general statement. I believe that there are churches and individuals who live to sin more so grace abounds more, abusing their freedom making a mockery of grace. But I said as much above and in other posts in this thread.

I believe that Paul is that vessel specifically chosen by Christ to speak God's will to us. Specific instance of sin, yes I can agree and I have said so. Church at Corinth? Nothing more than a way to find the passage, if the glove fits..........

No wait, if the shoe fits............yeah, that's better.

[Paul DeBaufer]

However I'm mindful that this is God's advice given the situation. Therefore I'm not mistaken and I need to trust Him rather than man's designs on what works and what doesn't.

Trust God, we, again are on the same page and in agreement. As far as 1 Corinthians being God's advice, I am sure it best effort at communicating what he believed was God's advice in the given situation. I think we have a difference of opinion concerning inspiration.

Can't argue with that, I'm the same way. Again, I need to trust God.

Again, I cannot argue with trusting God.

I may have worded that badly, I do respect you. What I meant to say was that, should I be the person caught in sin, I would not respect the person acting in the manner you have outlined. My apologies.

No apology necessary, Jim. I think that when we are caught in sin none of us are good at respecting the one rebuking or trying to teach us. Not in the moment at least.

The legalism angle is a non starter. Telling folks that they must walk with and love people is every bit as legalistic.

No surprise, but I kinda disagree. Love is not a set of rules, it is not a set of prohibitions. Can we become legalistic in trying to get people to adhere to love? You bet, but I doubt that that actually begins or ends in love.

Are there churches like Corinth? Huh? Yeah buddy, there are plenty of them. But enough of that. It seems that we hear a lot of commentary on scripture and how it was written and who it was written to and all of that. Sometimes enough of that will cause us to miss actually reading it for ourselves. If these are not general admonitions when the situation presents itself, then lets just tear out a few more pages. Can't go with you down the hermeneutic highway, it all boils down to he said she said and lets go scholar shopping.

You've experienced those churches too, huh? I'd really rather not deal with the people coming out of them. All they can ever say when confronted with sin is, "Works! I'm saved by grace alone. You are religious. I have freedom." I have no sympathy, they are too arrogant, too self-convinced that their lil magic spell saved them. Give me someone who knows that they do wrong, desires to do differently, yet for whatever reason cannot.

Again we have different views on inspiration leading to different hermeneutics. I'm not interested in tearing out pages, just rightly applying them. I may well be interested in adding pages to the Protestant Bible, well actually I do for I accept the deuterocanon and the books accepted by the different versions of the Orthodox Church as well as those in the RCC.

No doubt it's a tough call. Even worse when you care for the person, then it becomes a heart wrenching call and endless worry about doing the right thing. That's what scripture is for, to lean on someone much smarter than we are.

Very heart wrenching. I had to tell a very dear friend that he couldn't come to my house when he was drinking. My roommates were too new to sobriety and his presence when drinking put them in jeopardy. Eventually things got so bad that I had to tell him not to call when he was drinking, unless he wanted a ride to rehab. Didn't see much of him after that. A little just before he died.

I am helping someone right now and most of the time my help is just that. But sometimes she uses my help and goes back to the vomit she is trying to escape (and I hope that she is using contraceptives, she doesn't need another child) and the help become enabling. I care deeply for this person, see her potential and her desire to be the person God desires her to be. But she has issues that make it difficult. Three steps forward, 2.5 back.

I believe that Paul is that vessel specifically chosen by Christ to speak God's will to us. Specific instance of sin, yes I can agree and I have said so. Church at Corinth? Nothing more than a way to find the passage, if the glove fits..........

An imperfect and very human vessel, but didn't he tell us that?

No wait, if the shoe fits............yeah, that's better.

[Hans Deventer]

I also suspect that a long time church member who abandons his wife and openly testifies his new sweetheart is God's perfect will for him and everyone should accept that would find the love of his fellow members expressed differently than before, perhaps even to the point that regular fellowship could not continue as if nothing happened. The wronged wife deserves better support from the church than people continuing to "eat and drink" in fellowship with her scoundrel husband as if nothing had happened.

A few remarks. I agree we must get down to the nitty gritty of real life situations.

1. This suggests that the wronged wife is 100% innocent, her husband 100% guilty. I submit this isn't often the case.
   
   
2. People in a divorce situation very often want others to choose sides in a very black and white manner. They put people who refuse to do so in a difficult situation, but a church, by definition, needs to resist.
   
   
3. I can see how, if a situation is pretty clear, disciplinary measures will be taken. Our church has done so in the past. But it is impossible to minister to a person if you break all relations. So yes, if I were a pastor or a member of a pastoral team, I'd keep having lunch. And if I were just a friend, I would so too.
   
   
4. By definition, pastoral work is mostly a private affair. Disciplinary actions may be visible, but a large part of what is going on is not. This always tends to give the impression that the church doesn't do enough, doesn't take a stand strong enough etc. We need to resist thinking like that. Pastoral work cannot be used in a defence of actions, because of the nature of it. We need to realise the "weak" position of the church in that area.
   
   
5. The example you gave points in the direction of a person with a huge lack of a proper self view, seeking identity and affirmation in the wrong places. That's one of the definitions of sin. Chances are, there are numerous people in the congregation who do similar things, but just happen to seek in places that appear less hurtful to others. It might be a great moment to start a series of sermons on this principle in general.

[Dana Grant]

Well, I have not responded nor read most of the posts on this subject, but I just decided to jump in here and give my answer.

Throughout the lives of our children, as soon as they were old enough to be very curious about sexual matters, we have advocated abstinence. We talked about how marital sex is part of a marriage relationship and enhances the marriage, etc. etc. We also talked about the fact that having sex outside of marriage and producing a child from that relationship would not only make all of their dreams of what they wanted to be as adults, what they felt God wanted them to be, take a different turn, but it would also possibly cause negative issues for the baby involved, as well. I mean, that's not all that we talked about, but you get the main idea here. We couldn't talk about all of these issues without bringing up the subject of birth control. We talked about STDs and how the ONLY way to 100% avoid them is to remain abstinent until marriage. But we did talk about birth control. We told them that we could not make the decision to have sex or not for them, but if they did make that decision, we wanted them to know about birth control. But we also stressed that even using birth control does not 100% guarantee that they would not become parents.

Now, as far as advocating for birth control, I do not agree with that. However, I do believe that EVERY child should know about it and where to get it. And I believe that it should be taught in the home or at least in a Christian environment. Personally, I wanted my kids to learn as much as they could from US.

As it turns out, neither one of our children actually dated until they were over 18 -- by their own choice, really. That was something that was encouraged by their youth leaders, believe it or not. They encouraged "group activities" rather than single dating. It really was a blessing. Our kids have had very close friendships with many people rather than single dating just one person.

anyway -- that's how I feel about birth control. I did not want to be a grandmother before I was a mother-in-law. And that was for my children's sakes, as well as for the possible baby's sake.

But no, I don't think we should have condoms in the offering plate or birth control pills in the foyer as we leave.......I think a respectful teaching is in order.....

Dana

(our son is now married for 1 year!! and Lindsey will be 21 soon and is still single. )

[Larry Parsons]

Thanks Kyle. Against my better judgement I will add to this thread. I haven't seen anyone make this distinction yet between denial and recovering. It seems that Jim sees hypocrisy in this conversation as someone who blatantly sins and simply does not care about it or acknowledges it as sin (denial), yet still claims to be a Christ follower. I would guess that others have spoken about sin as Kyle has demonstrated here. Acknowledging something as sinful yet still struggling with it. If I consider fornication to be a sin, yet still struggle and stumble into fornication, then even though I struggle with it and seek from God and the church to stop it, I am still a fornicator. I may be recovering, but am still a fornicator. Alcoholism comes to mind. If I struggled with alcoholism for years and I have been sober for 3 years, I am still a RECOVERING alcoholic. I am sorry if I missed this somewhere in the thread, but it seems like it might be helpful to the discussion to make sure we are distinguishing between these two understandings.

Thanks for your post. God will alway forgive us of our sins if we confess them. But he doesn't always deliever everyone from them. That doesn't mean those who He doesn't deliever have the right to continue to sin. One can not habitual practice any sin and be a Christians. But if we do sin in our struggle we have Advocate with the Father, Jesus
Thanks
Larry

[Kami Tuenning]

Possibly a better approach to 20-30 something singles ministry would be spiritual formation rather than cultural relevancy. Just a novel idea.

[Kami Tuenning]

I challenge the church to develop a theology of sexuality. If we are to be true to the scripture and honest with people, it is way over due.

No need to reinvent the wheel: http://www.theologyofthebody.net/ind...tpage&Itemid=1

[Mike Schutz]

This is a Moderator's Post (I seem to be saying that a lot lately):

Please treat people the way you would like to be treated, or the way you would like your loved ones treated.

One of the many blessings of Naznet is the opportunity to "go offline" and send a private message. If you think you may be misunderstanding a person, correspond that way. It may help clear things up, avoid public embarrassment, and even turn an adversary into a friend - even if you disagree.

Grace and peace

[Benjamin Burch]

Thanks for your post. God will alway forgive us of our sins if we confess them. But he doesn't always deliever everyone from them. That doesn't mean those who He doesn't deliever have the right to continue to sin. One can not habitual practice any sin and be a Christians. But if we do sin in our struggle we have Advocate with the Father, Jesus
Thanks
Larry

That'll preach.

[Todd Erickson]

What if what was done in Corinthians in terms of ejecting the young man was because there were others, just as guilty, within the congregation (if not more) and this action against the young man spoke directly to and convicted their hearts as well. So when, in Corinthians II, Paul calls on them to bring the young man back in, it was because a general wave of conviction and repentance had broken out in the overall community?

[Sarah Smith]

I've been pondering this thread.

We aren't talking about teens, but twentysomethings.

I would figure they are old enough to go the dr for birth control if they want it.

My take is church should preach no sex outside of marriage (hetero) and if they choose to live otherwise, let them handle the medical issues themselves.

[Paul DeBaufer]

I've been pondering this thread.

We aren't talking about teens, but twentysomethings.

I would figure they are old enough to go the dr for birth control if they want it.

My take is church should preach no sex outside of marriage (hetero) and if they choose to live otherwise, let them handle the medical issues themselves.

Except these medical issues are human beings. If it were only STDs I don't think we'd be having this conversation about talking about contraception within the church. The real problem is unwanted pregnancy and the impact that has on the lives of the accidental parents and the children. I am of the opinion that IF unmarried people cannot or will not remain celibate then they should be encouraged to use birth control. I think that celibacy is the ideal for unmarriaeds and should be taught. But, we all know that that ideal will not be lived up to by all. For those that don't birth control should be encouraged. Lets face it accidental parents are the least ready to raise children, and then it is the children that suffer. We must consider the potential children's lives as greater than doctrine.

[Rich Schmidt]

Except these medical issues are human beings. If it were only STDs I don't think we'd be having this conversation about talking about contraception within the church. The real problem is unwanted pregnancy and the impact that has on the lives of the accidental parents and the children. I am of the opinion that IF unmarried people cannot or will not remain celibate then they should be encouraged to use birth control. I think that celibacy is the ideal for unmarriaeds and should be taught. But, we all know that that ideal will not be lived up to by all. For those that don't birth control should be encouraged. Lets face it accidental parents are the least ready to raise children, and then it is the children that suffer. We must consider the potential children's lives as greater than doctrine.

I think this whole thread has been going round and round in circles.

I think the vast majority of us agree that the church should continue to teach that sex is to be enjoyed between a husband and wife (leaving aside the homosexual issue for other threads), not by single folks.

And I think the vast majority of us agree that if single folks DO have sex, they should use some form of contraception.

The disagreement, I think, comes down to what we mean by "advocate" in the title of this thread. Do we mean churches should talk about it? Encourage it? Provide it?

That's where the vast majority of the disagreement lies. In my opinion. And I'm not sure there's enough disagreement, when it comes down to the details, to warrant over 100 posts. But... we do like to digress, don't we?

[Paul DeBaufer]

I think this whole thread has been going round and round in circles.

I think the vast majority of us agree that the church should continue to teach that sex is to be enjoyed between a husband and wife (leaving aside the homosexual issue for other threads), not by single folks.

And I think the vast majority of us agree that if single folks DO have sex, they should use some form of contraception.

The disagreement, I think, comes down to what we mean by "advocate" in the title of this thread. Do we mean churches should talk about it? Encourage it? Provide it?

That's where the vast majority of the disagreement lies. In my opinion. And I'm not sure there's enough disagreement, when it comes down to the details, to warrant over 100 posts. But... we do like to digress, don't we?

If we are not good at anything else we are good at beating that dead horse , aren't we? Oh and arguing where we really don't disagree. Ahh the pleasures of NazNet