Question for Christians

[Joanne]

Erica in PA,

 

I do agree that the Bible teaches us how, as Christians, to communicate with each other regarding sin and to judge. I just wanted you to know that I do not believe in churches and members taking a complete "MYOB" approach to other people's lives and have, indeed, suffered myself in churches that did so.

[Lovedtodeath]

You must love Jehovah your God with your whole heart, your whole strength and your whole soul.

 

This is what the love of God means, that we obey his commandments and yet his commandments are not burdensome.

[Tutor]

If the reason your mom & her boyfriend aren't married is financial, you could ask the pastor if he'd be willing to perform a spiritual marriage ceremony that is not legally binding. I know an elderly couple who cannot legally marry because the wife would lose her first husband's pension. Because they did not want to live in sin, they were spiritually married by their church. They consider themselves married in the eyes of God but the government (and more importantly the pension company) treats them as single.

 

This was going to be my suggestion as well. It seems like a good compromise covering your mom's need for legal independence and her boyfriend's desire to marry and recognizes their love for each other.

[Peek a Boo]

Also, how do we know this couple hasn't said vows to each other and with God?

 

we don't. based on what we do know, I'm betting they haven't gone that far though.

 

I would be interested in being a fly on the wall and seeing/hearing the reaction to both the couple and the pastor if a spiritual marriage was proposed tho. :-)

[Testimony]

The Bible calls sin sin. We have to find the gray. I agree that telling the man to move from one woman to another woman is not the best either. This is all that I can say. If the gentleman has truly accepted Jesus in his heart, then the Holy Spirit of the living God will convict him. I don't have to tell him anything, if I did have to tell him, then I would question certain things.

What about the scripture that says to expel the immoral brother?

 

In my opinion, this is the reason why the church of America has gone in the direction it has. We can't call sin sin. When churches deal with it, they are criticized for doing it or the way they are doing it. Maybe the pastor should leave the man alone, but don't give him a position in the church. He can only tell the man what he is doing wrong. He cannot force him to change, only God can change a heart of stone into a heart of flesh.

 

Blessings,

Karen

http://www.homeschoolblogger.com/testimony

[Peek a Boo]

If the gentleman has truly accepted Jesus in his heart, then the Holy Spirit of the living God will convict him. I don't have to tell him anything, if I did have to tell him, then I would question certain things.

--------

He can only tell the man what he is doing wrong.

 

:confused:

 

your post seems to be contradictory in itself.... can you clarify?

 

scripture tells us to hold each other accountable by word and action.

[tdeveson]

My advise: Quit the church. They feel strongly about the boyfriend's perceived "sin" and who they will welcome. That is their right. The boyfriend doesn't seem amenable to dumping his partner of 14 years to please this bunch. I agree with him. Dump the church and it's pastor, and either find a new church that fits in more with his lifestyle, or turn his back on the whole thing and live a happy life with your mother. This church has brought nothing but grief to them. It's nobody's business -- too bad he had to get involved with that bunch.

[Peek a Boo]

This church has brought nothing but grief to them.

 

apparently that is an inaccurate statement.

 

The boyfriend seemed quite pleased and happy with the church till they pointed out the obvious.

 

If it was a grief-inducing church he wouldn't have stayed in the first place.

If it was a grief-inducing church he wouldn't think twice about leaving.

 

I do agree that there is grief being experienced, but it is a consequence of what they have done the last 14 years. That's expected.

[dangermom]

I don't think we know enough about the case to be able to judge these specifics.

[Scarlett]

I don't think we know enough about the case to be able to judge these specifics.

 

Well I certainly agree with that.

 

A few of my random thoughts.

 

1) We are commanded to obey man's law in so far as we are able. In this country 'marriage' requires a civil stamp of approval. No reason to NOT be married by the state.

 

2) If this couple is living together as boyfriend/girlfriend whether or not they are actually engaging in sexual activity is a technicality.

 

3) Why did this church allow him to be baptized in their church if he was living with a woman as her boyfriend? Seems like they changed their rules on him mid stream.

 

4) Big difference in allowing a person to attend church and in allowing them to serve in positions of responsibility.

 

5) Surprised that the number of people who can't see the difference in the practice of sin and in regular old inherent sin.

 

6) Seems from later posts of the OP that this man is going to change churches. Honestly with the rule changing mid stream I dont blame him. So will he go shopping for a church that allows living together even though that is clearly against Bible standards?

 

That's all. That's all of my random thoughts for now. :D

[Peek a Boo]

1) We are commanded to obey man's law in so far as we are able. In this country 'marriage' requires a civil stamp of approval. No reason to NOT be married by the state.

 

 

there's LOTs of reasons to avoid a state-approved marriage. "Man's Law" doesn't require that we obtain a state-sanctioned marriage to be able to present ourselves as spiritually married. It simply tells us that w/o the state sanction we can't access certain legal benefits.

 

3) Why did this church allow him to be baptized in their church if he was living with a woman as her boyfriend? Seems like they changed their rules on him mid stream.

they might not have known.

flockofsillies made a pretty good case, i think.

 

 

So will he go shopping for a church that allows living together even though that is clearly against Bible standards?

 

 

good question ;)

[Sputterduck]

The lack of a civil marriage license is not the issue. They are living in sin because they have not said the vows. Mere cohabitation isn't enough to become married in the eyes of God and the church. They need to get up in front of the pastor and formally make the commitment to each other.

 

But where does it say that in the Bible? The Bible, as far as I know, doesn't stipulate that you must be married in front of a pastor to be married. It doesn't really stipulate much at all about what exactly a person must do to be married.

Edited December 7, 2009 by Sputterduck

[Sputterduck]

Well I certainly agree with that.

 

A few of my random thoughts.

 

1) We are commanded to obey man's law in so far as we are able. In this country 'marriage' requires a civil stamp of approval. No reason to NOT be married by the state.

 

There are plenty of reasons to not be married by the state. In my own divorce, I *really* resent the idea that the state can force a guardian ad litem on my child to figure out the divorce proceedings. He's *my* child who I am saving from a very sadistic and violent man. I will never give any outside authority an opening to come between me and protecting my child ever again. I will never have a marriage again that is defined by anyone other than God, myself, and my partner.

 

2) If this couple is living together as boyfriend/girlfriend whether or not they are actually engaging in sexual activity is a technicality.

 

Where in the Bible does it say that boyfriend and girlfriend cannot live together? It says no fornication, so the question of whether they are having sex *is* the point here. Living together is not.

 

3) Why did this church allow him to be baptized in their church if he was living with a woman as her boyfriend? Seems like they changed their rules on him mid stream.

 

JW baptism and mainstream Christian baptism run differently. If you accept Jesus as your savior in a mainstream church, you can get baptized. It's not a "you are now really part of the church and can get disciplined" thing like with JWs. You become a part of the church when you get saved in mainstream Christianity, which is before baptism, and really even if you aren't saved yet, if you are there you are part of the church and included in everything. Although you can also become an official members of many churches and get voting rights over the budget and stuff, which usually includes taking a one time class that lasts a couple hours, but again it's not related at all to baptism.

 

4) Big difference in allowing a person to attend church and in allowing them to serve in positions of responsibility.

 

This is also different in mainstream Christianity. You just have to volunteer really and you get to help out. It's not a sign of being in good graces with the elders. People do tend to look up to volunteers though. Other than volunteering you do have to get a background check at many churches to work with kids, but JWs don't even *have* kid's programs so it isn't an issue there.

 

5) Surprised that the number of people who can't see the difference in the practice of sin and in regular old inherent sin.

 

Random comment - I know a man who has regular one night stands with random women and has for 20+ years because then he gets sex and isn't "living in sin". He can repent afterward and feel fine. That is what drives me batty about the "oh it's okay, I'm not living in sin" state of mind. Sin is sin. Not equally bad, but you must do everything you can to avoid all of it.

 

6) Seems from later posts of the OP that this man is going to change churches. Honestly with the rule changing mid stream I dont blame him. So will he go shopping for a church that allows living together even though that is clearly against Bible standards?

 

That's all. That's all of my random thoughts for now. :D

 

Hopefully he will go to a church that lovingly addresses sin and doesn't bar new people from learning about God by not letting them attend church at all.

[angela in ohio]

There are plenty of reasons to not be married by the state. In my own divorce, I *really* resent the idea that the state can force a guardian ad litem on my child to figure out the divorce proceedings. He's *my* child who I am saving from a very sadistic and violent man. I will never give any outside authority an opening to come between me and protecting my child ever again. I will never have a marriage again that is defined by anyone other than God, myself, and my partner.

 

Wouldn't a father still be able to use the legal system to see his child even if you didn't marry him?

[OnTheBrink]

Where in the Bible does it say that boyfriend and girlfriend cannot live together? It says no fornication, so the question of whether they are having sex *is* the point here. Living together is not.

 

 

 

 

Random comment - I know a man who has regular one night stands with random women and has for 20+ years because then he gets sex and isn't "living in sin". He can repent afterward and feel fine. That is what drives me batty about the "oh it's okay, I'm not living in sin" state of mind. Sin is sin. Not equally bad, but you must do everything you can to avoid all of it.

 

 

 

 

 

You answered your own question with the bolded part. If a couple has been living together, having sex and then decide to continue living together, but no sin, they aren't doing what they can to avoid sin. And, I've known people who were living together, repented, lived apart and got married. I know that can be done; it has. But to repent of fornication than continue to live with the person you've fornicated with isn't fleeing from immorality. It's playing with fire.

 

The man who's having one night stands and "repenting" isn't repenting at all. He's fooling himself. Repentance means he turns from the sin, agrees with God that it is sin, and flees from it.

 

And, you're right that there is no specific model of "how" to marry in the bible, but there is direction in Romans 13 to obey the government. If the government, which has been set in place by God, says that marriage is established by some sort of ceremony (civil or otherwise), then that's the model God has instilled.

[Sputterduck]

Wouldn't a father still be able to use the legal system to see his child even if you didn't marry him?

 

Yes, but it wouldn't be an automatic thing. KWIM? He'd have to initiate bringing the court into it, instead of it being automatic that the court is part of the fate of an innocent kid.

 

I don't like the idea that the state can dole children out to whoever it wants to when I am living a situation where I am trying to save my son.

[TXMary2]

 

6) Seems from later posts of the OP that this man is going to change churches. Honestly with the rule changing mid stream I dont blame him. So will he go shopping for a church that allows living together even though that is clearly against Bible standards?

 

That's all. That's all of my random thoughts for now. :D

 

 

I haven't asked him yet, but since my mom will likely not attend with him he may just keep quiet. He did say he understands what the church is saying about sin, but he cannot bring himself to leave my mother. He is also angry that they wanted him to rent a room from a female and he took that to mean that they "don't give a flip" about my mom or her feelings. He knows continuing to live together is wrong and he desperately wants my mother to marry him. I feel bad for him.

[Sputterduck]

The man who's having one night stands and "repenting" isn't repenting at all. He's fooling himself. Repentance means he turns from the sin, agrees with God that it is sin, and flees from it.

 

I know. It drives me up the wall. He is a friend of mine that I really care about and aside from this he's a wonderful Christian man. Better than most, even, except for that one thing. I want to bonk him over the head for his stubbornness and blindness.

 

This brings up another point, I guess. I have no problem confronting him about this, and I have a few times already. I would not, however, think it would be good for him or in any way restore him to God by telling him he can't go to church anymore! It would harm the beejeebers out of him! And it would do no good regarding the sin thing. He needs to be around God's people more, not less. When he is more active in service, he actually repents for a good deal of time.

 

Oh, and he thinks it's a good alternative to having sex with someone he loves. We can debate whether all sins are equal or whatever, but he thinks that screwing dozens and dozens, maybe even a hundred or more women at this point, is better than someone like the man this thread is about. That man is living in sin, according to my friend, and my friend would say that he could never do that. Yet, screwing many, many women in loveless selfish sex and trading stds around like candy is okay... because he repents after. I told him if you do it again on a perpetual basis, it *is* living in sin, and you are *not* truly repenting, esp. since he's been doing it since the age of 16.

 

He doesn't want to get married, so to him he has a choice between one night stands and a consistent woman he cares about. Both are not good, clearly. But he makes himself feel better by not having a consistent partner. Ew.

Edited December 7, 2009 by Sputterduck

[TXMary2]

they might not have known.

flockofsillies made a pretty good case, i think.

 

 

 

 

good question ;)

.

 

They knew. They told the church up front when they both started attending.

[Scarlett]

Wouldn't a father still be able to use the legal system to see his child even if you didn't marry him?

 

Same thing I was wondering.

[Crimson Wife]

And, you're right that there is no specific model of "how" to marry in the bible, but there is direction in Romans 13 to obey the government. If the government, which has been set in place by God, says that marriage is established by some sort of ceremony (civil or otherwise), then that's the model God has instilled.

 

Except that a Godly government would not penalize couples who want to get married. This one does in many instances. When my DH and I first got married and were both employed full-time, we paid more in taxes than we would have had we chosen just to cohabitate. The elderly couple I know who are spiritually married cannot legally wed because the wife would lose her primary source of income (her first husband's pension). Nobody should be financially penalized for wanting to do the right thing & get married.

[Scarlett]

Except that a Godly government would not penalize couples who want to get married.

 

I don't think the criteria for following the law of the land was that it had to be a 'Godly government'.

[OnTheBrink]

I know. It drives me up the wall. He is a friend of mine that I really care about and aside from this he's a wonderful Christian man. Better than most, even, except for that one thing. I want to bonk him over the head for his stubbornness and blindness.

 

This brings up another point, I guess. I have no problem confronting him about this, and I have a few times already. I would not, however, think it would be good for him or in any way restore him to God by telling him he can't go to church anymore! It would harm the beejeebers out of him! And it would do no good regarding the sin thing. He needs to be around God's people more, not less. When he is more active in service, he actually repents for a good deal of time.

 

 

Well, my church practices church discipline, and in most cases, it takes years before they get to the point that they ask someone to leave. In my EX's situation, it was 7 years; in another case, it was 4 years. Excommunication isn't the first step; it's the last resort. The job of a pastor is to guard the flock, so to speak. If there is someone in the body living in unrepentant sin (whatever that would be) then Scripture is clear they need to be reprimanded. You can't have a healthy church when you have people who are intentionally rebellious in leadership roles. And, it's completely biblical and loving to remove one from fellowship if they refuse to repent. It's loving toward the body and it's loving toward the unrepentant. It's not loving to allow someone to continue in sin. If your child continued to run out into the street, you'd rebuke him, because you love him and don't want him smashed by a Mac truck. You might ban him from playing outside until he repented of his actions. Same thing with church discipline. You don't allow someone to continue in sinful (and damaging) behavior because their very soul is in jeopardy. Pastors answer for their congregations before God. A pastor worth his salt will work with an errant member and if the errant member continues to practice habitual sin, they should leave. Just as your errant child will yearn to play outside again, the idea is that the errant member will yearn for the fellowship of God and other Christians and repent of his sin, get right with God first, then be restored to fellowship.

 

I've seen both sides. I've seen some people in complete rebellion be asked to leave, and they do and never return. Most find churches that don't practice discipline and they continue in their rebellion and they're not held accountable. But, I've also seen others who did repent and were restored to fellowship and lovingly and warmly welcomed back, with their previous issues never mentioned again. It's a beautiful thing to see, a rebellious sinner repent. It's very encouraging, in an odd way, to see that the only "last chance" is one you create yourself. God will always welcome back a repentant child.

[Crimson Wife]

There's no law requiring couples to marry. The government sets requirements for marriages to be recognized under civil law, that's all. If an unmarried couple wishes to co-habitate that is perfectly legal however immoral it is by Biblical standards.

 

I don't see where in the Bible there is a requirement for a marriage to be recognized by the civil authorities. If a couple is free to marry in the church but wishes to have a spiritual marriage ceremony rather than a legally binding one for financial reasons, why is that a problem?

[Sputterduck]

There's no law requiring couples to marry. The government sets requirements for marriages to be recognized under civil law, that's all. If an unmarried couple wishes to co-habitate that is perfectly legal however immoral it is by Biblical standards.

 

I don't see where in the Bible there is a requirement for a marriage to be recognized by the civil authorities. If a couple is free to marry in the church but wishes to have a spiritual marriage ceremony rather than a legally binding one for financial reasons, why is that a problem?

:iagree:

[OnTheBrink]

I don't think the criteria for following the law of the land was that it had to be a 'Godly government'.

 

This is true. My pastor made some interesting comments a while back about Christians who live in horrible places, with horrid, abusive, tyrannical governments. God is still God, Christ died for them just as he died for those in better governments and Romans 13 still exhorts all Christians to obey their governments, because those governments are established by God to fulfill His purposes; even purposes we can't see or understand.

[Sputterduck]

If your child continued to run out into the street, you'd rebuke him, because you love him and don't want him smashed by a Mac truck. You might ban him from playing outside until he repented of his actions. Same thing with church discipline.

 

But I would never say, "Leave my house and don't come back." I think that is the equivalent of telling a person they can't come to church.

 

The church where I got saved kicked a couple out once. These two people left their loving, innocent spouses and moved in with each other. The church rallied around the hurt spouses and did confront these two people. These people taught the 4 year old class on Sundays. Not only did they not stop their sin, they told the 4 year olds all about and how it was okay and God was happy with it. That is when the pastor kicked them out. I am happy with that. When someone is harming church members, then I can see not allowing them back. Their presence didn't just harm church members, it harmed the innocent little ones of the church!

 

I can see kicking someone out in a case like that. I can't see kicking out a baby Christian who is probably not fornicating and in a loving, committed relationship with someone he loves dearly.

[OnTheBrink]

But I would never say, "Leave my house and don't come back." I think that is the equivalent of telling a person they can't come to church.

 

The church where I got saved kicked a couple out once. These two people left their loving, innocent spouses and moved in with each other. The church rallied around the hurt spouses and did confront these two people. These people taught the 4 year old class on Sundays. Not only did they not stop their sin, they told the 4 year olds all about and how it was okay and God was happy with it. That is when the pastor kicked them out. I am happy with that. When someone is harming church members, then I can see not allowing them back. Their presence didn't just harm church members, it harmed the innocent little ones of the church!

 

I can see kicking someone out in a case like that. I can't see kicking out a baby Christian who is probably not fornicating and in a loving, committed relationship with someone he loves dearly.

 

I think there'd be situations where one would have a child removed from your home. They'd have to be pretty extreme, granted, but for example, if one of my kids had a penchant for setting fires to the house at night, or was strung out on PCP all the time, or some such extreme situation, I'd remove them. It would hurt like hades, but is it healthy for the family to be in turmoil because of one person? No. It's not healthy for a church to allow an unrepentent sinner to be in open rebellion, either.

 

As far as the couple in question in the OP, I don't think we know enough to really make a judgment on their specific situation. We've not heard from the pastor, or the couple, so we can really only speculate, but I do believe that Biblical principles need to be applied, regardless. How they're applied, in this case, remains to be seen, since as I said, we really don't know the whole situation from all sides.

[lionfamily1999]

My mom stopped attending after several months because she felt judged by the church because the Pastor confronted them about living together. I feel the pastor feels he is just doing his job and letting them know. So, my mom stopped attending and her boyfriend has continued going and has been in visible positions as a greeter, passing the basket and volunteering for service at events. Recently, it came up again that they aren't married and now the boyfriend is feeling really pressured and disappointed and I am concerned that he will let PEOPLE affect his newfound salvation. Essentially, the church told him he needed to move out. He is disabled and only recieves about $600 a month disability so it wouldn't be easy for him to move out. The church knows his financial situation and they found him a room to rent-- FROM A FEMALE. He said thanks but no thanks and that he doesn't want to start his new christian life doing something that would cause my mother tremendous pain. Also, I am struggling a little bit with how renting a room from a female is any less of an appearance of sin than living with my mother???

 

All that said, I understand that the pastor thinks he is doing the right thing by confronting the boyfriend, but I think giving him some sort of ultimatum or telling him that he MUST move out in order to stay in the church is just outright SHAMEFUL. Am I wrong? Certainly the pastor knows that in God's eyes all sin is equal and if you are going to give one church member ultimatums about his sin, then you must do the same with everyone else. I think the church has adopted the worldy idea of different levels of sin. Society says (and my flesh would certainly agree) that a child molester is a worse sinner than a guy who drives like a menace or worse than someone who has s*x before marriage, but the Bible says it is all equally wrong.

 

I attend this church and have for about the last year. Actually, this church is only a little over a year old. It is a Baptist church if that helps. Because I attend and I enjoy the services I am now struggling and wondering if I should talk to the pastor about the hard line he is taking. He has recently gone through a "transformation" himself and is now really bent on "living christian lives" and talking about not worrying about offending people, but just doing what is right. I DO understand that, but I am not liking how it is looking right now. I might just have to be OK with butting out and if I really can't let it go I could always find a different church, but honestly I don't want to be a church hopper. I went to this church because the pastor is homeschool friendly and the church we were at for the four years prior, was not.

 

Any words of wisdom out there??

I have not read the responses, odds are this has been said a million times already :p but in case it hasn't... Please note the emphasis is mine :)

It is reported commonly that there is fornication among, and such fornication as is not so much as named among the Gentiles, that one should have his father's wife. And ye are puffed up, and have not rather mourned, that he hath done this deed might be taken away from among you. For I verily, as absent in body, but present in spirit, have judged already, as though I were present, concerning him that hath so done this deed, In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus. Your glorying is not good. Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump? Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us: Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, nether with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth. I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators: Yest not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world. But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat. For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within? But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person.

 

Also, I won't quote the whole thing for this, there is a particular way to deal with this (sin in the body). First, one person approaches (like the pastor did). Then, that person with two or three witnesses, approach a second time. Finally, the body or congregation takes a vote.

 

The idea is to send the (in this case) fornicator out for the 'destruction of the flesh' so 'the soul can be saved.' This is meant to be done in love.

16:26 For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?

IOW, yes the money situation stinks. Yes, it would seem okay for everything to remain as it is, but (BUT) is that what God wants? Is no money and a sexual relationship worth missing the mark? I agree with your pastor and I believe your church has handled this beautifully. I should warn, though, that if this has been bothering you to the point of causing strife within the body of that church, then you really need to reexamine where you stand and your own actions. God doesn't want us being negative, back biting or causing strife in his body.

 

:grouphug:

Edited December 7, 2009 by lionfamily1999

[lionfamily1999]

Except that a Godly government would not penalize couples who want to get married. This one does in many instances. When my DH and I first got married and were both employed full-time, we paid more in taxes than we would have had we chosen just to cohabitate. The elderly couple I know who are spiritually married cannot legally wed because the wife would lose her primary source of income (her first husband's pension). Nobody should be financially penalized for wanting to do the right thing & get married.

I agree with Scarlet (re, Godly gov.).

 

Also, God is going to help you walk the path.

 

The couple you mention... wouldn't hiding their marraige be tantamount to telling lies and cheating the government? IOW, it's not just a simple sin of fornication, it's also failing to render unto Ceasar and false witness isn't it?

 

One thing I've noticed with what seems to be silly little nothings is that their roots go very deep and once a sort of inventory is done it turns out they're causing more damage than may be readily apparent.

 

God supports us when we're on the right path, but He isn't going to help us sin.

[Peek a Boo]

I haven't asked him yet, but since my mom will likely not attend with him he may just keep quiet. He did say he understands what the church is saying about sin, but he cannot bring himself to leave my mother. He is also angry that they wanted him to rent a room from a female and he took that to mean that they "don't give a flip" about my mom or her feelings. He knows continuing to live together is wrong and he desperately wants my mother to marry him. I feel bad for him.

 

that pretty much settles it.

he knows and admits but is unwilling to do the right thing.

That's not gonna change by switching churches, even if the next church lets it slide.

[Peek a Boo]

The couple you mention... wouldn't hiding their marraige be tantamount to telling lies and cheating the government? IOW, it's not just a simple sin of fornication, it's also failing to render unto Ceasar and false witness isn't it?

 

 

how so?

it's only "lying" if you are lying about your marriage being sanctioned by the state and attempting to claim legal benefits offered to state-married couples.

 

The gvt does not care if you are spiritually married or cohabitating, so there's no deception either legally or spiritually.

[Crimson Wife]

The couple you mention... wouldn't hiding their marraige be tantamount to telling lies and cheating the government? IOW, it's not just a simple sin of fornication, it's also failing to render unto Ceasar and false witness isn't it?

 

She is legally unmarried and AFAIK she has not been asked by the pension company any details beyond that. The pension doesn't end if she has a live-in boyfriend (what her spiritual husband is considered legally), just if she remarries. And technically she has not done that since their church ceremony is only spiritually binding.

[Erica in PA]

The gvt does not care if you are spiritually married or cohabitating, so there's no deception either legally or spiritually.

 

I'm not so sure that is true in every case. Usually to collect government assistance, you must include income from everyone living in the home, whether you're related, married, or not. Many couples who choose not to marry because they would lose their government assistance, are in fact lying and cheating the system, because if they were to be honest about the fact that someone else is living in the household, they would no longer qualify for benefits.

 

(I'm not sure about the pension angle-- I'm referring specifically to couples who collect government assistance.)

[lionfamily1999]

how so?

it's only "lying" if you are lying about your marriage being sanctioned by the state and attempting to claim legal benefits offered to state-married couples.

 

The gvt does not care if you are spiritually married or cohabitating, so there's no deception either legally or spiritually.

But, if you're protecting your benefits by concealing your relationship, then isn't THAT lying. IOW, you don't marry, because you want your benefits, but for all intents and purposes (as a Christian) you may as well be married, then isn't NOT getting married the same as lying about your cohabitation?

 

Also, I'm basing this off of what she (next quote) said, as this is exactly what I've seen in these sorts of situations:

I'm not so sure that is true in every case. Usually to collect government assistance, you must include income from everyone living in the home, whether you're related, married, or not. Many couples who choose not to marry because they would lose their government assistance, are in fact lying and cheating the system, because if they were to be honest about the fact that someone else is living in the household, they would no longer qualify for benefits.

 

(I'm not sure about the pension angle-- I'm referring specifically to couples who collect government assistance.)

:iagree:

She is legally unmarried and AFAIK she has not been asked by the pension company any details beyond that. The pension doesn't end if she has a live-in boyfriend (what her spiritual husband is considered legally), just if she remarries. And technically she has not done that since their church ceremony is only spiritually binding.

Okay, but she should be married, because that's what God wants, right? And her 'spiritual marraige' if it was done by someone licensed by the state, should've been a legal marraige as well. If she is concealing her marraige from the government, then isn't she lying to them? Render unto Ceasar and all that. So, you'd move from one sin, fornication, to two, false witness, and you could up that to three if you count defying the government as one.

 

I'm not trying to be rude, this is just the way it appears to me. This is also why I think it is a GOOD thing, when fellow members of the same body approach one another about ongoing sin. The idea isn't condemnation, but helping each other to hit the mark.

[Peek a Boo]

I'm not so sure that is true in every case. Usually to collect government assistance, you must include income from everyone living in the home, whether you're related, married, or not. Many couples who choose not to marry because they would lose their government assistance, are in fact lying and cheating the system, because if they were to be honest about the fact that someone else is living in the household, they would no longer qualify for benefits.

 

(I'm not sure about the pension angle-- I'm referring specifically to couples who collect government assistance.)

 

 

well sure. but that's a household issue and can apply to ANYONE, not just married/not folk.

if you have to lie to receive the benefits then you're lying, period. married or not ;)

 

but in general, the gvt doesn't care if you consider yourself married spiritually: it's only if you are attempting to claim benefits that are reserved for legally married persons. A Christian can absolutely remain spiritually married but legally single and not have any deception issues wrt rendering to Caesar/gvt authority.

[Peek a Boo]

But, if you're protecting your benefits by concealing your relationship, then isn't THAT lying. IOW, you don't marry, because you want your benefits, but for all intents and purposes (as a Christian) you may as well be married, then isn't NOT getting married the same as lying about your cohabitation?

 

you are only lying if the benefits specifically say you CAN't be spiritually married but legally single. Otherwise you are breaking no rule.

Also, I'm basing this off of what she (next quote) said, as this is exactly what I've seen in these sorts of situations:

 

see my post above :-)

 

Okay, but she should be married, because that's what God wants, right?

 

I am convinced that scripture shows sex is reserved strictly for marriage. If you are having sex with someone, you are either married to them or committing adultery. I can't say what God "wants", but I can say that not every person is commanded to be married. If God wants her to remain single and unfettered by a sexual relationship, then that would be ok. But God doesn't by default expect every person to be married: Christ affirms that idea.

And her 'spiritual marraige' if it was done by someone licensed by the state, should've been a legal marraige as well.

not necessarily. You have to apply for a marriage certificate and have it signed and recorded. THAT's what makes it a state marriage: the paperwork. [common law marriages excluded, but even those must have some sort of consistency presented to hold up in a court of law].

 

If you never apply for nor file the paperwork, it wasn't a legal marriage.

 

If she is concealing her marraige from the government, then isn't she lying to them? Render unto Ceasar and all that. So, you'd move from one sin, fornication, to two, false witness, and you could up that to three if you count defying the government as one.

 

Concealing WHAT marriage?

There's no law AGAINST being spiritually married.

there is no defiance of the gvt because the gvt simply doesn't care what you do religiously as long as it doesn't break the law [like polygamy]. But even then, you can say you are spiritually married to how ever many people you want as long as you aren't lying about your household to claim benefits [that was a big bugaboo w/ the FLDS thing].

 

I'm not trying to be rude, this is just the way it appears to me. This is also why I think it is a GOOD thing, when fellow members of the same body approach one another about ongoing sin. The idea isn't condemnation, but helping each other to hit the mark.

 

i don't think you're being rude. :001_smile:

 

and I agree that discussion is great!

[Sputterduck]

I'm not so sure that is true in every case. Usually to collect government assistance, you must include income from everyone living in the home, whether you're related, married, or not. Many couples who choose not to marry because they would lose their government assistance, are in fact lying and cheating the system, because if they were to be honest about the fact that someone else is living in the household, they would no longer qualify for benefits.

 

(I'm not sure about the pension angle-- I'm referring specifically to couples who collect government assistance.)

 

I don't think that's the case. When I add up income for various reporting purposes, I don't include my roommate. We live in the same home.

[lionfamily1999]

you are only lying if the benefits specifically say you CAN't be spiritually married but legally single. Otherwise you are breaking no rule.

 

 

see my post above :-)

 

 

 

I am convinced that scripture shows sex is reserved strictly for marriage. If you are having sex with someone, you are either married to them or committing adultery. I can't say what God "wants", but I can say that not every person is commanded to be married. If God wants her to remain single and unfettered by a sexual relationship, then that would be ok. But God doesn't by default expect every person to be married: Christ affirms that idea.

 

not necessarily. You have to apply for a marriage certificate and have it signed and recorded. THAT's what makes it a state marriage: the paperwork. [common law marriages excluded, but even those must have some sort of consistency presented to hold up in a court of law].

 

If you never apply for nor file the paperwork, it wasn't a legal marriage.

 

 

 

Concealing WHAT marriage?

There's no law AGAINST being spiritually married.

there is no defiance of the gvt because the gvt simply doesn't care what you do religiously as long as it doesn't break the law [like polygamy]. But even then, you can say you are spiritually married to how ever many people you want as long as you aren't lying about your household to claim benefits [that was a big bugaboo w/ the FLDS thing].

 

 

 

i don't think you're being rude. :001_smile:

 

and I agree that discussion is great!

LOL, I didn't mean to imply everyone should be married. What I meant was, if you're in a relationship that is like marraige then you should be married, because that is what God wants (sex only in marraige).

 

I missed you btw :) :grouphug:

 

I guess my concern is more for someone collecting money based on 'single' or 'widowed' status when, in reality, they are not single, they are married, in which case, aren't they lying by omission? Or, if they're choosing to "live in sin" with another in order to maintain their 'single' status, then aren't they compounding one sin by a host of others?

 

We have someone in our church that fits the profile (older, relying on widow pension, living as a married couple with someone else, but unwilling to amend that, because of the dent in their livelyhood that would result). The church is struggling, because we also have younger couples that are living together, using the older couple as an excuse. So, is the 'excuse' good enough? Or should the body put their foot down and say, we have to be as Christ-like as possible. Our church is suffering because of the strife this is causing. Really, something so 'simple' as this can really cause a ton of other problems.

[justamouse]

This thread makes my heart hurt.

 

My .02?

 

Fourteen years together IS man and wife. Who cares about the piece of paper or the blessing? How does anyone on this thread know what was shared between these two loving people in the quiet of their day-what vows they have taken to eachother? And living those vows, the love and sacrifice of day to day living, means more than the paper it's written on. I believe had my vows been said in a forest with no one but the trees for witnesses my marriage would still be as real. I don't need a man to officiate or a paper from the state to tell me what my heart knew. In my opinion that Pastor is asking them to divorce eachother and is causing more pain than good.

[Sputterduck]

This thread makes my heart hurt.

 

My .02?

 

Fourteen years together IS man and wife. Who cares about the piece of paper or the blessing? How does anyone on this thread know what was shared between these two loving people in the quiet of their day-what vows they have taken to eachother? And living those vows, the love and sacrifice of day to day living, means more than the paper it's written on. I believe had my vows been said in a forest with no one but the trees for witnesses my marriage would still be as real. I don't need a man to officiate or a paper from the state to tell me what my heart knew. In my opinion that Pastor is asking them to divorce eachother and is causing more pain than good.

 

Great post. :)

[Peek a Boo]

I guess my concern is more for someone collecting money based on 'single' or 'widowed' status when, in reality, they are not single, they are married, in which case, aren't they lying by omission? Or, if they're choosing to "live in sin" with another in order to maintain their 'single' status, then aren't they compounding one sin by a host of others?

 

it's only "lying by omission" if the single/widowed/married status means LEGALLY single/widowed/married and you are legally NOT the one you chose.

We have someone in our church that fits the profile (older, relying on widow pension, living as a married couple with someone else, but unwilling to amend that, because of the dent in their livelyhood that would result). The church is struggling, because we also have younger couples that are living together, using the older couple as an excuse. So, is the 'excuse' good enough? Or should the body put their foot down and say, we have to be as Christ-like as possible. Our church is suffering because of the strife this is causing. Really, something so 'simple' as this can really cause a ton of other problems.

 

I think they should have a spiritual marriage ceremony if it's causing that much strife and they would be willing to make it public. That IS Christ-like :)

 

i think what is NOT Christ-like is the church putting more emphasis on the legal paperwork than the spiritual process/commitment. God gets shoved out of the way and we forget to process things spiritually and rely on legalities: we have been led astray by the "render unto caesar what is Caesar's" because we start thinking that just because ceasar offers it as an option, we too must conform to that.

We don't have to!

We can take advantage of the legal option and be a good steward of our resources [tax/gvt benefits/insurance, etc].

We can choose to opt out of those opportunities and settle for what CHRIST and the CHURCH can offer us: spiritual affirmation and support.

either way is allowed by our gvt.

 

If the younger couples want to make that spiritual commitment then I think the church should support it. :)

[Peek a Boo]

This thread makes my heart hurt.

 

My .02?

 

Fourteen years together IS man and wife. Who cares about the piece of paper or the blessing? How does anyone on this thread know what was shared between these two loving people in the quiet of their day-what vows they have taken to eachother? And living those vows, the love and sacrifice of day to day living, means more than the paper it's written on. I believe had my vows been said in a forest with no one but the trees for witnesses my marriage would still be as real. I don't need a man to officiate or a paper from the state to tell me what my heart knew. In my opinion that Pastor is asking them to divorce eachother and is causing more pain than good.

 

I agree with the second bolded part, but the couple hasn't done that: per the first bolded part above, she refuses to consider themselves married, and he knows they are wrong [per what has been related here].

[Joanne]

This thread makes my heart hurt.

 

My .02?

 

Fourteen years together IS man and wife. Who cares about the piece of paper or the blessing? How does anyone on this thread know what was shared between these two loving people in the quiet of their day-what vows they have taken to eachother? And living those vows, the love and sacrifice of day to day living, means more than the paper it's written on. I believe had my vows been said in a forest with no one but the trees for witnesses my marriage would still be as real. I don't need a man to officiate or a paper from the state to tell me what my heart knew. In my opinion that Pastor is asking them to divorce eachother and is causing more pain than good.

 

:iagree::D Thank you so much.

[TXMary2]

well sure. but that's a household issue and can apply to ANYONE, not just married/not folk.

if you have to lie to receive the benefits then you're lying, period. married or not ;)

 

but in general, the gvt doesn't care if you consider yourself married spiritually: it's only if you are attempting to claim benefits that are reserved for legally married persons. A Christian can absolutely remain spiritually married but legally single and not have any deception issues wrt rendering to Caesar/gvt authority.

 

FTR- the government knows my mother and bf live together. He gets SS and she gets Disability. They don't qualify for any other assistance, like food stamps etc.

[Erica in PA]

This thread makes my heart hurt.

 

My .02?

 

Fourteen years together IS man and wife. Who cares about the piece of paper or the blessing? How does anyone on this thread know what was shared between these two loving people in the quiet of their day-what vows they have taken to eachother? And living those vows, the love and sacrifice of day to day living, means more than the paper it's written on. I believe had my vows been said in a forest with no one but the trees for witnesses my marriage would still be as real. I don't need a man to officiate or a paper from the state to tell me what my heart knew. In my opinion that Pastor is asking them to divorce eachother and is causing more pain than good.

 

Are you suggesting that everyone who says that they will love and care for one another, and has that feeling in their hearts, is married? I think a lot of our teenagers are probably already married, then. ;) Or are you saying that marriage is something that is determined after the fact, depending on how you treat one another over the years? If it's good over the long haul, then you are/were married, if it's bad, you aren't? What constitutes divorce then, just leaving? If so, there are many, many marriages beginning and ending every day. While these kinds of ideas appeal to many people, what would the implications for our society be if we all accepted those definitions?

[Testimony]

:confused:

 

your post seems to be contradictory in itself.... can you clarify?

 

scripture tells us to hold each other accountable by word and action.

 

The pastor can say that it is not right to co-habitat. I am stating based upon Ezekiel 33:7-9. The church needs to call sin sin when they become aware of it.

 

After it has been said, if the gentleman is not convicted by the Holy Spirit, then there is nothing else that can be said. There are certain precautions though, like he should not be in leadership. That's what I mean about there is nothing more to be said. I think that the church just needs wisdom. Sorry if my statements looked contradictory.

 

Blessings,

Karen

http://www.homeschoolblogger.com/testimony

[Susan in TN]

Yes all sin is purposeful in that it involves our volition. But if I choose to lose my temper, then confess my sin and get right with God, I am back in fellowship (a right relationship) with God.

 

In one sense, I suppose if your mom's boyfriend sleeps with her, then confesses his sin, he is right with God. If he chose to have a totally chaste relationship with your mom in the same house it would be fine too. Think about how many men throughout history have had live-in female housekeepers or have lived in a boarding house with women etc. (You would still have the appearance of impropriety. I suppose it would depend on if people could trust him to be honest). But the point here is that they are living as a married couple but aren't a married couple.

 

QUOTE]

 

I think the larger issue here is repentance. We are told to repent from our sin - turn away from it. The boyfriend is not repenting (an often long and difficult process), and part of a pastor's job, and the most difficult one, is to prepare his flock to be the Bride of Christ. The Bible tells us that those who refuse to repent are to be brought through church discipline - not to be cruel, but to "grow them up" in Christ. The boyfriend isn't willing to do the hard things that God has called him to do, and the pastor IS doing what God has called HIM to do.

 

I also understand that the boyfriend is a new Christian, and has a lot of growing to do. I'm hoping that the pastor is as intentional about teaching and discipling him, which will lead to better understanding of why God has called us to holiness. As Christians we have to believe that being obedient is always what is right, even if it is difficult and painful.

[Sputterduck]

The pastor can say that it is not right to co-habitat. I am stating based upon Ezekiel 33:7-9. The church needs to call sin sin when they become aware of it.

 

After it has been said, if the gentleman is not convicted by the Holy Spirit, then there is nothing else that can be said. There are certain precautions though, like he should not be in leadership. That's what I mean about there is nothing more to be said. I think that the church just needs wisdom. Sorry if my statements looked contradictory.

 

Blessings,

Karen

www.homeschoolblogger.com/testimony

 

But what scripture says that a man and woman can't live together? It's a different issue than fornication.

[Erica in PA]

As harsh as it sounds, I have to agree. "Baby Christian" or not, he knows what is right or wrong in this situation as the Bible is very clear about it. His choice is to obey or not obey. Do as God says, or turn away from God. Listening to God is black and white, there are no gray areas. It's his choice to make God happy or himself (and his g/f) happy.

 

ETA: sorry about all the posts.

 

LOL, I didn't mean to sound harsh!!