Question for Christians

[Sputterduck]

I think the issue is not sin, but rather unrepentant sin. Catholics would call this a mortal sin (sex outside of marriage.)

 

I guess I am somewhere in the middle - the pastor is right, but I think he is being a little extreme (not even letting him come to services.)

 

Are we even sure this guy is sinning. The person who started this thread said they would have a hard time even physically completing the act. The pastor seems to focus on them living together, which I maintain is not a sin.

 

We know a. they are living together and b. they are likely not having sex. Seems like a skimpy amount to go on to discipline someone, especially to the extreme of not even letting them come to church.

[Sputterduck]

I did and that was sin (among many others) that I had to confess (to the priest) and be absolved from before my first Communion. Any mortal sin I commit now must be confessed and repented from or I am not worthy to partake in the Lord's Supper.

 

Out of curiosity, do you have to confess to a priest or directly to God? I have never really understood having a person in between me and God and I'm curious about why Catholics have priests that sometimes seem to take that position.

[Erica in PA]

So... how many here didn't have sex before marriage? How many of you think you should have been barred from church altogether?

 

You seem bent on finding some hypocrisy here, but I don't think that's the point. If I had had premarital sex (I truly praise the Lord that He helped me to wait for marriage), and if it came to the attention of the church leadership, I do believe that they would have a responsibility to confront me about that and direct me to the Bible's teaching on fornication. And if I were presented with that truth, and insisted that I was going to keep right on sinning no matter what the Bible said, then I believe church discipline would be required. The first step is not removing a person from fellowship, but it might happen eventually if correction continues to be rejected.

 

Again, the point of the excommunication *is* to bring the person back to a right relationship with God. It's in the hopes that the person would ultimately be reconciled with God. To allow a person to continue on in Christian fellowship, giving him all the benefits of church participation, while he is refusing to repent (again, this is different than the sins that all of us commit every day), is giving him a false sense of his security and standing before God. Sometimes it takes a pastoral team standing a firm stand to get through to a person that this is a really serious offense against God, and needs to be rectified.

[Erica in PA]

... the real point is to get the person BACK to God. Not cast them out forever.

 

A pastor can cast me out for my sin when he's stopped sinning. And especially to those who hold that all sins are equally bad, remember that the pastor is a habitual sinner. He might want to kick himself out before he turns on anyone else. We are all habitual sinners. Does anyone here want to claim that they don't sin anymore? Anyone?

 

I agree with your first comment here. But excommunication does not equal casting out a person forever. It is obeying the Bible's command in 1 Cor. that we are not even to eat with a person who is consistently living a life full of unrepentant sin.

 

The Bible doesn't say that a pastor needs to stop sinning before he can implement church discipline. It is a responsibility given to church leadership, as those who are under even higher scrutiny before God than the rest of us.

 

If we are going to take the popular cultural position that since we are all sinners, no one can address anyone else's sin, then we are going to have to get rid of a great portion of the New Testament, which continually calls us to be accountable to one another, to correct one another, to encourage one another to greater godliness.

[Sputterduck]

It is obeying the Bible's command in 1 Cor. that we are not even to eat with a person who is consistently living a life full of unrepentant sin.

 

Then don't eat with them. But don't bar them from coming to church and learning about God.

 

 

The Bible doesn't say that a pastor needs to stop sinning before he can implement church discipline. It is a responsibility given to church leadership, as those who are under even higher scrutiny before God than the rest of us.

 

Okay. If the pastor is under higher scrutiny, then he should kick himself out first because he also sins. Besides, the Bible says we are to deal with our own sins first.

 

 

If we are going to take the popular cultural position that since we are all sinners, no one can address anyone else's sin, then we are going to have to get rid of a great portion of the New Testament, which continually calls us to be accountable to one another, to correct one another, to encourage one another to greater godliness.

 

Being accountable to one another does not equal, "You cannot attend church anymore."

[Erica in PA]

Did you read the passage or link that I posted? You seem to be taking random phrases from my posts, without understanding the biblical foundation on which they are based. We can all throw around our opinions of how things ought to be, but the true foundation for how the church ought to operate is found in God's Word, not in worldly wisdom.

[angela in ohio]

The church has no business "allowing" anything. Churches are full of sinners. The church has no business allowing or not allowing something in a person's private life. Freewill and all. Even God doesn't mess with free will.

 

We'll have to agree to disagree, on account of theological differences. :001_smile: I'm in a church that practices church discipline, and I believe in God's sovereignty.

[Renee in NC]

Are we even sure this guy is sinning. The person who started this thread said they would have a hard time even physically completing the act. The pastor seems to focus on them living together, which I maintain is not a sin.

 

We know a. they are living together and b. they are likely not having sex. Seems like a skimpy amount to go on to discipline someone, especially to the extreme of not even letting them come to church.

 

No, we don't know and I stated that somewhere back in the thread.

 

Out of curiosity, do you have to confess to a priest or directly to God? I have never really understood having a person in between me and God and I'm curious about why Catholics have priests that sometimes seem to take that position.

 

I am *not* a Catholic theologian - I have been Catholic for about 18 months (I was fundamentalist Baptist before that :D.)

 

John 20:21-22 (KJV because most non-Catholics agree with that one)

 

Then said Jesus to them again, Peace [be] unto you: as [my] Father hath sent me, even so send I you. And when he had said this, he breathed on [them], and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost: Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; [and] whose soever [sins] ye retain, they are retained.

 

Jesus himself instituted this (that is why it is called a sacrament.) The priest gives you absolution, but that absolution comes from God.

 

(I'll tell you that it is VERY hard to confess your sins out loud in front of another person, but that isn't really relevant.:tongue_smilie:) It's especially helpful when you confess to the same priest regularly as he can detect patterns of sin in your life that you might not see. He also can tell you that what you think is sin is not (or on the other hand, point out sin you may be blind to.)

 

Hopefully another more knowledgeable Catholic can help with the theology, or go to http://www.catholic.com and search for confession, reconciliation, or penance - it will give good explanations.

[Laurie4b]

I never have understood why "the state" is involved with the concept of marriage.

 

Does anyone know when that shift occurred in history (marriage switching from a religious institution to a state institution) ?

 

 

a

 

I remember it from our visit to Plymouth Plantation, but I can't remember which side the Pilgrims were on, but it was one of the things they left the Church of England over. I kinda think that the Pilgrims believed that marriages should be performed by the state, not clergy, but it might have been the other way around... So back that far, it was an issue!

[TXMary2]

I'm a little horrified by this. Even JWs who are often criticized for their legalism and harshness and disfellowshipping don't exclude the person from attending the Kingdom Hall. I mean... the real point is to get the person BACK to God. Not cast them out forever. After all, God convicts, Satan condemns.

 

Something like over 90% of engaged Christian couples have sex before marriage. Should we have a culling of most engaged couples, too?

 

A pastor can cast me out for my sin when he's stopped sinning. And especially to those who hold that all sins are equally bad, remember that the pastor is a habitual sinner. He might want to kick himself out before he turns on anyone else. We are all habitual sinners. Does anyone here want to claim that they don't sin anymore? Anyone?

 

Thank you. When I said all sins are equal, this is what I meant- we all sin on a daily basis. Period. Whether "knowingly" or "habitual" is irrelevant because sin is sin and I feel this pastor is being very self righteous by telling my mother's bf that he has to move or leave the church. I find it more HORRIFYING as the day goes on and I am saddened that there are people out there who agree that this is OK all in the name of christianity.

 

I spoke to the bf earlier today and told him my concerns and thankfully he has said he has no intention on giving up on God and "throwing the baby out with the bathwater." He has however decided not to return to this particuluar church and he is very sad about it because he thought he had made some friends. He did express to me that he did want to marry my mother in a church ceremony without a legal, state recognized marriage, but that my mother doesn't believe they wouldn't really legally be married. I personally have never heard of such a thing except for Gay couples so I really don't know what to think. If there is such a thing as a church recognized marriage, but not legal then I don't see any reason why my mother shouldn't marry him.

 

Anyway, I knew I would get an interesting variety of responses and a few of you have given me things to research and/or think about. I have been on my christian walk for 16 years and I know I will never "arrive" in my knowledge until I am actually face to face with Christ and I am not sure how to respond to people who seem to know it all already. :D

[Laurie4b]

I John 5:16-17 talks about two different types of sin - that which leads to death and that which doesn't. All wrongdoing is sin.

 

Not to mention what Jesus himself said to Pilate: 11Jesus answered, "You would have no power over me if it were not given to you from above. Therefore the one who handed me over to you is guilty of a greater sin."

 

This was simply comparing the sin of handing him over to be condemned to the sin of being the one condemning him--not a whole lot of difference between the two, but Jesus said one sin was greater than the other, so clearly there are gradations of sin and not all sin is equal.

 

I think where Christians get that notion that all sin is equal (and where it is true) is any sin at all must be blotted out by the blood of Christ. There aren't any that get "excused" because they are "understandable." It is perhaps "normal" to say things that you shouldn't at times, to yell when the kids have provoked you 14 times and you're hormonal anyway, etc. But those sins were still enough to have sent Christ to the cross. When Jesus preached the Sermon on the Mount, his point that "whoever lusts for a woman in his heart has already committed adultery" was about the importance God places on inward sin, not just external sin. Of course there is a difference between thinking about committing adultery and actually committing it in terms of its earthly impact. In terms of what it cost Christ, it's the same. Whatever we've done, it's bad enough. So we're not in a position to think ourselves so much better than others because our outward life has been better compared to theirs. In these ways, all sin is equal.

 

However, that phrase often gets misapplied as was pointed out in the pencil-stealing example!

[Peek a Boo]

Jesus welcomed everyone, including sinners. I think the pastor's action are not what Jesus would do IMHO.

 

Christ also took a WHIP into the Temple and Drove People Out.

 

Jesus welcomed sinners, but He also told them to repent and Do No More.

 

I think the pastor's actions are NOT what Jesus would do, but I do think he still has a place to point out the obvious and expect a change, as Christ did/does.

[Peek a Boo]

..... but Jesus said one sin was greater than the other, so clearly there are gradations of sin and not all sin is equal.

 

I think where Christians get that notion that all sin is equal (and where it is true) is any sin at all must be blotted out by the blood of Christ. There aren't any that get "excused" because they are "understandable."

 

Bingo.

[FlockOfSillies]

The grace is that they haven't kicked him out already. If they're doing things right, then they'll be following Matthew 18 in their church discipline procedures. The purpose of church discipline, even to the point of excommunication, is for *restoring* the one caught in a pattern of sin. Looking the other way may seem "nice," but it's really not doing this man any favors, and it reflects poorly on the holy God he claims to serve.

 

They've made an effort to help provide him another place to live. They offered him the chance to legitimize the relationship. It doesn't seem like they're just all talk, kwim?

 

In the book of Acts, a bunch of sorcerers became Christians and burned their books of magic, even though the books were worth a fortune. IIRC, they didn't need much coaxing, nor did they wait a long time before showing the fruit of their repentance.

 

I can understand how your mom's boyfriend feels like he was told two different things. And that may be true. If the pastor has recently been convicted in his own heart about his lack of biblical leadership over the flock that God has entrusted to him, then it sounds like the "hard line" has come about since your mom's boyfriend's apparent conversion.

 

I guess the larger question from where I stand isn't so much whether the pastor is doing this exactly the right way, although I do wonder about it (and we all know how hard it is to discern these things on message boards!). But if your mom's boyfriend is resistant to *any* attempts to change his living situation, then I would seriously question whether his conversion was genuine. True converts to Christ will show hatred and mourning over their own sin, and a desire to honor God by turning away from those sins, especially once the've had it pointed out to them. We're not talking about a fine-line sort of sin either. This is a case of open, ongoing fornication.

 

It sounds like the pastor is trying to start doing things right, but he's sort of fumbling along. Your mom's boyfriend absolutely should not have been baptized without showing signs of having repented of his sin with your mom. It was confusing to him and gave him a false sense of spiritual security.

 

So now the pastor is trying to correct course and clean up a mess he helped make. Sounds like he needs some grace to be extended to him right now as he tries to find his way, and lots of prayers on his behalf for wisdom. He will be judged more strictly on the day of judgment, because of his position of responsibility.

 

As for the relative seriousness of sins, it seems to be the fashion these days to say that God looks at all sins equally. Raping a child is just as bad as a word spoken in anger. Since people don't get upset about "little" sins the way they do about "big" sins, the tendency is to see all sins as "little." The human mind tries to minimize the gravity of sin, and tells itself that God doesn't really care all that much. But in God's mind, all sins are equally ****ing and "big" from an eternal salvation standpoint. Still, there's a part of us that knows that "big" sins have a larger temporal impact than "little" ones.

[Erica in PA]

The grace is that they haven't kicked him out already. If they're doing things right, then they'll be following Matthew 18 in their church discipline procedures. The purpose of church discipline, even to the point of excommunication, is for *restoring* the one caught in a pattern of sin. Looking the other way may seem "nice," but it's really not doing this man any favors, and it reflects poorly on the holy God he claims to serve.

 

They've made an effort to help provide him another place to live. They offered him the chance to legitimize the relationship. It doesn't seem like they're just all talk, kwim?

 

In the book of Acts, a bunch of sorcerers became Christians and burned their books of magic, even though the books were worth a fortune. IIRC, they didn't need much coaxing, nor did they wait a long time before showing the fruit of their repentance.

 

I can understand how your mom's boyfriend feels like he was told two different things. And that may be true. If the pastor has recently been convicted in his own heart about his lack of biblical leadership over the flock that God has entrusted to him, then it sounds like the "hard line" has come about since your mom's boyfriend's apparent conversion.

 

I guess the larger question from where I stand isn't so much whether the pastor is doing this exactly the right way, although I do wonder about it (and we all know how hard it is to discern these things on message boards!). But if your mom's boyfriend is resistant to *any* attempts to change his living situation, then I would seriously question whether his conversion was genuine. True converts to Christ will show hatred and mourning over their own sin, and a desire to honor God by turning away from those sins, especially once the've had it pointed out to them. We're not talking about a fine-line sort of sin either. This is a case of open, ongoing fornication.

 

It sounds like the pastor is trying to start doing things right, but he's sort of fumbling along. Your mom's boyfriend absolutely should not have been baptized without showing signs of having repented of his sin with your mom. It was confusing to him and gave him a false sense of spiritual security.

 

So now the pastor is trying to correct course and clean up a mess he helped make. Sounds like he needs some grace to be extended to him right now as he tries to find his way, and lots of prayers on his behalf for wisdom. He will be judged more strictly on the day of judgment, because of his position of responsibility.

 

As for the relative seriousness of sins, it seems to be the fashion these days to say that God looks at all sins equally. Raping a child is just as bad as a word spoken in anger. Since people don't get upset about "little" sins the way they do about "big" sins, the tendency is to see all sins as "little." The human mind tries to minimize the gravity of sin, and tells itself that God doesn't really care all that much. But in God's mind, all sins are equally ****ing and "big" from an eternal salvation standpoint. Still, there's a part of us that knows that "big" sins have a larger temporal impact than "little" ones.

 

:iagree: Well said, Brenda!!

[Erica in PA]

Thank you. When I said all sins are equal, this is what I meant- we all sin on a daily basis. Period. Whether "knowingly" or "habitual" is irrelevant because sin is sin and I feel this pastor is being very self righteous by telling my mother's bf that he has to move or leave the church. I find it more HORRIFYING as the day goes on and I am saddened that there are people out there who agree that this is OK all in the name of christianity.

 

In 1 Cor. 5, Paul addresses the church at Corinth, and says this:

 

It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that does not occur even among pagans: A man has his father's wife. And you are proud! Shouldn't you rather have been filled with grief and have put out of your fellowship the man who did this? Even though I am not physically present, I am with you in spirit. And I have already passed judgment on the one who did this, just as if I were present. 5hand this man over to Satan, so that the sinful nature may be destroyed and his spirit saved on the day of the Lord. 6Your boasting is not good. Don't you know that a little yeast works through the whole batch of dough? 7Get rid of the old yeast that you may be a new batch without yeast—as you really are. For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed. 8Therefore let us keep the Festival, not with the old yeast, the yeast of malice and wickedness, but with bread without yeast, the bread of sincerity and truth.

9I have written you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people— 10not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. 11But now I am writing you that you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler. With such a man do not even eat.

12What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? 13God will judge those outside. "Expel the wicked man from among you."

 

To me, this is very clear. People may differ as to which sins are serious enough to warrant this approach, but to say that church leadership has no right to ever ask someone in open sin to leave the church, based on the fact that they are sinners too-- that just does not gel with this passage. Obviously both Paul and the church leadership at Corinth were all sinners as we are, and yet Paul commanded the church to put such people out. For some of the thinking on this thread to be correct, Paul, and his commands in the Bible itself, must be in error.

[Joanne]

=

To me, this is very clear. People may differ as to which sins are serious enough to warrant this approach, but to say that church leadership has no right to ever ask someone in open sin to leave the church, based on the fact that they are sinners too-- that just does not gel with this passage. Obviously both Paul and the church leadership at Corinth were all sinners as we are, and yet Paul commanded the church to put such people out. For some of the thinking on this thread to be correct, Paul, and his commands in the Bible itself, must be in error.

 

Are we asking the gluttons, the gossipers, the "everything but penetration" teens, those who gamble, those who make an idol of church activity/ministry, those who neglect family..........to leave?

[Erica in PA]

Are we asking the gluttons, the gossipers, the "everything but penetration" teens, those who gamble, those who make an idol of church activity/ministry, those who neglect family..........to leave?

 

That is irrelevant... or at least it seems to have been to Paul. There were lots of other sins going on in Corinth, and yet he still says that this specific individual is to be removed from fellowship.

[Joanne]

That is irrelevant... or at least it seems to have been to Paul. There were lots of other sins going on in Corinth, and yet he still says that this specific individual is to be removed from fellowship.

 

It's not irrelevant to me, as a Christian involved in a church and, over the years, many church fellowships.

 

It's very relevant to what I believe in and how I believe God wants our churches to function.

 

This thread makes me very sad.

[OnTheBrink]

Here's a good article on the subject of church discipline:

 

http://www.svchapel.org/resources/articles/21-church-trends/79-church-discipline-and-church-growth

 

ETA: I agree with Erica in PA and Angela in OH's posts. I just don't know how to multi-quote.

[Renee in NC]

I guess the larger question from where I stand isn't so much whether the pastor is doing this exactly the right way, although I do wonder about it (and we all know how hard it is to discern these things on message boards!). But if your mom's boyfriend is resistant to *any* attempts to change his living situation, then I would seriously question whether his conversion was genuine. True converts to Christ will show hatred and mourning over their own sin, and a desire to honor God by turning away from those sins, especially once the've had it pointed out to them. We're not talking about a fine-line sort of sin either. This is a case of open, ongoing fornication.

 

I don't see that - I see a man who doesn't want to lose his love. He's willing to marry her - she isn't and she won't. They've been together 14 years.

 

Effectively, the church in question is telling him he has to get a divorce. They may not be married, but they have lived together as man and wife for 14 years! I said before that they aren't wrong to remove him from service, but can you not feel the agony this would cause anyone? Talk about a cross to bear!

 

So, no, I would not question his salvation based on this. I can't imagine the difficult position he is now in.

[Peek a Boo]

Are we asking the gluttons, the gossipers, the "everything but penetration" teens, those who gamble, those who make an idol of church activity/ministry, those who neglect family..........to leave?

 

If the church was aware of one of these [or other] sins being open and unrepentant even after being confronted and offered practical help, then uh, yeah, it could certainly be considered scriptural church protocol to issue an ultimatum.

 

again, not that i'd necessarily agree with the way the situation has been handled [i'd want to know more about it] but I think flockofsillies laid out a very solid scriptural stance taking many issues into account.

[Erica in PA]

It's not irrelevant to me, as a Christian involved in a church and, over the years, many church fellowships.

 

It's very relevant to what I believe in and how I believe God wants our churches to function.

 

This thread makes me very sad.

 

So are you saying that you reject Paul's teaching on this matter? Clearly he does recommend excommunication. If you're saying that excommunication is wrong, across the board, because we're all sinners, then it logically follows that you believe that Paul (and hence the Bible) is wrong on this matter. Is that what you are saying?

[Joanne]

So are you saying that you reject Paul's teaching on this matter? Clearly he does recommend excommunication. If you're saying that excommunication is wrong, across the board, because we're all sinners, then it logically follows that you believe that Paul (and hence the Bible) is wrong on this matter. Is that what you are saying?

 

Erica, you probably don't want my answer on that one. I'm not a fan of Paul. ;)

 

I do not think, btw, that excommunication is wrong across the board. I think, however, in this case, it is wrong.

[Joanne]

I don't see that - I see a man who doesn't want to lose his love. He's willing to marry her - she isn't and she won't. They've been together 14 years.

 

Effectively, the church in question is telling him he has to get a divorce. They may not be married, but they have lived together as man and wife for 14 years! I said before that they aren't wrong to remove him from service, but can you not feel the agony this would cause anyone? Talk about a cross to bear!

 

So, no, I would not question his salvation based on this. I can't imagine the difficult position he is now in.

 

Excellent point in paragraph 2. It's another example of how some Christians equate marriage and divorce to paper. To me, they are states of relationship.

[Sputterduck]

Excellent point in paragraph 2. It's another example of how some Christians equate marriage and divorce to paper. To me, they are states of relationship.

 

I really, really agree with that. I don't care whether the government thinks I'm married or not. I could not care less. I do care whether God thinks I'm married. A piece of paper from the government doesn't mean a thing to me except for tax purposes. It doesn't make me married or not. Going before God and entering into a covenant with Him and another person is what matters to me.

 

These two people have have been committed and loving each other for 14 years! And they likely aren't having sex anyway... Why have so many skimmed over that fact in this thread? They are basically married, and the only thing missing seems to be a piece of paper from the government. Whoopteedoo... Who is the government to determine marriages anyway? It's the love and commitment that makes a marriage, not a bureaucratic piece of paper.

[5kidsforME]

Erica, you probably don't want my answer on that one. I'm not a fan of Paul. ;)

 

I do not think, btw, that excommunication is wrong across the board. I think, however, in this case, it is wrong.

 

How can you NOT be a fan of Paul? :confused:

[Renee in NC]

I really, really agree with that. I don't care whether the government thinks I'm married or not. I could not care less. I do care whether God thinks I'm married. A piece of paper from the government doesn't mean a thing to me except for tax purposes. It doesn't make me married or not. Going before God and entering into a covenant with Him and another person is what matters to me.

 

These two people have have been committed and loving each other for 14 years! And they likely aren't having sex anyway... Why have so many skimmed over that fact in this thread? They are basically married, and the only thing missing seems to be a piece of paper from the government. Whoopteedoo... Who is the government to determine marriages anyway? It's the love and commitment that makes a marriage, not a bureaucratic piece of paper.

 

Unfortunately, they haven't made that covenant before God, either. So, while I have incredible sympathy for him, *if* there is sex involved, it is still sin.

 

Maybe the correct action is to pray that the *mother's* mind would be changed and she would marry him. I don't think she can doubt his dedication and loyalty to her!

[Sputterduck]

Unfortunately, they haven't made that covenant before God, either. So, while I have incredible sympathy for him, *if* there is sex involved, it is still sin.

 

Maybe the correct action is to pray that the *mother's* mind would be changed and she would marry him. I don't think she can doubt his dedication and loyalty to her!

 

I think that is a wonderful thing to pray for!

 

He is certainly dedicated and loyal. He must be in terrible pain loving God and loving the mother and being torn and being forced to pick one or the other. :( What a horrible way to have to spend your Christian babyhood.

[Erica in PA]

Erica, you probably don't want my answer on that one. I'm not a fan of Paul. ;)

 

I do not think, btw, that excommunication is wrong across the board. I think, however, in this case, it is wrong.

 

Well, that doesn't bother me, but I think it's good for people to know that fact as they consider your opinion on a biblical topic. For me, I'm coming from a viewpoint that all Scripture is inspired by God and inerrant, so what the Bible says matters more than anything else. Any advice I give anyone will reflect that, so my advice will be most valuable to those who hold Scripture in the same regard. Those who share your views on Scripture will likely find your advice to be more appealing. I'm not sure which the OP is, but at least she has a variety of viewpoints represented to consider.

 

I don't know about this particular case, either, because we don't know all the details. But several posters here seem to imply that excommunication is wrong across the board, and unbiblical, so I felt a responsibility to present the fact that it is absolutely commanded specifically in 1 Cor. 5, with related principles throughout the NT. The Bible also never implies that the leadership (or pastor in this case) must be sinless in order to remove a person from the church, or else be labeled a hypocrite. (Otherwise Paul would not have ordered the leadership at Corinth to do this if that were the case, since obviously they could not have been sinless either.)

 

Whether it applies in this specific case, I don't know, but it sounds from what we do know, that there is public, unrepented-of sin going on, which sounds similar to 1 Cor. 5 to me. I certainly do not think there is any justification for attacking this pastor, and casting aspersions on his character, when he appears to be trying to help this man, and following biblical principles. I find *that* sad.

[CalicoKat]

common law marriage? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common-law_marriage

 

Sin is sin, but obviously there's a relationship here that's longer than a few weeks or months, or even just a couple years. And it's almost like the pastor is telling him to divorce her because she's not a Christian. There's a marriage of sorts here and there needs to be counseling not condemnation.

[5kidsforME]

Well, that doesn't bother me, but I think it's good for people to know that fact as they consider your opinion on a biblical topic. For me, I'm coming from a viewpoint that all Scripture is inspired by God and inerrant, so what the Bible says matters more than anything else. Any advice I give anyone will reflect that, so my advice will be most valuable to those who hold Scripture in the same regard. Those who share your views on Scripture will likely find your advice to be more appealing. I'm not sure which the OP is, but at least she has a variety of viewpoints represented to consider.

 

I don't know about this particular case, either, because we don't know all the details. But several posters here seem to imply that excommunication is wrong across the board, and unbiblical, so I felt a responsibility to present the fact that it is absolutely commanded specifically in 1 Cor. 5, with related principles throughout the NT. The Bible also never implies that the leadership (or pastor in this case) must be sinless in order to remove a person from the church, or else be labeled a hypocrite. (Otherwise Paul would not have ordered the leadership at Corinth to do this if that were the case, since obviously they could not have been sinless either.)

 

Whether it applies in this specific case, I don't know, but it sounds from what we do know, that there is public, unrepented-of sin going on, which sounds similar to 1 Cor. 5 to me. I certainly do not think there is any justification for attacking this pastor, and casting aspersions on his character, when he appears to be trying to help this man, and following biblical principles. I find *that* sad.

 

Well said. I am sad and hurt on his behalf.

[Sputterduck]

common law marriage? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common-law_marriage

 

Sin is sin, but obviously there's a relationship here that's longer than a few weeks or months, or even just a couple years. And it's almost like the pastor is telling him to divorce her because she's not a Christian. There's a marriage of sorts here and there needs to be counseling not condemnation.

 

Yes. What state are they in? In many states they *are* already married!

[Joanne]

Whether it applies in this specific case, I don't know, but it sounds from what we do know, that there is public, unrepented-of sin going on, which sounds similar to 1 Cor. 5 to me. I certainly do not think there is any justification for attacking this pastor, and casting aspersions on his character, when he appears to be trying to help this man, and following biblical principles. I find *that* sad.

 

Well, add to my non standard Christianity that I don't think of the couple in question as "living in sin". I think of them as married; more married than many I've seen (and one I've lived) that were married on paper.

[Renai]

common law marriage? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common-law_marriage

 

Sin is sin, but obviously there's a relationship here that's longer than a few weeks or months, or even just a couple years. And it's almost like the pastor is telling him to divorce her because she's not a Christian. There's a marriage of sorts here and there needs to be counseling not condemnation.

 

Yes. What state are they in? In many states they *are* already married!

 

That was my question earlier as well (http://www.welltrainedmind.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1356683#post1356683), but it got lost. Do churches recognize common-law marriages? Because if they live in a common-law state, the length of time they've been together I think qualifies them in any state. In some states, there are also other stipulations such as owning property together, etc.

[5kidsforME]

Joanne, is the quote in your signature yours or someone elses?

[Lovedtodeath]

 

I'm a little horrified by this. Even JWs who are often criticized for their legalism and harshness and disfellowshipping don't exclude the person from attending the Kingdom Hall. I mean... the real point is to get the person BACK to God. Not cast them out forever. After all, God convicts, Satan condemns.

Thank you for pointing that out. In addition, this man would not be disfellowshipped because he would not have qualified for babtism in the first place. So... attending meetings, private bible study, public participation in study, fellowship/association with the congregation- yes. Babtism, passing microphone, being a member of the ministry school, passing out literature- no. Disfellowshipping- no.

[Lovedtodeath]

Are we asking the gluttons, the gossipers, the "everything but penetration" teens, those who gamble, those who make an idol of church activity/ministry, those who neglect family..........to leave?

To be removed from associating with members of the congregation? Yes. I have seen it happen, and also verbal abusers, those who are dishonest in business, drunkards, those who harm their body with drugs...

[asta]

Is the pastor who is sitting in earthy judgement of this man being asked to leave by anyone?

 

 

a

[Erica in PA]

Is the pastor who is sitting in earthy judgement of this man being asked to leave by anyone?

 

 

a

 

If so, they would have to be cutting out large portions of the New Testament to justify doing so. It's popular today to say that no one may address anyone else's sin, but that is not a biblical teaching. I could list at least 20 passages that specifically instruct Christians on how to "judge" one another. Rebuke and correction is a major theme in the Bible, though I understand it's not an appealing one to those outside the church, or many inside it, either.

[LisaNY]

No, I'm sorry, I disagree with you. You are finding blame in the wrong place, in my opinion. This man knows that what he is doing is wrong, but is choosing to continue on sinning rather than following God's Word. Church discipline is commanded in Scripture, and imo, this pastor would not be fulfilling his responsibility before God if he were to allow an unrepentant individual to remain in his sin, even while attending church and even taking a leadership role. While it's true that we all sin, it's a different situation to knowingly have an ongoing sinful relationship, and refuse to repent of that. If my pastor came to me because he had noticed my sin of... let's say gossiping, and I refused to repent of that, saying that I had good reasons to keep on sinning that way, then I also should receive church discipline.

 

I'm sure it has been really exciting and encouraging to you to see your mother's boyfriend come to faith in Christ, and that you don't want to see that jeopardized by the church's actions. However, at the same time, church leadership are commanded by God to intervene in situations like this, so please don't fault them for that. It is wholly this man's responsibility to obey God, and the Bible's teaching on fornication is clear. If he is a true believer, and I sincerely hope he is, God's holy spirit will eventually help him to see the light on this issue and do what is right.

 

:iagree:

[LisaNY]

You seem bent on finding some hypocrisy here, but I don't think that's the point. If I had had premarital sex (I truly praise the Lord that He helped me to wait for marriage), and if it came to the attention of the church leadership, I do believe that they would have a responsibility to confront me about that and direct me to the Bible's teaching on fornication. And if I were presented with that truth, and insisted that I was going to keep right on sinning no matter what the Bible said, then I believe church discipline would be required. The first step is not removing a person from fellowship, but it might happen eventually if correction continues to be rejected.

 

Again, the point of the excommunication *is* to bring the person back to a right relationship with God. It's in the hopes that the person would ultimately be reconciled with God. To allow a person to continue on in Christian fellowship, giving him all the benefits of church participation, while he is refusing to repent (again, this is different than the sins that all of us commit every day), is giving him a false sense of his security and standing before God. Sometimes it takes a pastoral team standing a firm stand to get through to a person that this is a really serious offense against God, and needs to be rectified.

 

:iagree:

[Scarlett]

Thank you for pointing that out. In addition, this man would not be disfellowshipped because he would not have qualified for babtism in the first place. So... attending meetings, private bible study, public participation in study, fellowship/association with the congregation- yes. Babtism, passing microphone, being a member of the ministry school, passing out literature- no. Disfellowshipping- no.

 

You are correct LTD. AND even if this person were in a position to BE disfellowshipped he would NOT be prevented from attending meetings. AND he could be brought back in to the congregation with the proper steps of repentence.

[angela in ohio]

Again, the point of the excommunication *is* to bring the person back to a right relationship with God. It's in the hopes that the person would ultimately be reconciled with God. To allow a person to continue on in Christian fellowship, giving him all the benefits of church participation, while he is refusing to repent (again, this is different than the sins that all of us commit every day), is giving him a false sense of his security and standing before God. Sometimes it takes a pastoral team standing a firm stand to get through to a person that this is a really serious offense against God, and needs to be rectified.

 

This is an excellent explanation.

[Parrothead]

OK- points taken regarding sin. Regarding the harshness and ultimatum from the pastor I still think it is not nice. Again, love the sinner, hate the sin. The pastor has said he cannot enter the church if he continues to live with my mother. Where is the grace? Where is the loving guidance? As for the s*x, I haven't asked, but both he and my mother are disabled and it would take quite an effort for them to still be having s*x. It also isn't something I WANT to picture- lol- so maybe I am being naive, but I think at this point it is companionship and not all that sexual.

If they are living as brother and sister, and have reconciled previous sin (related to living together) then there is no sin.

 

Sounds to me like time to find a new church.

[Crimson Wife]

Well, add to my non standard Christianity that I don't think of the couple in question as "living in sin". I think of them as married; more married than many I've seen (and one I've lived) that were married on paper.

 

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.

[Peek a Boo]

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.

 

well, i disagree that there is any scriptural command to say vows or be recognized by "the church" to be considered married, but the crux of the matter as far as I can tell is that THEY don't consider themselves married, period.

Jesus' [not Paul's] directives against divorce [for either party] are pretty clear, but washed clean as a repentant Christian. There are other issues about sex and both parties that come into play when we're talking about What Does God Considered married, but i don't think we have much common ground between our various views so it would likely be a futile discussion [that we've already had, lol ;) ]

 

Even if they "could be" married, even common law statutes usually require a presenting of yourself AS married for it to take effect. They aren't doing that, and in fact, have blatantly refused to do that. "mere cohabitation" isn't enough for a civil marriage either.

 

As long as they refuse to consider themselves married, yet continue to present themselves as a sexually committed couple of boyfriend/girlfriend, there are scriptural issues at stake.

 

One doesn't need to be a fan of Paul to realize that even Christ confirms the one-flesh union, prohibition against divorce, and repentence of sin.

[Peek a Boo]

If they are living as brother and sister, and have reconciled previous sin (related to living together) then there is no sin.

 

Sounds to me like time to find a new church.

 

Then it would be no problem to tell the church they are NOT boyfriend/girlfriend and he's just renting a room from her. Apparently that is NOT the case.

[Peek a Boo]

It's popular today to say that no one may address anyone else's sin, but that is not a biblical teaching. I could list at least 20 passages that specifically instruct Christians on how to "judge" one another. Rebuke and correction is a major theme in the Bible, though I understand it's not an appealing one to those outside the church, or many inside it, either.

 

:iagree:

[Joanne]

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.

 

Ok. That I can consider agreeing with; but it's not what everyone in the thread is representing.

 

Also, how do we know this couple hasn't said vows to each other and with God? Is the protocol for a formal marriage laid out in scripture? (I'm asking because I don't know, I am not being snarky)

 

Originally Posted by Erica in PA

Again, the point of the excommunication *is* to bring the person back to a right relationship with God. It's in the hopes that the person would ultimately be reconciled with God. To allow a person to continue on in Christian fellowship, giving him all the benefits of church participation, while he is refusing to repent (again, this is different than the sins that all of us commit every day), is giving him a false sense of his security and standing before God. Sometimes it takes a pastoral team standing a firm stand to get through to a person that this is a really serious offense against God, and needs to be rectified.

 

Even *with* what might be a serious offense against God (and I don't think a 14 year committed relationship that is respectful, kind and includes HIS principles qualifies. We don't know this about the couple in the OP but I sure don't believe a paper marriage automatically = more pleasing to God.), I still stand before Him IN GRACE.

 

Following God's rules/commands is for our benefit, he loves us so much he wants us to obey and submit for our benefit, not to "please him". Not following his rules makes life on earth h*ll but our salvation is not in question. Jesus came so we could have life more abundantly while still living it here on this earth. God's given guidelines in his Word (bible) and life (Jesus) and ministry (Jesus) on how to live an abundant, earthly life. That is what gets compromised when I don't follow Him.