Churches are falling .. falling

[visionary]

Some have drunk the LGBT koolaid. Some have exposed themselves. Some have joined the secular popular party. Good old fashion serious faith had all but been lost. They are all becoming a cage of "unclean".

 

[psalms 91]

True faith being preached is now hate speech, sooner or later they will arrest those who speak truth from the bible

 

[Josiah]

With rare exceptions, Christianity is in decline (at least as a percentage of the population). This is true regardless of denominations (again, with RARE exceptions) and regardless of being conservative/traditional or liberal or just "lite."

Where I live, closed/boarded up churches are everywhere.... Catholic ones, Methodist ones, Baptist ones, Pentecostal ones, pretty much across the board. There ARE a few mega-nondenoms (usually with very, very "lite" to non-existent theology) that are thriving.... and a few Catholic, Baptist, Methodist, Pentecostal, Presbyterian churches that also are doing well (or at least hanging in there), again, I see no trend: it seems to be a church - by - church, neighborhood - by - neighborhood thing. And with the denominational churches, there are few youth or younger people just a lot of gray hairs, not too optimistic for the future.

My brother goes to a HUGE non-denom that on the surface seems to be one of the few exceptions..... it's HUGE, there are a few thousand in church on Sunday, they have their own Starbucks, they have so many in attendance that there is NO WAY they can get them all into the worship center (as they call it) - so there are several venues on the campus where you can watch via video feed. And the average age is probably late 20's. BUT it's only seeming...... my brother reports that the turn over rate is HUGE - the average participant only lasts a couple of years and then drops out. IMO, MY opinion, the reason is there's no theology, there is no depth, there is no "meat" .... but the reason THEY give is that "connections" aren't always made (and I'm sure that's PART of it).

I get to Europe - partly to visit friends/family and partly because of my work. England, Germany, France, Spain..... It's one big Christian ghost town. Christian CULTURE often still lives (Easter and Christmas are big there as HOLIDAYS, for example) but few go to church, fewer still have any idea what Christianity is about or any understanding of Christian theology. The new Muslims stand out as people of faith, but not the Christians.

It SADDENS me when Christians gloat in this bleeding..... always suggesting it's someone else's fault, it's because of THAT denomination or THAT movement because if just everyone worshipped like MY church..... believed like MY church..... did like MY church.... why, we'd be gaining hundreds of millions of converts a year (even though MY church isn't growing at all!). Catholics blame the Protestants...... Protestants blame the RCC..... Non-Denoms blame the Denoms..... Liberals blame the conservatives..... Conservatives blame the liberals...... meanwhile, Christianity is rapidly loosing ground.... churches are closing...... Christians schools and colleges are closing...... pews are getting grayer and grayer. Maybe it's time to spot blaming others and start looking in the mirror. Maybe it's time to start LOVING and SERVING and EVANGELIZING friends and neighbors. Christianity went from a tiny, tiny, obscure thing to #1 because "all the world sees how they love each other." Not because of praise bands or youth groups or whatever folks today think works....



Here's what is behind the decline in Christianity, in MY humble, fallible, lay opinion......

1. Lack of love - unconditional, universal, real love of, for and by PEOPLE. (In reality, Christians and churches too often seem LESS loving)
2. Lack of care for the "lost" (and behind this, a belief that hell probably doesn't exist)
3. Relativism - Christianity is "nice" but who knows if it's really true? Hey, whatever works for you!
4. Lack of a clear, personally believed and understood message..... the dumbing down of Christianity, "Lite" Christianity, lack of Christian education..... Don't know the Gospel.
5. Institutionalism. Too many parishes and denominations of them are about self-preservation/self-promotion rather than lifting high the Cross. Church/denomination fights.
6. Entertainment mentality, desire to GET rather than GIVE in worship, "what's in it for me?" mentality (and not just about worship)
7. Church people too often feel unloved, uncared for, ignored.... even used.
8. Legalism - and the resulting Phariseeism and hypocritical put downs.
9. Copying the world - less well than the world. We can't out-entertain Hollywood, we can't out-youth secular youth stuff, churches trying to out-do the SECULAR world but failing miserably.... and forgetting their REAL purpose.
10. Culturalism (this especially in Europe).... the church is abandon in favor of keeping the culture, the traditions, the customs which make us feel nostalgic and good.

In short, forgetting to be the church.

IMO, the above runs across denominational lines...... across the "liberal/conservative" line..... Protestant/Catholic/Non-Denom


Where to begin? With the one you see in the mirror..... and with each congregation looking in the mirror.




Pax Soli Christi


- Josiah





.

 

[psalms 91]

I think you are right Josiah

 

[Lamb]

Some have drunk the LGBT koolaid. Some have exposed themselves. Some have joined the secular popular party. Good old fashion serious faith had all but been lost. They are all becoming a cage of "unclean".

Sounds like the church in Corinth from the New Testament, doesn't it?

 

[tango]

Much truth in what you say there, Josiah.

I recently attended a meeting in a church where it seemed "the gay issue" was going to drive a wedge between members. On one side were the people who seemed to want little more than to thump the table and scream about abominations, and on the other side were the people who did little more than wring their hands and talk about how we have to love people. Somewhere in the middle is a stance where we can love people without condoning sin.

Jesus hung out with the undesirables of his day, but didn't let them get away with thinking that what they were doing was acceptable. The woman caught in adultery was a prime example of balance - "neither do I condemn you, go and sin no more". It seems as humans we are so prone to either focus on the "neither do I condemn you" and act as if everything is just fine, or focus on the "go and sin no more" while piling condemnation on people.

The thing about many sins is that they don't affect us personally. I'm not a homosexual, so it's safe for me to preach against homosexuality because the chances of me being caught in a compromising situation with another man are vanishingly small. But for me to preach about other sins that might come knocking at my door is riskier. If I preach about perfect honesty, maybe some day I'll be offered a lot of cash in a brown envelope to look the other way. If I preach about marital fidelity maybe some pretty young thing will come my way right after I've had a blazing row with my wife. If I preach against pornography maybe one night I'll be in a hotel room on my own, lonely, and see the channels on offer. If I preach on inclusiveness the chances are sooner or later I'm going to be tested by someone the world would consider undesirable and unlovely (be they a street bum, a hooker, whatever) and the world will see whether I practice what I preach. Whatever the nature of the temptation, it's easier and safer to focus on the sins that other people commit than the sins I commit. But that way lies the prayer that's little more than "I thank you, God, that I am not like this man here".

 

[psalms 91]

Much truth in what you say there, Josiah.

I recently attended a meeting in a church where it seemed "the gay issue" was going to drive a wedge between members. On one side were the people who seemed to want little more than to thump the table and scream about abominations, and on the other side were the people who did little more than wring their hands and talk about how we have to love people. Somewhere in the middle is a stance where we can love people without condoning sin.

Jesus hung out with the undesirables of his day, but didn't let them get away with thinking that what they were doing was acceptable. The woman caught in adultery was a prime example of balance - "neither do I condemn you, go and sin no more". It seems as humans we are so prone to either focus on the "neither do I condemn you" and act as if everything is just fine, or focus on the "go and sin no more" while piling condemnation on people.

The thing about many sins is that they don't affect us personally. I'm not a homosexual, so it's safe for me to preach against homosexuality because the chances of me being caught in a compromising situation with another man are vanishingly small. But for me to preach about other sins that might come knocking at my door is riskier. If I preach about perfect honesty, maybe some day I'll be offered a lot of cash in a brown envelope to look the other way. If I preach about marital fidelity maybe some pretty young thing will come my way right after I've had a blazing row with my wife. If I preach against pornography maybe one night I'll be in a hotel room on my own, lonely, and see the channels on offer. If I preach on inclusiveness the chances are sooner or later I'm going to be tested by someone the world would consider undesirable and unlovely (be they a street bum, a hooker, whatever) and the world will see whether I practice what I preach. Whatever the nature of the temptation, it's easier and safer to focus on the sins that other people commit than the sins I commit. But that way lies the prayer that's little more than "I thank you, God, that I am not like this man here".

More truth, you are exactly right in where our stance should be as a church and individually

 

[Rens]

Sounds like the church in Corinth from the New Testament, doesn't it?

No the difference is that well most listened to Paul, but now sin is talked good. It's not a sin anymore, so people don't even feel sorry about it. When there was fornication with the Corinths Paul told them to get married. Now people just live together and go to church. They don't even know it's sin. Lot of churches don't even preach that. I was shocked when I went to a dating site last year. You can see in their profile immediately how they think about stuff and sex before marriage is just okay. Think there were 3 guys who said they'd wait on a christian dating site. They don't even know. It's just terrible.

 

[Josiah]

Tidy,


I really, really struggle with this. You are absolutely right! Sin is sin! It's wrong, bad, condemnable! We MUST - MUST - not water it down or gloss it over! HUGE problems, dangers, result from doing that!

On the other hand, I'M so, so, very aware of my own sinfulness. That I only exist, I only breathe because of God's MERCY - mine because of the Blood of the Lamb.

I'm just not sure..... really not sure... how to crank this out in real time, real life.

In my very small, very theologically - socially - morally - even politically conservative church...... some months ago, came this same-gender couple, a married couple. I thought to myself, OH NO!!!! Here comes a HUGE crisis in our church, with the potential to split us apart! I am not in support of homosexual acts..... I don't support same-gender marriage (they are officially "Married" in our state).... so I wasn't even sure what I - I - should and should not say or do or feel. Sin is wrong. But (I was kinda surprised).... these two middle aged men were/are loved. NOTHING has ever been said. They both (one former Catholic, one former Presbyterian) have officially joined our church via Adult Confirmation. They are the nicest guys you could know - and have really been a blessing to our ministry. NO ONE has said, 'we approve of what you do... we accept you as a wedding couple" but the whole church (including some REALLY, UBER conservative folks!!!!!) have totally embraced them. I'm STILL a bit taken aback... STILL not sure what we SHOULD do.... but I too have come to love and embrace these two men. Is that right? Good? I honestly don't know.... and to be frank, I've kind of moved beyond that. We ALL live and breath only, solely because of the MERCY of God. Yet I still wonder.....


It's not always easy, this unconditional love stuff.... this Law/Gospel stuff.....



- Josiah

 

[tango]

Tidy,


I really, really struggle with this. You are absolutely right! Sin is sin! It's wrong, bad, condemnable! We MUST - MUST - not water it down or gloss it over! HUGE problems, dangers, result from doing that!

On the other hand, I'M so, so, very aware of my own sinfulness. That I only exist, I only breathe because of God's MERCY - mine because of the Blood of the Lamb.

I'm just not sure..... really not sure... how to crank this out in real time, real life.

In my very small, very theologically - socially - morally - even politically conservative church...... some months ago, came this same-gender couple, a married couple. I thought to myself, OH NO!!!! Here comes a HUGE crisis in our church, with the potential to split us apart! I am not in support of homosexual acts..... I don't support same-gender marriage (they are officially "Married" in our state).... so I wasn't even sure what I - I - should and should not say or do or feel. Sin is wrong. But (I was kinda surprised).... these two middle aged men were/are loved. NOTHING has ever been said. They both (one former Catholic, one former Presbyterian) have officially joined our church via Adult Confirmation. They are the nicest guys you could know - and have really been a blessing to our ministry. NO ONE has said, 'we approve of what you do... we accept you as a wedding couple" but the whole church (including some REALLY, UBER conservative folks!!!!!) have totally embraced them. I'm STILL a bit taken aback... STILL not sure what we SHOULD do.... but I too have come to love and embrace these two men. Is that right? Good? I honestly don't know.... and to be frank, I've kind of moved beyond that. We ALL live and breath only, solely because of the MERCY of God. Yet I still wonder.....


It's not always easy, this unconditional love stuff.... this Law/Gospel stuff.....



- Josiah

This is something of a struggle. On the one hand we should love as Jesus loved, and if Jesus were walking this earth as a man today I can easily see him hanging out in the strip clubs and at Gay Pride parades, reaching out to those who need him the most.

The flip side is what Paul said about staying away from brothers who sin:

1Co 5:9-13 NKJV I wrote to you in my epistle not to keep company with sexually immoral people. (10) Yet I certainly did not mean with the sexually immoral people of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world. (11) But now I have written to you not to keep company with anyone named a brother, who is sexually immoral, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or an extortioner—not even to eat with such a person. (12) For what have I to do with judging those also who are outside? Do you not judge those who are inside? (13) But those who are outside God judges. Therefore "PUT AWAY FROM YOURSELVES THE EVIL PERSON."

1Co 6:9-10 NKJV Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, (10) nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God.

This suggests that someone who is inside the church, presenting themselves as a believer, and yet lives in sin sufficiently overt that we know full well they are doing it, should be put out of the fellowship.

With regard to the issue of homosexuality in particular there are obviously some strong views on both sides. As I mentioned before, some do little more than thump the table and scream about abominations while others want a more inclusive concept of loving everybody regardless, overlooking the fact that loving someone doesn't preclude correcting their behavior where necessary. We can't call ourselves loving if someone is walking towards a cliff edge and we just shrug and figure that everything is just fine and we love them the way they are. Needless to say some in the latter group have personal interest, through either being homosexual themselves or having loved ones who are.

What I believe to be necessary is a detailed study of Scripture to determine whether or not homosexual acts are still considered sinful today, i.e. whether the words written by Paul to the Corinthians paired with the law laid down in Leviticus is cultural or eternal. Personally I struggle to interpret Scripture as saying anything other than that homosexual acts are sinful (I refer to homosexual acts to distinguish having the desire, i.e. a temptation, from the act itself - having desires towards a member of the same sex is no more sinful than me, as a married man, having desires for women other than my wife), but if someone with an opposing view wants to make a coherent appeal to Scripture I'm willing to listen. Sadly the way many talk about commandments where sexual activity is concerned one might think that for a heterosexual person there are lots of rules and regulations about fornication, adultery etc but for a homosexual just about anything is fair game because we don't want to judge them. On the other hand there are some who will turn a blind eye to adultery, spousal abuse, pornography, dishonesty on tax returns etc and yet the minute the word "gay" is mentioned you'd think the antichrist himself had just walked in.

 

[Rens]

I like the aproach from Chad Thompson from loving homosexuals as Jesus would. One extreme is to say it's okay and not even warn them, the other to treat them like dirt.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Some have drunk the LGBT koolaid. Some have exposed themselves. Some have joined the secular popular party. Good old fashion serious faith had all but been lost. They are all becoming a cage of "unclean".

What is "good" about this "old fashioned faith"?

No one can turn back the clock to the times when religious explanations of physical phenomena were just as viable as any other explanations. Gravity is not caused by angels pushing us down onto the ground. The Earth is not the centre of the cosmos. The universe was not spoken into existence 6,000 years (more or less) ago. Appealing to God as the final answer to any question about morals, science, philosophy is not a valid answer to questions in these fields. Seeking verses in the bible to justify discrimination against LGBTI people is being a jerk not being a faithful Christian. No book, the holy scriptures included, ought to turn people into jerks. If that is the effect a book has on you then you will serve God better by shredding it and never reading another word in it.

The holy scriptures are here with us today because they contain hope for the future, hope for the children we have and for future generations, moral guidance, teaching about God, the story of redemption, goodness, truth, love, and so forth. If the main message one extracts from the holy scriptures is "Gay folk are sinners who deserve to be punished" or "Muslims have a false religion and they have terrorists so let's treat them like dirt" then throw your bible away - nobody needs a book that ennobles wicked hatred towards other.

 

[psalms 91]

What is "good" about this "old fashioned faith"?

No one can turn back the clock to the times when religious explanations of physical phenomena were just as viable as any other explanations. Gravity is not caused by angels pushing us down onto the ground. The Earth is not the centre of the cosmos. The universe was not spoken into existence 6,000 years (more or less) ago. Appealing to God as the final answer to any question about morals, science, philosophy is not a valid answer to questions in these fields. Seeking verses in the bible to justify discrimination against LGBTI people is being a jerk not being a faithful Christian. No book, the holy scriptures included, ought to turn people into jerks. If that is the effect a book has on you then you will serve God better by shredding it and never reading another word in it.

The holy scriptures are here with us today because they contain hope for the future, hope for the children we have and for future generations, moral guidance, teaching about God, the story of redemption, goodness, truth, love, and so forth. If the main message one extracts from the holy scriptures is "Gay folk are sinners who deserve to be punished" or "Muslims have a false religion and they have terrorists so let's treat them like dirt" then throw your bible away - nobody needs a book that ennobles wicked hatred towards other.

While I understand what you are saying you also cannot rip whole pages and passages out of the bible either. Another poster said about loving people and hating the sin which is the approach we should use. We should not condone and ignore sin but we also should not hate the person either. If you dont show them it is sin then how or why would they ever change? I see this type of argument used to excuse or sweep under the rug the behavior or else to actually say its ok and it isnt and never will be in Gods sight. They should worship and find God, they6 should not be in the pulpit or any leadership position until the sin is taken care of.

 

[MoreCoffee]

While I understand what you are saying you also cannot rip whole pages and passages out of the bible either.

I don't rip up whole passages, in fact I have about 500 more pages with many passages in them in my bible than do you. But why can't I rip them out if they lead me to do wicked things? Why can't I ignore them or reinterpret them if they appear to teach crime? I am confident that you do that when you see a passage advocating that a raped woman is to be stoned if she is raped in a town and didn't cry out so that her attacker would be caught in the act, yet precisely that is recommended as just punishment for her under the Law of Moses.

Another poster said about loving people and hating the sin which is the approach we should use.

Exactly how does one love a person while hating their sins. The holy scriptures do not demonstrate such a division between the sins a person performs and the person performing the sins. A killer is not distinguished from his/her killing the killer is executed under the Law for his crimes of killing - except if one happens to be King then the Law becomes strangely ineffective.

We should not condone and ignore sin

The Taliban and IS have a holy book (I don't account their book as holy but they do) and they do take your advice about not ignoring sin and then they act on the law that their book and their tradition teaches and they execute the sinners. They don't need to hate the sinners to kill them. The result is the same even if they love the sinners that they execute. The sinner is just as dead if killed by a loving executioner as he/she would be if the executioner were hate filled.

but we also should not hate the person either. If you dont show them it is sin then how or why would they ever change? I see this type of argument used to excuse or sweep under the rug the behavior or else to actually say its ok and it isnt and never will be in Gods sight. They should worship and find God, they6 should not be in the pulpit or any leadership position until the sin is taken care of.

If one's religious views turn one into a jerk then abandon the religious views that make one into a jerk. It is the best way to handle jerk-making teaching.

 

[psalms 91]

I don't rip up whole passages, in fact I have about 500 more pages with many passages in them in my bible than do you. But why can't I rip them out if they lead me to do wicked things? Why can't I ignore them or reinterpret them if they appear to teach crime? I am confident that you do that when you see a passage advocating that a raped woman is to be stoned if she is raped in a town and didn't cry out so that her attacker would be caught in the act, yet precisely that is recommended as just punishment for her under the Law of Moses. Exactly how does one love a person while hating their sins. The holy scriptures do not demonstrate such a division between the sins a person performs and the person performing the sins. A killer is not distinguished from his/her killing the killer is executed under the Law for his crimes of killing - except if one happens to be King then the Law becomes strangely ineffective. The Taliban and IS have a holy book (I don't account their book as holy but they do) and they do take your advice about not ignoring sin and then they act on the law that their book and their tradition teaches and they execute the sinners. They don't need to hate the sinners to kill them. The result is the same even if they love the sinners that they execute. The sinner is just as dead if killed by a loving executioner as he/she would be if the executioner were hate filled.

If one's religious views turn one into a jerk then abandon the religious views that make one into a jerk. It is the best way to handle jerk-making teaching.

Still didnt address the issue did you? Forget the Old Testament with the harsh laws for now, lets look to the New. Jesus forgave the woman caught in adultry but what did he tell her? Go and sin no more, He did not say continue and its ok. As for those in church what does it say? It sdays to address the sin in private and after going through steps to bring it befor ethe church and if that doesnt change the behavior to put them out. So the bible is clear on the issue of sin and that is not being a jerk it is showing someone that the sin is not to be approved or condoned and that their soul is in danger. Now as to loving the sinner that is not hard to do but we also cannot ignore the sin and as you say about the law every action has a consequence so if you know that you will be put to death for killing someone then that is just. You would if in a position to do so try to help that person to a saving knowledge of Christ but that would not change his punishment.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Still didnt address the issue did you? Forget the Old Testament with the harsh laws

You mean rip them out of the bible? Pretend that they do not exist?

for now, lets look to the New. Jesus forgave the woman caught in adultry but what did he tell her?

The woman may not have been caught in adultery it was only her accusers who claimed that she was and they all walked away from their accusation when Jesus proposed that the first stone ought be cast by a sinless chap.

Go and sin no more, He did not say continue and its ok. As for those in church what does it say? It sdays to address the sin in private and after going through steps to bring it befor ethe church and if that doesnt change the behavior to put them out. So the bible is clear on the issue of sin and that is not being a jerk it is showing someone that the sin is not to be approved or condoned and that their soul is in danger. Now as to loving the sinner that is not hard to do but we also cannot ignore the sin and as you say about the law every action has a consequence so if you know that you will be put to death for killing someone then that is just. You would if in a position to do so try to help that person to a saving knowledge of Christ but that would not change his punishment.

I didn't say or imply that the bible is faulty in my posts. I said if the holy scriptures make you become a jerk then get rid of them because they are doing you no good. The first post in this thread lamented the passing of "good old faith" immediately after referring to tolerant attitudes (in some denominations) towards LGBTI people. It referred to those denominations as becoming "a cage of unclean". So I wanted to sound the warning that becoming a jerk, using holy scripture as proof texts for being a jerk is wicked.

 

[tango]

I don't rip up whole passages, in fact I have about 500 more pages with many passages in them in my bible than do you. But why can't I rip them out if they lead me to do wicked things? Why can't I ignore them or reinterpret them if they appear to teach crime? I am confident that you do that when you see a passage advocating that a raped woman is to be stoned if she is raped in a town and didn't cry out so that her attacker would be caught in the act, yet precisely that is recommended as just punishment for her under the Law of Moses.

But still in pretty stark contrast with the way Jesus dealt with the woman caught "in the very act" of adultery.

Exactly how does one love a person while hating their sins. The holy scriptures do not demonstrate such a division between the sins a person performs and the person performing the sins.

God so loved the world that he sent his son - you know the score there. He loved the people but I don't suppose he loves our sin much. Jesus hung out with the prostitutes and the tax collectors, he loved them but didn't try to tell them they were just fine the way they were and the religious leaders were just haters. The flip side of what he said to the woman caught in adultery - "go and sin no more". No sense that the adultery was acceptable, no sense that she got a free pass and everything was fine, no sense that the rules were kinda subjective and if that was what made her happy then have at it. Just a simple sense that she was spared execution but she wasn't to be doing that any more.

A killer is not distinguished from his/her killing the killer is executed under the Law for his crimes of killing - except if one happens to be King then the Law becomes strangely ineffective. The Taliban and IS have a holy book (I don't account their book as holy but they do) and they do take your advice about not ignoring sin and then they act on the law that their book and their tradition teaches and they execute the sinners. They don't need to hate the sinners to kill them. The result is the same even if they love the sinners that they execute. The sinner is just as dead if killed by a loving executioner as he/she would be if the executioner were hate filled.

I'm not sure how this is relevant.

If one's religious views turn one into a jerk then abandon the religious views that make one into a jerk. It is the best way to handle jerk-making teaching.

Although I'm not sure I'd put it quite like this there is some truth to it. Although some might say Jesus was a bit of a jerk towards the Pharisees. I read elsewhere the idea that if your religion requires that you hate someone you need a different religion. I can't argue too much with that, I don't recall Jesus telling us to hate anyone.

 

[tango]

The woman may not have been caught in adultery it was only her accusers who claims that she was and they all walked away from their accusation when Jesus proposed that the first stone ought be cast by a sinless chap.

The woman caught "in the very act" does raise a few questions over and above the consequences of committing adultery. If she was caught "in the very act" one might reasonably assume a man was also present and the Law demanded that he also be executed. Yet he apparently escaped.

The issue of "let him without sin" leads to speculation as to just what Jesus was writing on the ground. The text doesn't say so the best we can do is speculate, but I have to wonder whether what Jesus was writing in the dirt was a list of other things that those nearby had done and maybe thought they were getting away with. Perhaps bearing false witness was one of those things, perhaps it wasn't. But the fact Jesus said to the woman "go and sin no more", and the fact Jesus didn't challenge the assertion that she had been caught in the very act of adultery, suggests to me that it's more likely than not she had genuinely been caught.

I also wouldn't say that her accusers walked away from their accusation. When faced with an agreement that she should be stoned, that they should proceed with the punishment, and all that was required was for one man without sin to step up and throw the first stone, they presumably all concluded that they did not qualify. And since nobody cast the first stone nobody else could follow with a second, a third...

 

[psalms 91]

You mean rip them out of the bible? Pretend that they do not exist? The woman may not have been caught in adultery it was only her accusers who claimed that she was and they all walked away from their accusation when Jesus proposed that the first stone ought be cast by a sinless chap.

I didn't say or imply that the bible is faulty in my posts. I said if the holy scriptures make you become a jerk then get rid of them because they are doing you no good. The first post in this thread lamented the passing of "good old faith" immediately after referring to tolerant attitudes (in some denominations) towards LGBTI people. It referred to those denominations as becoming "a cage of unclean". So I wanted to sound the warning that becoming a jerk, using holy scripture as proof texts for being a jerk is wicked.

If a church condones sin and doesnt address it then I would say that iit is not clean by any stretch. No page should be ripped out of the bible or any scripture ignored. It should be studied and reconciled with the New testament and see what might have chyanged or how it is to be applied correctly. Many churchs and denoms have ignored the sin and even embraced it today and that is wrong and the people being told it is ok are not being loved, they are being led to hell being told it is ok what they are doing

 

[Josiah]

.


Tango,


Yeah, for ME, this is a struggle - personally and as a part of a congregation. I WISH I had a simple, universal "answer" but I don't. I gave, by far, the strongest personal/congregational example for me above.

But .... if I may be frank (and please know, no offense is intended).... I think there is a lot of hypocrisy in all this (to use too strong a word). I think there are far more rebukes of gluttony sin the Bible than homosexuality. And we know that gluttony is more harming to health (the #1 preventable cause of death in America, having displaced smoking). Yet..... I recall a Baptist pastor who must have weighed close to 300 pounds (Yes, I know that overweight does not equal over-eating). And where I grew up, there was a Hometown Buffet - one of those all you can eat places - that was stuffed with "after church" folks on Sunday mornings; people in suits PILING their plates with probably 2000 calories, only to soon return to the buffet and pile on another 2000 calories and then return for 3 or 4 desserts. Was any of these excommunicated from their congregation? And I recall this man (very nice, btw) at the church I grew up in and the potlucks we had. This guy (who was very overweight) would be the first in line, the first to return, and the one to clean up everything..... he must have consumed 4000 calories at a potluck. Was anyone concerned about this - morally or physically? Nope.... he was winked at, sometimes made fun of ("Let's get in line before Fred, haha") Was he excommunicated? No, he was one of the lay leaders of the church, in a position of influence. And I remember when a single girl in the church choir got pregnant (everyone knew she lived with her bf)..... YES, she could well have proclaimed repentance before the pastor or whatever, I don't know, but the membership knew nothing of that. There was a baby shower and lots of help and support for her. She wasn't "put out of fellowship." And we had more than one "couple" living together outside of marriage.... again, not excommunicated. And Tango, I agree with you that for some reason, homosexuality has been singled out (while perhaps at least equal things are winked at)..... why? I too wonder if it's EASY to pick on that one because WE don't struggle with that. But you don't hear TOO many rants about porn or tax evasion or withholding forgiveness or a host of other sins - perhaps because such would hit home, disturb some paying customers (maybe even the preacher)? It would be EASY for me to rebuke smokers because I don't...... or above because they are overweight (because I'm not).... but I have my problems, and I don't seem to mention that. I think I'm not all alone in this.

I'm NOT defending any of that. Maybe they SHOULD be excommunicated - that may very well be the case. Maybe one of the problems with contemporary Christianity is that we ARE neglecting the Law. On the other hand, I recall Jesus' comment, "He who is without sin cast the first stone." I remember Jesus' log/speck point. And perhaps the proper application of the Law suggests that others are unaware, that others only see the love/gospel part.

I'm not sure how - exactly - all this should be handled. And I realize that this too could be a reason for Christianity's numerical decline, for the "bleeding" we witness. I think sometimes things seem simple in theory..... supremely difficult in practice?



Sorry.



Pax Soli Christi



- Josiah