Churches are falling .. falling

[Rens]

Lol gluttony. My ex once kicked a gluttony demon out of me without asking. I was as thin as can be but I did eat a whole bag of candy now and then. Hahahahaha I was so offended but ever since I never had to diet anymore. He preached against itlater though too hahahahaha those people were so offended. But to gays he's really nice and thoughtful. Once we had a lesbian couple that visited. He just preached about outcasts and that Jesus loves you.

 

[Rens]

If you go to the church of my ex you'd better not be easily offended. He loves Dutch directness. Once I was so stupid to let a guy from a dating site drink coffee in my house. He kicked out a demon of stupidity and naivity. Still laughing my socks off about that one.

 

[MoreCoffee]

If you go to the church of my ex you'd better not be easily offended. He loves Dutch directness. Once I was so stupid to let a guy from a dating site drink coffee in my house. He kicked out a demon of stupidity and naivity. Still laughing my socks off about that one.

In the Dilbert comic saint Dogbert casts outs the demons of stupidity.

 

[Rens]

:lol:

 

[tango]

.


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

It certainly is an issue to make sure Scripture is followed without pandering or catering to one group more than others. Not least because we don't want to fall foul of what James wrote about telling the poor person to sit on the floor and guiding the rich person to the best seat in the house. In some ways it's not much different to tolerating the adulterer while lambasting the homosexual.

I think one key issue is the idea of flagrant sin. In 1Co 5 Paul refers to "sexual immorality as is not even named among the Gentiles" (5:1) and how they are "puffed up" (5:2). So although sin would need to be flagrant and flagrantly unrepented to qualify for extreme treatment, we need to consider "a little leaven leavens the whole lump" against Paul's words of immorality worse than the Gentiles. We can't be too tolerant of unrepented sin, especially when sin is flagrant and "in-yer-face", but we must be sensitive towards those who have particular struggles and are genuinely trying to overcome them.

If we were to throw someone out of church for watching a porn video, or for being less than 100% honest on their tax returns or with their employer's stationery cupboard, or for getting explosively angry at a particular situation, or whatever else, we'd soon find the church building sitting empty. I suppose in this regard we have to consider the whole concept of "flagrant sin" - it's one thing to watch a porn video in the privacy of one's own home but another thing entirely to start telling the people at church about the hot chick in the video or whatever. It's one thing to do a bit of petty pilfering of office supplies but another thing entirely to run a little empire in church where you're the one who people go to for cheap supplies because everybody knows you're doing it. It's one thing to "forget" to mention the cash jobs you did on the side when filing your tax return but another thing to let everybody know how you managed to come up with a bit of extra cash for something. It's one thing to go on holiday with your boyfriend/girlfriend but another thing to let people know you shared a room and just how passionate you got. And this is where the homosexual faces an immediate disadvantage - if a teenage boy attends church with his teenage girlfriend people may wonder what happens behind closed doors but there generally isn't an immediate assumption of sinfulness. The minute a man turns up at church with another man in a manner that suggests they are partners the suspicion starts - the mere fact of showing up with a partner of the same sex is itself pretty strong evidence that the relationship is sinful. It doesn't even come close to "immorality as is not even named among the (world)" but, as we've said before, if you mention pornography in church a few people look uncomfortable, if you mention adultery maybe one or two look uncomfortable, if you mention gluttony and hoarding a few look uncomfortable, but if you mention homosexuality the howling begins. Perhaps it is just because it's safe to preach against it, and for as long as we're worried about the sins other people are caught up in we're not looking too closely at our own weaknesses.

So while I'm standing, righteously thanking God that I'm not like this homosexual here, the focus shifts from the fact that maybe I could be a better husband, a better friend, and maybe I have weaknesses of my own that might be embarrassing in their own ways if people found out about them.

 

[psalms 91]

I agree that all sin needs addressed but here is the thing, those who who steal or are overweight are not pushing saying that it isnt a sin and we want accepted and are splitting denoms and installing theuir own lewaders. In other words making the word of God to no effect and hurting the church and its memebrs in the process. Then they wonder why there is pushback? Why denoms are splitting?why churchs in some places are fractured? Satan has done a wonderful job

 

[tango]

I agree that all sin needs addressed but here is the thing, those who who steal or are overweight are not pushing saying that it isnt a sin and we want accepted and are splitting denoms and installing theuir own lewaders. In other words making the word of God to no effect and hurting the church and its memebrs in the process. Then they wonder why there is pushback? Why denoms are splitting?why churchs in some places are fractured? Satan has done a wonderful job

I'll bet you a lot of people involved in petty theft or habitual overeating would argue it's not a sin.

Of course it raises the question of just how legalistic you want to get over some aspects of it. If I'm using a pen at work that I took from the company's stationery cupboard and then take the pen home, is that stealing? One might argue that stealing is stealing is stealing, even if we are talking a cheap pen that cost 10 cents. If we really wanted to get legalistic we could argue that if I use the pen to write something personal at home, then take it back to work I'm still guilty because I stole the company's ink even though the ink was worth a fraction of a cent. Some would say that making a single local personal phone call counts as stealing. Others take a more practical viewpoint - when I worked for someone else I usually figured that if it was acceptable for me to be expected to work late for no extra money it was equally acceptable to make an occasional personal phone call and not worry too much if the pen from the stationery cupboard ended up at home. Was that a morally unacceptable stance to take? Some would say yes, some would say no.

Most people I know who are overweight don't see themselves as being sinners due to their weight alone. To an extent it's probably a process of mentally normalising your own experiences, to an extent it's down to overweight people not standing out among their peer groups. When it's far from rare to see people so fat they brush both sides of a doorway as they go through it's increasingly easy to justify obesity because, relatively speaking, you're not that large when compared to those around you.

I suspect most of us, to some extent or another, justify our own sin by arguing that it's not important or that it's something we're due, or that "everyone else does it", or whatever. But as we've said before if people are known to be pilfering office supplies from their employer, or are visibly morbidly obese, or are known to be doing work for cash in hand (with the implied question of whether the income ever makes it as far as their tax return), the tendency is to accept that perhaps it's not ideal but gloss over it. But as soon as a gay couple appears the glossing over disappears and the howling starts. If people don't address the morbidly obese (who may not have Obese Pride events but clearly do expect to be accepted due to their ongoing attendance) why do they need to address the homosexual any differently? Not every gay man dresses in a pink leotard to attend a Gay Pride event, many gay people merely get on with their lives much the same as you or I. You wouldn't necessarily even know a man is gay unless he refers to his partner by gender or name.

I'm not trying to say that homosexual acts aren't sinful, I believe they are. But it is curious to see why this one sin becomes the focus of so much angst when other sins receive so much less focus.

 

[Rens]

I'll bet you a lot of people involved in petty theft or habitual overeating would argue it's not a sin.

Of course it raises the question of just how legalistic you want to get over some aspects of it. If I'm using a pen at work that I took from the company's stationery cupboard and then take the pen home, is that stealing? One might argue that stealing is stealing is stealing, even if we are talking a cheap pen that cost 10 cents. If we really wanted to get legalistic we could argue that if I use the pen to write something personal at home, then take it back to work I'm still guilty because I stole the company's ink even though the ink was worth a fraction of a cent. Some would say that making a single local personal phone call counts as stealing. Others take a more practical viewpoint - when I worked for someone else I usually figured that if it was acceptable for me to be expected to work late for no extra money it was equally acceptable to make an occasional personal phone call and not worry too much if the pen from the stationery cupboard ended up at home. Was that a morally unacceptable stance to take? Some would say yes, some would say no.

Most people I know who are overweight don't see themselves as being sinners due to their weight alone. To an extent it's probably a process of mentally normalising your own experiences, to an extent it's down to overweight people not standing out among their peer groups. When it's far from rare to see people so fat they brush both sides of a doorway as they go through it's increasingly easy to justify obesity because, relatively speaking, you're not that large when compared to those around you.

I suspect most of us, to some extent or another, justify our own sin by arguing that it's not important or that it's something we're due, or that "everyone else does it", or whatever. But as we've said before if people are known to be pilfering office supplies from their employer, or are visibly morbidly obese, or are known to be doing work for cash in hand (with the implied question of whether the income ever makes it as far as their tax return), the tendency is to accept that perhaps it's not ideal but gloss over it. But as soon as a gay couple appears the glossing over disappears and the howling starts. If people don't address the morbidly obese (who may not have Obese Pride events but clearly do expect to be accepted due to their ongoing attendance) why do they need to address the homosexual any differently? Not every gay man dresses in a pink leotard to attend a Gay Pride event, many gay people merely get on with their lives much the same as you or I. You wouldn't necessarily even know a man is gay unless he refers to his partner by gender or name.

I'm not trying to say that homosexual acts aren't sinful, I believe they are. But it is curious to see why this one sin becomes the focus of so much angst when other sins receive so much less focus.

Agree, no sin should be treated differently and gays want the right to marry and hetero's want to live together. I don't see much difference. And every sin is nowadays called an illness or a mistake.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Civil laws are not theological and moral issues on the whole - especially on matters like legal cohabitation and marriage.

 

[tango]

Agree, no sin should be treated differently and gays want the right to marry and hetero's want to live together. I don't see much difference. And every sin is nowadays called an illness or a mistake.

Yes, there is a tendency these days for everything to be a disorder or an identity issue and not my fault.

From a secular perspective it's easy to see why gay couples want the right to marry. From a radical agenda perspective it forces them to be recognised and even from a far more passive perspective it grants the same rights and entitlements to gay couples as to straight couples. I keep coming back to the question of why the secular benefits of marriage should exist to the extent that they do - if inheritance tax were abolished there would be no need to marry for the tax breaks. If people could nominate whoever they wanted to be considered next of kin (with that person's consent, naturally) then it would mean that the situation where a gay person's family who disapproved of their lifestyle could prevent their life partner from having visitation rights in hospital. I don't imagine very many people marry to gain the right to refuse to incriminate each other in a court of law.

 

[psalms 91]

Civil laws are not theological and moral issues on the whole - especially on matters like legal cohabitation and marriage.

But if you are a christian they are,

 

[visionary]

Do you see how all these things have entered into the church?....

Mark 7:21-23 For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, Thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness: All these evil things come from within, and defile the man.

It has become a bird cage...

Revelation 18:2 And he cried mightily with a strong voice, saying, Babylon the great is fallen, is fallen, and is become the habitation of devils, and the hold of every foul spirit, and a cage of every unclean and hateful bird.

 

[psalms 91]

Yup real easy to see given some of the churchs views on these things

 

[tango]

But if you are a christian they are,

Yes, in that we would expect a Christian to abide by a higher set of values than merely a minimal compliance with the secular law.

From a secular perspective we shouldn't be surprised if those outside of the church don't follow the standards set down by the church. Hence the notion that civil laws are not theological and are only moral to the extent they provide some framework of protection from others. Hence the idea that while we, within the church, might disapprove of certain behavior patterns we shouldn't be surprised if they are legal, and trying to force our moral standards upon others by force of law isn't what Christianity is about.

 

[Rens]

Now I have that song in my head.
Mercy is falling is falling is falling.