http://www.news4jax.com/news/18286355/detail.html#-

 

 

And we wonder why the number of church goers is decreasing.

http://www.news4jax.com/news/18286355/detail.html#-

 

 

And we wonder why the number of church goers is decreasing.

I don't think is has anything to do with the topic of this thread.:sleep:

As a Bible believing Christian, I feel once she dropped her membership from this church, the pastor should stop his actions. To continue on their current course of action borders on harrassment and could open them up to one whale of a lawsiut.

I don't think is has anything to do with the topic of this thread.:sleep:

 

Why not?

http://www.news4jax.com/news/18286355/detail.html#-

 

 

And we wonder why the number of church goers is decreasing.

That is quite a leap in logic to make from the actions of one church. You might as well use the Rev. Fred Phelps as the cause of declining church attendance.

I agree with Royal. Paul talks about discipline in 2nd Corinthians for members who openly sin.

 

She has left the Church and they need to find others sinners in the church to bring forward.

 

Now back to the woman, she needs to marry. When a Christian sins and is aware of that sin and keeps going, it is worse than a nonbeliever who sins. I have several verses.

 

Thanks for the thread, this already has raised some questions within the family.

I agree with Royal. Paul talks about discipline in 2nd Corinthians for members who openly sin.

 

She has left the Church and they need to find others sinners in the church to bring forward.

 

Now back to the woman, she needs to marry. When a Christian sins and is aware of that sin and keeps going, it is worse than a nonbeliever who sins. I have several verses.

 

Thanks for the thread, this already has raised some questions within the family.

 

Has she left the Church or that church? Big difference.

 

I care about a person's membership in the Church than I do their membership at my/a church.

Pastors with whom Channel 4 spoke on Monday said announcing a sin to a congregation is not abnormal. They said it's written in the Bible to punish sinners who continue to sin.

 

It might be common for people to confess their own sin in front of the congregation, but I would hardly consider it commonplace for a church pastor to openly confront a member about a sin in front of the entire congregation. In this particular situation, it sounds as if most of the church is aware of her relationship anyways, so I'm not sure what purpose would be served by handling it in this fashion. I dare say that all of us have committed sins that we would not want to be confronted about in front of the community. And discussing someone's personal sexual activities in front of young children is highly inapprorpriate.

Approach the sinner in person. If they continue to sin, try again with one or two witnesses. If they continue to sin, bring the matter to the church and depart from the sinner.

 

There is, of course, much more to this story I am sure. Today, noone wants to admit they are a harlot, and noone wants to be disciplined.

 

If she has departed from them, then the church need not proceed.

Approach the sinner in person. If they continue to sin, try again with one or two witnesses. If they continue to sin, bring the matter to the church and depart from the sinner.

 

There is, of course, much more to this story I am sure. Today, noone wants to admit they are a harlot, and noone wants to be disciplined.

 

If she has departed from them, then the church need not proceed.

 

Again I ask, are we to be considered about our local church and her membership there or Jesus' Church and her membership there.

 

If we attend the same local church and you start attending another church but we are still Christians and members of Christ Church, should I not still be concerned and loving you? Even if I don't see you sitting on the other end of the pew?

Pastors with whom Channel 4 spoke on Monday said announcing a sin to a congregation is not abnormal. They said it's written in the Bible to punish sinners who continue to sin.

 

It might be common for people to confess their own sin in front of the congregation, but I would hardly consider it commonplace for a church pastor to openly confront a member about a sin in front of the entire congregation. In this particular situation, it sounds as if most of the church is aware of her relationship anyways, so I'm not sure what purpose would be served by handling it in this fashion. I dare say that all of us have committed sins that we would not want to be confronted about in front of the community. And discussing someone's personal sexual activities in front of young children is highly inapprorpriate.

 

Yeah, the Pharisess were not happy when Jesus called them out for their sin.

 

Wonder if Jesus should have been more politically correct and not said anything to them?

Yeah, the Pharisess were not happy when Jesus called them out for their sin.

 

Wonder if Jesus should have been more politically correct and not said anything to them?

 

Not meaning to be offensive, but you are not Jesus. Nor am I. Nor is the pastor of this church. You can show love and concern for this woman and her actions without calling her out in front of all of her friends, neighbors, relatives, and even strangers.

 

The article makes this statement: "The book of Matthew does have three steps that the church talked about in taking action against a member who is in sin". No doubt the passage on which this church is basing their actions is Matthew 18:15-17:

 

“If another member of the church sins against you, go and point out the fault when the two of you are alone. If the member listens to you, you have regained that one. But if you are not listened to, take one or two others along with you, so that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If the member refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if the offender refuses to listen even to the church, let such a one be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector." (Matthew 18:15-17, NRSV)

 

Jesus talks about what to do if someone sins against you personally. When a fellow Christian's behavior is clearly sinful and you are in some measure a victim of that behavior, then we are instructed to act upon his advice. It does not instruct us to publicly confront every person we may know that is engaged in some type of sin, even if their actions did not personally harm us. Good thing, too, since otherwise this would include everyone in the world. Our church services would not have time for anything more than publicly confronting every member of the congregation.

 

Furthermore, even if this woman's actions have personally harmed someone in the church who had followed the other required steps, I don't think it's clear how one should "tell it to the church." I find it hard to believe that Jesus was instructing us to stand up in front of the entire congregation to publicly confront and humiliate this person. And I certainly do not see any mention in the passage in which Jesus says the intent of the action is to "punish" the offender, as the pastor explained in the article. It would seem far more logical that "telling it to the church" could be accomplished by approaching a board of deacons or other authoritative body.

 

And if you still think that this is the right action to take against this woman, I can't help but be curious who should be the person standing in the front of the church to make the annoucement. I wonder what sinless, blameless person exists in this church to stand up there to publicly discuss someone else's sin(s)?

 

LBBC, you've sinned before, right? Many times, right? Lord knows I have. But I can't help but wonder - should someone have publicly confronted us about these sins on a Sunday morning in front of our church families?

Not meaning to be offensive, but you are not Jesus. Nor am I. Nor is the pastor of this church. You can show love and concern for this woman and her actions without calling her out in front of all of her friends, neighbors, relatives, and even strangers.

 

The article makes this statement: "The book of Matthew does have three steps that the church talked about in taking action against a member who is in sin". No doubt the passage on which this church is basing their actions is Matthew 18:15-17:

 

“If another member of the church sins against you, go and point out the fault when the two of you are alone. If the member listens to you, you have regained that one. But if you are not listened to, take one or two others along with you, so that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If the member refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if the offender refuses to listen even to the church, let such a one be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector." (Matthew 18:15-17, NRSV)

 

Jesus talks about what to do if someone sins against you personally. When a fellow Christian's behavior is clearly sinful and you are in some measure a victim of that behavior, then we are instructed to act upon his advice. It does not instruct us to publicly confront every person we may know that is engaged in some type of sin, even if their actions did not personally harm us. Good thing, too, since otherwise this would include everyone in the world. Our church services would not have time for anything more than publicly confronting every member of the congregation.

 

Furthermore, even if this woman's actions have personally harmed someone in the church who had followed the other required steps, I don't think it's clear how one should "tell it to the church." I find it hard to believe that Jesus was instructing us to stand up in front of the entire congregation to publicly confront and humiliate this person. And I certainly do not see any mention in the passage in which Jesus says the intent of the action is to "punish" the offender, as the pastor explained in the article. It would seem far more logical that "telling it to the church" could be accomplished by approaching a board of deacons or other authoritative body.

 

And if you still think that this is the right action to take against this woman, I can't help but be curious who should be the person standing in the front of the church to make the annoucement. I wonder what sinless, blameless person exists in this church to stand up there to publicly discuss someone else's sin(s)?

 

LBBC, you've sinned before, right? Many times, right? Lord knows I have. But I can't help but wonder - did anyone confront you about these sins in front of your church? Should they have?

 

:thumb::thumb: You have made some very good points. We all fall short, so why point out one's sins over anothers?:confused: Sin is sin and one is no bigger than the other.

Not meaning to be offensive, but you are not Jesus. Nor am I. Nor is the pastor of this church. You can show love and concern for this woman and her actions without calling her out in front of all of her friends, neighbors, relatives, and even strangers.

 

The article makes this statement: "The book of Matthew does have three steps that the church talked about in taking action against a member who is in sin". No doubt the passage on which this church is basing their actions is Matthew 18:15-17:

 

“If another member of the church sins against you, go and point out the fault when the two of you are alone. If the member listens to you, you have regained that one. But if you are not listened to, take one or two others along with you, so that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If the member refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if the offender refuses to listen even to the church, let such a one be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector." (Matthew 18:15-17, NRSV)

 

Jesus talks about what to do if someone sins against you personally. When a fellow Christian's behavior is clearly sinful and you are in some measure a victim of that behavior, then we are instructed to act upon his advice. It does not instruct us to publicly confront every person we may know that is engaged in some type of sin, even if their actions did not personally harm us. Good thing, too, since otherwise this would include everyone in the world. Our church services would not have time for anything more than publicly confronting every member of the congregation.

 

Furthermore, even if this woman's actions have personally harmed someone in the church who had followed the other required steps, I don't think it's clear how one should "tell it to the church." I find it hard to believe that Jesus was instructing us to stand up in front of the entire congregation to publicly confront and humiliate this person. And I certainly do not see any mention in the passage in which Jesus says the intent of the action is to "punish" the offender, as the pastor explained in the article. It would seem far more logical that "telling it to the church" could be accomplished by approaching a board of deacons or other authoritative body.

 

And if you still think that this is the right action to take against this woman, I can't help but be curious who should be the person standing in the front of the church to make the annoucement. I wonder what sinless, blameless person exists in this church to stand up there to publicly discuss someone else's sin(s)?

 

LBBC, you've sinned before, right? Many times, right? Lord knows I have. But I can't help but wonder - should someone have publicly confronted us about these sins on a Sunday morning in front of our church families?

 

If all other steps did not garner my attention and I refused to have repented from them, maybe so.

 

Why is it that we are called to strive to live like Jesus in all those areas that are comfortable to us? Loving each other, thinking of others, etc, etc.

 

But when we are called to live like Jesus in areas that do not make us comfortable, holding other Christians (yeah, I do think that there is a difference in how we hold other Christians and how we hold unbelievers accountable) accountable for their actions, we back off that pretty quickly.

:thumb::thumb: You have made some very good points. We all fall short, so why point out one's sins over anothers?:confused: Sin is sin and one is no bigger than the other.

 

So, since we all fall short, we should never hold anyone accountable for sinning.

 

Jeffrey Dahmer gets a free pass because I sin too?

 

Of course if everyone gets a free pass, than no reason to repent or confess your sins as we are told to do because there will never be anyone telling us that what we do is a sin.