Not as a step early in the process, but it might be a consideration as the last step and after all other steps have been exhausted and if I show no repentance.

 

Would you all feel more comfortable if they did not confront her about her sin and she ended up burning in Hell for all eternity?

 

I have no problem at all with a few church members lovingly approaching this woman in a discrete fashion with their concerns over her actions. I have a problem, however, with singling her out in front of the entire church when every single member of that congregation is guilty of sinning and sinning repeatedly in their own lives.

Maybe so. But again - and not to beat a dead horse here - but please provide me scriptural or even logical support why confronting and humiliating this woman in front of her entire church family is the appropriate manner to handle this.

 

Jesus confronted sin of religious people in a public manner many, many times. And are we not called to try and live a life like Jesus?

 

Many see that only ends at "loving others." I question why are we called to live only 1/2 a life like Jesus did.

 

He took ropes and WHIPPED the money changers out of the temple.

 

See that picture hanging in your church anywhere? Jesus physically taking WHIPS to the back of people. Overturning tables.

I have no problem at all with a few church members lovingly approaching this woman in a discrete fashion with their concerns over her actions. I have a problem, however, with singling her out in front of the entire church when every single member of that congregation is guilty of sinning and sinning repeatedly in their own lives.

 

Hadn't that already been done and she rejected it and continued on in her UNREPENTANT sinful life? Again key point is unrepentant.

Please feel free to be a butt more often.:sssh::lol::jump::bunny::thumb::cool:

 

Agree. :thumb: That's what this forum is all about - a healthy and meaningful exchange of ideas and opinions.

Jesus confronted sin of religious people in a public manner many, many times. And are we not called to try and live a life like Jesus?

 

Many see that only ends at "loving others." I question why are we called to live only 1/2 a life like Jesus did.

 

He took ropes and WHIPPED the money changers out of the temple.

 

See that picture hanging in your church anywhere? Jesus physically taking WHIPS to the back of people. Overturning tables.

 

He was God. We are not.

I have no problem at all with a few church members lovingly approaching this woman in a discrete fashion with their concerns over her actions. I have a problem, however, with singling her out in front of the entire church when every single member of that congregation is guilty of sinning and sinning repeatedly in their own lives.

 

:thumb:

He was God. We are not.

 

Are we not called to pattern our life after Him?

What purpose does it serve to announce her sin to the congregation, two of whom are her CHILDREN, when she isn't a member of the congregation any longer? It seems designed to punish her, but humiliating her, and humiliating her children.

 

This seems as sinful as the sin she has committed. To deliberately hurt her children that way is every bit as bad, if not worse. In her defense, she can at least say she loves/cares about the man. How can the leaders of this church say their actions are out of love? More a power play to show they control her happiness.

Let me remind everyone that I did say this is not the action that I would have taken.

 

So for purposes of discussion I am making points to consider while not necessarily saying this is the action I would have recommended or supported.

 

We sometimes have a problem separating discussion from one's personal choices and make personal attacks.

 

I could make this thread real boring and just agree with everyone else but chose to make some points and references to get everyone thinking a little.

Hadn't that already been done and she rejected it and continued on in her UNREPENTANT sinful life? Again key point is unrepentant.

 

Maybe. We don't know the full story. But, to me, it doesn't matter. I am not of the belief that it is appropriate - or required of us scripturally - to take it to the next level of "telling it to the church" unless it involves a matter in which the person standing before the church was personally harmed by the sinner's actions and had first attempted the other steps in the process. And, furthermore, I do not feel that "telling the church" means to LITERALLY tell the entire church about the action/sin.

 

I could be convinced otherwise, but someone needs to point out some scripture to me and some type of explanation that this is what Jesus truly intended in the Matthew passage. I've just gone through my Life Application Study Bible and it specifically states it is "for sins committed against YOU (personally) and not others" and is not "a license for a frontal attack on every person who sins . . . or to call for a church trial."

Maybe. We don't know the full story. But, to me, it doens't matter. I am not of the belief that it is appropriate - or required of us scripturally - to take it to the next level of "telling it to the church" unless it involves a matter in which the person standing before the church was personally harmed by the sinner's actions. And, furthermore, I do not feel that "telling the church" means to LITERALLY tell the entire church about the action/sin.

 

I could be convinced otherwise, but someone needs to point out some scripture to me and some type of explanation that this is what Jesus truly intended in the Matthew passage. I've just gone through my Life Application Study Bible and it specifically states it is "for sins committed against YOU (personally) and not others" and is not "a license for a frontal attack on every person who sins . . . or to call for a church trial."

A point I was getting ready to make in response to RM's post.

 

We know her side of the story and of course her side will not make the church look good at all.

 

And RM, you auoted the story saying her children would be sitting there but how if she is not going to that church anymore?

A point I was getting ready to make in response to RM's post.

 

We know her side of the story and of course her side will not make the church look good at all.

 

And RM, you auoted the story saying her children would be sitting there but how if she is not going to that church anymore?

 

 

There's another article out there that says her children are still members of the congregation. I can't find it now, but I read it before I read this article. I think it was on foxnews.com. I assume they're old enough to attend church by themselves.

A point I was getting ready to make in response to RM's post.

 

We know her side of the story and of course her side will not make the church look good at all.

 

And RM, you auoted the story saying her children would be sitting there but how if she is not going to that church anymore?

 

I think her point would be that this church apparently would have no problem doing so if she remained a member of that congregation. Correct me if I'm wrong, RM.

Maybe. We don't know the full story. But, to me, it doesn't matter. I am not of the belief that it is appropriate - or required of us scripturally - to take it to the next level of "telling it to the church" unless it involves a matter in which the person standing before the church was personally harmed by the sinner's actions and had first attempted the other steps in the process. And, furthermore, I do not feel that "telling the church" means to LITERALLY tell the entire church about the action/sin.

 

I could be convinced otherwise, but someone needs to point out some scripture to me and some type of explanation that this is what Jesus truly intended in the Matthew passage. I've just gone through my Life Application Study Bible and it specifically states it is "for sins committed against YOU (personally) and not others" and is not "a license for a frontal attack on every person who sins . . . or to call for a church trial."

 

As you said we don't know the full story but the problem with the sexual relationship that she was having could have ended up personally harming the church. What if she had been going around telling openingly to the congregation and the teens about some of her sexual exploits with the guy?

 

We don't know but the article states that the church was unhappy with her relationship for awhile?

 

What if the guy had been married and she broke up the marriage and the wife/kids of that broken marriage attend the church and she had been openly flaunting the relationship?

 

There is a lot we do not know here before saying whether the action is right or wrong.

 

It seems that there is a lot of this story untold or that pastor is going to be telling on a lot of people in that congregation and their sin.

 

If this is not a weekly thing, telling on someone in the congregation and their sin, than I would have to assume there is a lot of this story that we do not know.

I think her point would be that this church apparently would have no problem doing so if she remained a member of that congregation. Correct me if I'm wrong, RM.

 

From the article,

 

"On January 4, my sins will be told to the church, publicly, with my children sitting in the church and my friends," Hancock said.

 

Hancock said she is now attending a different church, and said she is planning to send a letter to Grace Community Church to make sure it's understood that she no longer a member.

 

Why are her kids still attending if she is attending somewhere else?

 

Had she been flaunting this sinful relationship in front of her ex-husband and family at church?

 

A lot of untold story here.