I’m supply preaching these days at a small Presbyterian church in town. I usually arrive half an hour early, turn on the heat and just enjoy the silence of the sanctuary until the congregation arrives.
Most of my folks live right around the adjacent blocks, some within walking distance. Last Lord’s day, two older ladies arrived together, having walked from just around the corner.
“Yes,” one said, “we had a conversation with the girl that’s moved in across the street. We invited her to church and she said she might come. But she wanted to know if she brought her boyfriend, would she have to leave.”
For a moment, I was puzzled, but then it began to be clear to me.
“I’m guessing she lives with her boyfriend, right?” Both ladies nodded with a bit of embarrassment. Co-habitation is hardly an unusual situation in southeastern Kentucky, but it’s still not a frequent topic with your minister.
The other lady- who has been listening to my preaching at this church for most of 13 years- looked at me and said “They wouldn’t have to leave, would they?”
“No,” I said, “they wouldn’t have to leave. Tell her we’d be happy to have them worship, pray and share a meal with us. It would be our privilege.”
She nodded and we started talking about something else, but on the way home and the rest of the week, I couldn’t stop thinking about it.
I know there is a good lecture out there on social stigma and the value of marriage in a community. I’m old school. Co-habitation makes me a little less nervous than your grandmother, but not significantly.
I know the pastoral problems co-habitation brings to a church and an extended family. I hear you when you say “What do we tell the kids?”
But I also hear that line: “Will we have to leave?” There’s a story there and I think you can probably get most of it without a lot of help.
Maybe it was mom, or grandma, or an opinionated aunt. Or the preacher. In the little family-dominated churches here in the mountains, everyone knows everyone’s business, and it won’t be long before that business will show up in the sermon. It won’t be long before you’re told that you and your boyfriend aren’t welcome at church.
And when you’re gone, and you’re telling yourself that you want nothing to do with a God like that, the folks at church will be feeling good about themselves.
Nothing really works in this situation. People are broken and looking for something to glue themselves together. Religious people are accumulating morality points and abandoning the Gospel. The possibilities of a community of Christians to show what it means to love people as Jesus did and in their own weakness get lost in drawing lines and pretending there is such a think as justification by having never co-habitated.
The possibility of seeing someone repent of sin, come to Christ and move toward true gifts of forgiveness and marriage is apparently less appealing than the Pharisaic joys of letting sinners know they aren’t welcome with us or the God we worship until they clean up their mess.
This is hard stuff. Christians believe some things very deeply, but they don’t always see things clearly or express them with Gospel wisdom. When they forget the Gospel, they forget who they are and start finding ways to be justified in comparison to “real sinners.” There’s nothing about the Kingdom of God in a snarky morality club, but too many people don’t know the difference. They usher people out as if they are the angels gathering the elect at the last day, not signs pointing every person, no matter what their sin of the day, to the savior and the wedding feast at the end of the world.
There are some churches who welcome the cohabitating and aren’t sure what to do with them once they have them. I hope that whatever else we do, we teach, preach, sing and explain the Gospel. Let’s make it gently and lovingly clear that there’s no compromise on what is and is not marriage and even less compromise on what it means to be a broken and fallen human being saved by Christ and his righteousness alone.
Somehow I wish that the presence of a cohabitating couple in the midst of a church could be a reminder that while our fellowship is with Christ, our human reality is the predictable human mess and the movement Jesus gave us is a constant, but uneven, journey by real sinners towards the Kingdom of God. We’re a stopping place for pilgrims who are at lots of different places in the journey. Our commonality is going after Christ. We all have some things to learn and a lot of Gospel to apply.
“Will we have to leave?” That’s usually spoken by people who have already left. And spoken to people who, without the Gospel, are too sure of the wrong answer.
The Internet Monk Archives 
Not arguing with your point, just your opening statement. We often hear that statement, but it probably says more about people who cohabitate than cohabitation. It’s like saying kids in private schools do better than public school kids (so obviously public schools are lousy). But a parent who is concerned enough about their kid’s education to fork over the money for a private school is much more likely to be involved in their education than the average parent.
Likewise, people who wait until marriage to have sex or cohabitate are more likely to have values that would see divorce as undesirable. It’s not the cohabitating that leads to higher divorce rates, it’s the cohabitators.
LikeLike
EXACTLY!
LikeLike
111
LikeLike
I’ve tried to read most of the comments. I find this discussion confusing because I think the matter is rather straightforward.
The couple in the story are not, from what I can tell, claiming to be Christians. They are interested in coming to church. Coming to church does not make one a Christian.
The church has a problem if they automatically equate presence on a Sunday with conversion.
There are elements in church life that are for Christians (like the sacraments). Why a visiting couple would want to participate in these is beyond me.
Cohabitation is clearly a sin. But shouldn’t we expect non-Christians to be sinners? If we’re talking about Christians it’s a different issue – and if we’re talking about serving in ministry the Bible is pretty clear on the character required for leaders in the church.
I think any church with unrepentant sinners leading is in trouble. As much trouble as any church that doesn’t welcome sinners through the doors.
It didn’t seem to me that the original post was about professing Christians who have lapsed into sin – more about professing sinners investigating Christ. What sort of church shuts its doors to these types of people?
Why is this so hard?
LikeLike
Jesus wasn’t welcome at church either. They once tried to stone him, once tried to throw him off a cliff, and finally did crucify him. (He was born out of wedlock, you know.)
LikeLike
I don’t understand cohabitation. I also think, if you’re cohabitating, you’re married for all intensive purposes. Why not go ahead and make it legal?
My son and his girlfriend live together. I always introduce his girlfriend as “my daughter-in-law.” It’s just my little way of making it known how I feel about the situation.
LikeLike
Saraho, your post (and your existence) touch on something I often think of. We know God has his plan, and that his will will be done. It seems that he has mostly left it up to us whether we are partners or adversaries in how he will accomplish his will. Your parents did things that were perhaps outside of God’s will, and they had to live with some of the consequences of that, but they were also still blessed, because he used them to accomplish part of his will (bringing you into the world).
LikeLike
Are we not under the New Covenant any more? Has Christ not paid the price for us?
I think God hates your judgment of people as much as He hates me being obese.
Get the 2×4 out.
LikeLike
“Co-habitation makes me a little less nervous than your grandmother, but not significantly.”
Why does my grandmother make you nervous? What’s wrong with her, Michael?
[….kidding….]
LikeLike
Well, I know I’m coming really late to this conversation, but I’m just mortified by this statement:
“There is no real membership to withhold anymore, so that’s out as a spiritual tool for encouraging conviction and repentance.”
The idea that a manmade, legalistic thing such as ‘church membership’ should be called a “spiritual tool” and used as the hammer of judgement upon sinners is just appalling. Such judgement does not lead people to true heart repentance, it just leads them back to into the box of legalism.
LikeLike
I agree that cutting him off is not the right way to address the situation. However I would go further and have a serious man on man talk with him. I would not assume that he understands what he is doing is wrong both from a biblical perspective and also from a social justuce perspective. Study after study has shown that our kids are not getting the proper biblical and theological instruction. And going to college will in most cases cause their faith to stall. That is why having open communication with your kids even as adults. After I turned 21 my dad and I went started going out to dinner once a month probably in case he needed to slip in one of these serious talks. Something I’m planning on doing with mine as well.
But on the other hand, I wouldn’t enable their sin. If they were to stay at your house I wouldn’t allow them to stay in the same bedroom. Both to prevent more sin in the house (there is enough in the house already with my sins) but also to prevent the example and what that might show to the other kids.
LikeLike
Matthew Johnston asked: What is going on people?!?
Your theology is being challenged by people who love the Lord and read the Bible just as much as you do.
LikeLike
How are Christians supposed to deal with a Christian brother or sister who has, as the phrase goes, “fallen into sin?” On the one hand, there’s the Paul of 1 Cor 5, who says, “Expel the wicked man from among you!” On the other hand, there’s the Paul of Galatians 6, who says that we are to correct the erring person “gently” and that we are to “bear one another’s burdens.” How do we reconcile these two apparently contradictory Pauls?
The key is to remember that Paul wrote these letters, under the inspiration of the Spirit, to different churches dealing with different issues and problems. Paul’s instruction to the Corinthian church was appropriate _for the Corinthian Church_, given its situation. Paul’s instruction to the Galatian church was appropriate _for the Galatian church_, given _its_ situation. Neither instruction is appropriate for _all_ Churches in _all_ situations.
What caused Paul to give such harsh instructions to Corinth? The situation there appears to have been more serious and more desperate. The problem wasn’t just that a man was sinning; it was that he and the Church were _boasting_ about the sin. It also appears that, probably due to the surrounding culture, that the members of the Corinthian church weaker and less able to resist temptation. Thus sin and the temptation to follow it had to be removed quickly and completely. The Galatian church apparently didn’t suffer from this weakness.
So what’s the take-home lesson from these two passages? When faced with such a situation, we need to rely on the Spirit to help us discern whether we are in a Corinthian situation or a Galatian situation, and act accordingly. Given how many times Paul says that correction should be gentle (Gal 6, 1 Tim 2:24-26, Col 3:12, Eph 4:32), the Galatian response is called for far more often that the Corinthian response. Corinthians 1:5 presents the exception, not the rule, for dealing with issues like this.
LikeLike
Respectfully, I think this is the kind of thing that “let he who is sinless cast the first stone” is all about. Jesus wasn’t saying “Let the person who hasn’t committed the particular sin that this woman has committed throw the first stone”- he was saying “let the utterly blameless” cast the first stone. Or to put it another way- who reading this is not, right now, in sin? (I imagine the chorus of crickets responding in the absence of affirmative “mes” to this question!)
I’ve always felt this was the most radical of all Christ’s teachings. That we are commanded to put down our judgment stones and find some other way of relating to our fallen, messy, human comrades and ourselves.
(I say this as a hugely judgmental person who finds the edge of dismissive moral snobbery creeping into my voice all the time).
LikeLike
It seems the business of loving people is hard enough to begin to take on the business of sanctifying their souls in the bargain! I wholeheartedly agree with what you wrote here!
LikeLike
Your son and his girlfriend remind me of my parents.
My parents cohabitated and voila, I was created. They married due to intense pressure by their parents afterwards, lived as a married (and deeply, poisonously unhappy) couple for 24 years, divorced, had 3 years of deep darkness, came together as friends, and now are best friends.
I’ve often thought about the various moral shoulds and shouldn’ts of the situation. My mom and dad should not have had pre-marital sex- but if they hadn’t, I wouldn’t have been born. Should I not exist? I’m not always thrilled with myself or the mistakes I made, but I am certainly grateful to my parents for my life! My parents should have gotten married, right, but that marriage made them both so deeply unhappy to be so unevenly yoked for so many years. Was that part of some divine plan? On the other hand, I got a fantastic little brother out of it. Then they shouldn’t have divorced- but that divorce freed them from a very deeply unhealthy relationship with each other, and freed them to love each other as friends, and to find joy and peace and grace and forgiveness for each other.
Through out all of it, my parents’ parents were loving, patient, forgiving, messy humans who were largely sifting out the consequences of their own choices. I’m grateful to my parents and extended family for their constant love and support of my mom and dad (and my brother and I) through all of this, just as I am grateful for the lesson I imbibed from this- that my job as a family member is to love and offer support to the extent that I can.
The image of God as redeemer makes the most sense to me when I think of our lives as bits and pieces of brokenness that God transforms into a glorious mural. If the value of my parents sexual sins is the mural piece that is my life- well, that’s a profound thing to think about, isn’t it? It is humbling to think about what work God will do with my own shame and brokenness.
It seems to me a good reminder that we live out our lives in an illusion of our time, and have this urgency, but God is working it all out in His Own, unfathomable, time.
LikeLike
Please explain to me how you believe I “have torn that scripture from its context rather violently.”
To ask who among us is not immoral inorder to put forth a defense for co habitation
is absurd. Why then would the LORD write in 1 Cor 5 to remove an immoral person?
LikeLike
Matthew, who among us is not immoral? Worse, you have torn that scripture from its context rather violently.
LikeLike
Respectfully, I did not intend for this to be an argument in favor of premarital sex. (the argument could PERHAPS be made, and I am open to the possibility, but I’m not out to attack the more traditional view of waiting until marriage– mainly because I am not convinced either way at this point. But this is neither here nor there.) Rather, I was interested in the fact that so many people seemed to want to push marriage as the obvious solution to the issue when, to my mind, this solution seems to ignore a wholistic view of sexual ethics as well– saying that ALL sex within marriage is automatically good is not quite true. It is entirely possible to have no respect for your husband/wife and only be concerned with your own pleasure. Something I believe is not acceptable to Christian sexual ethics.
LikeLike
“I don’t worry about facing God to explain sharing a home with someone I love.”
If this person you love is your husband or wife you have no need to worry.
If they are not, then you do.
What is going on people?!?
LikeLike
He did away with all those who’s sin’s have been forgiven.
If we went by your logic hell would be empty. Yet, the Lord said many are there.
LikeLike
+1
LikeLike
“I don’t understand what good “cutting him off†would do. Why does your pastor think this is the right approach?”
Simple: the pastor is dealing with someone ELSE’S child, not his own. If it were his own son in that situation, the pastor wouldn’t cut off him off. It is easy to dispense harsh advice when it is someone ELSE’S problem and you don’t have to follow it yourself.
LikeLike
I am in sin, period, simply due to the fact I tolerate by not working hard enough to change a system in which innocent women and children die every day because of 1) a lack of health care in this country or 2) a military occupation in another country.
I don’t worry about facing God to explain sharing a home with someone I love. I worry about facing God when He puts the sheep on one side and the goats on the other.
LikeLike
Emily,
Making a biblical case that God approves of sex outside of marriage is not possible. See Romans 1:29-31, I Corinthians 7:2, Galatians 5:19-20, and Jude 1:7.
But you are also exactly right, when you say that a couple getitng married just for the sake of having sex is pharisaical. Marriage is to be ,modeled after Christ’s love for hsi church.
LikeLike
I can’t help but come back to Jesus’ words “The Sabbath was created for man, not man for the Sabbath”. So far as I can tell, God is not arbitrary. So neither would His sexual ethics be.
I find it rather funny that the idea of unmarried “horny but in love” twenty-somethings having sex has been described as being “abusive” and “destructive” to each other, but should these same “horny yet in love” twenty-somethings get married (even impulsively) suddenly their love is “pure and wholesome”. Their feelings for each other haven’t changed; only their legal status has. To me, getting married to someone just so you can have sex with them is the ultimate in “using them for their body”. Do we as the Church really want to say that the greatest definition of “holy sex” is not the feelings or respect that the two people have for each other, but the legal status of the people?
I would like to point out that this alone is not (nor should it be taken to be) an argument against waiting to have sex when you are married. Rather, I’m wondering if perhaps we have lost sight of what God’s sexual ethics are supposed to be doing? Just like the Pharisees created a legalistic set of rules around the idea of the Sabbath (a day set aside to give all people– especially those involved in physical labor– a time to rest) and turned it from it’s original purpose of helping/restoring people into a chore that must be fulfilled, even if it meant suffering (accusing Jesus of breaking the Sabbath when he healed on that day) I wonder if we have done the same with sexual ethics? Are we so concerned about remaining “pure” sexually that we put up extra barriers and rules (no dancing, don’t be alone together (and recently) the “Christian side-hug”) to “save” ourselves? And further, do we look at the general prohibition against premarital sex (which actually isn’t in the Old Testament, by the way) as a rule that must be followed for it’s own sake or one that is created for our protection and well-being? I do not wish to put words into God’s mouth and do slightly worry that I am overstepping boundaries here, but could I not say “Sexual ethics were created for man, not man for sexual ethics”?
LikeLike
Apart from the sexual-sin aspects of this conversation – – does anyone find it odd that, in 1 Cor 5:10-12, I can associate with an unrepentant person who makes no claim to be a Christian… but the moment he calls himself my brother, dinnertime is over!
LikeLike
2,000 years ago Jesus did away will all men’s sins, past, present and future. Period.
LikeLike
WHat about if they were sleeping with a girl under the ‘legal’ age?
Would you still have the young man under your roof?
LikeLike
What did Paul say to the church at Corinth?
Did he not say to remove the immoral man?
LikeLike
When you were living with the woman you are now married to [assuming you were a couple and not room mates] you were in sin. Period.
LikeLike
You said it not me.
LikeLike
Of course they can attend church. Bu the pastor needs to make clear that any sex between a man and a woman other than in a Christian marriage is sin. How to do that in loving terms and make that clear without driving them off is a difficult pastoral problem which makes me glad that I am not a pastor.
My kids are still toddlers but they will be taught chastity as the bible teaches along with the social problems that are encountered should they chose to live together before marriage..And if they chose to engage in sinful behavior I love them enough not to tolerate or enable their behavior. I am surprised at the comments that we should look past their sin and look at the love they have for each other. I guess as long as they love each other sin is OK. Sin is never OK and real love is making sure they make it into heaven. I think many here who think pre-marital sex is OK are equating love with tolerance and are substituting their rationalizations for God’s word.
LikeLike
I don’t believe it is your job to “sanctify” your son or his girlfriend. That is God’s job. I have three sons, in the same age range, and there is nothing – not a single thing – that they could do that would cause me to “cut them off”.
Our [grown and nearly-grown] children are going to make decisions that we disgree with, and they may make decisions that are in conflict with scripture. The second point makes them just the same as anybody else, including me. I make decisions, probably daily, that are in conflict with scripture.
Presumably, being that you raised your son to know the difference between right and wrong, your son knows the score. He probably doesn’t need to be reminded of how you and/or his other parent feels about his choice(s). If the topic comes up, you could take the opportunity to gently remind him that this is not God’s ideal plan for him, but then again, he probably knows that.
I don’t understand what good “cutting him off” would do. Why does your pastor think this is the right approach? Will blackmailing him by discontinuing any financial support while he’s still in college cause a true repentent state of his heart? I rather doubt it. You may force your will on him with such actions, but it will only drive a possibly-permanent wedge between you and him.
Maybe to some people that seems like a fair price to pay to “get him” to do the right thing. I disagree. I would rather place my trust in the Holy Spirit to do His Good Work in His Good Time. And then I would just get on about the business of loving my son and his girlfriend.
LikeLike
Patrick, now that I look at it for a second time….I’m not sure.
LikeLike
Apparently your pastor doesn’t have a solid grasp of scripture:
My friends, if someone is caught in any kind of wrongdoing, those of you who are spiritual should set him right; but you must do it in a gentle way. (Galatians 6.1 TEV)
As the Lord’s servant, you must not quarrel. You must be kind toward all, a good and patient teacher, who is gentle as you correct your opponents, for it may be that God will give them the opportunity to repent and come to know the truth. (2 Timothy 2.24–25 TEV)
LikeLike
Why would you get banned for that?
LikeLike
You sound to me like a very loving and good hearted parent. I think if you follow your instincts everything will turn out right. You pastor is the last person you should listen to. You are dealing with FAMILY matter, and anyone who insn’t a family member, including you pastor, needs to stay out of your family’s business.
LikeLike
Mr. Johnston, you need to contact Macsim’s pastor and go join the circus with him. Seriously?! This is how you respond to this dramatic, possibly life altering question?! Do you have children of your own?
I say this by the spirit of God:
I will not tolerate sin, but I will tolerate the sinner. Let no man separate what God has joined together, and let no man call another man a sinner when he himself is entrenched in sin. You will know judgment for what you call Holiness. Let your heart be cast down and broken so that you know what a real need of grace is.
I realize what I just typed will probably get me banned from commenting again on this site, but there you go. I felt moved, so I typed.
LikeLike
It is attitudes like this that keep people far, far away from many a church community.
LikeLike
That phrase is also the first ranging salvo before the Four Spiritual Laws tract comes out and the Fire For Effect barrage begins.
LikeLike
Problem is, to a lot of Christians, watching The Other Guy burn is much more entertaining.
LikeLike
But such unmarried/cohabiting couples aren’t burning. They’re meeting each other’s sexual needs instead of burning with unsatisfied/unrequited lust/passion.
LikeLike
Thank you. I suppose you are describing just about where I find myself and basically what I am currently doing, yet I still wonder if I’m handling it correctly. Oh well, wouldn’t be my first mistake. 🙂 Peace to you.
LikeLike
Well, they’re already basically married, except on paper. And they’re expressing some desire to solemnize the marriage properly and to receive counseling.
So counsel them, offer your perspective on living together in course of this counseling, and move on forward to what is relevant. They’re taking a fundamentally positive step by getting married, so the focus should be on this fact and on helping them lay the foundation for a lasting marriage.
Prodigal sons, parties, not dwelling the past, etc., etc.,b etc.
LikeLike
Do not cut off your son! You’ll regret it forever.
My perspective: Cutting off communication with a child is very extreme action that is only justified if they have become dangerous to you or if your support is somehow enabling a very destructive behavior. Cutting off someone for any other reason is a punitive action that says: “My love is conditional.” Or just as bad: “I am willing to use my love as a manipulative tool to get you to do what I want.” If your son has a healthy amount of self-respect, the cutting off gesture will probably not get him to move out, but it will cause him to trust you less in the future. And you can forget repairing bridges any time soon with the girlfriend, who may wind up his long term partner, his wife, or the mother of your grandchildren.
You could express disapproval of your son’s decision and continue to communicate with him, love him, and support him in the other, good things he is doing. Likewise, you could support his love for his girlfriend and their relationship while opposing their decision to move in together. If your are supporting him financially, you could decide to stop paying his rent, but continue helping him with other expenses, like training or college. That communicates both your disapproval of his specific action and your love for him in general.
Whatever you decide, God’s peace to you. Everyone’s got two cents when its not *their* family, so take what is helpful in anything anyone tells you and disregard all the rest. Opinions are a dime a dozen, and you get what you pay for. 🙂
LikeLike
….and the problem is?
I see Jesus as much more inclusive than I/we……… yet much more demanding than I/we in terms of growth in grace. I think I/we find it easier to be exclusive on behaviour etc and harder to model growth in grace.
Perhaps we focus on moral sins much more easily than social or economic sins.
LikeLike
Wow, I’m glad my parents weren’t church-goers when I was living with the woman I ended up marrying. They welcomed her with open arms and now, 20 years later, they still have a great relationship with her — and their grandchildren.
Why in the world would you even consider for one second damaging your relationship with your son over his living with a woman he loves? Don’t you think you’d miss them on Christmas? Don’t you think they are far better off having you in their lives? Please consider just how much worse it could be.
LikeLike
One good friend who is a pastor carries marriage certificates in his brief case and keeps them handy in his office. He is quite persuasive and has convinced more than one couple that is co habitating and considering getting mariied to get married on the spot. He has also done the same thing for Christian couples who are engaging in sex before marriage. He is of the opinion it is better to marry than to burn.
LikeLike
could someone explain to me what this membership thing is all about and why moral purity is important? there seem to be churches where there are two classes, members and non members. how does this all work? where is this in the bible?
LikeLike
treat your son and his girl as a you would a married couple. love your son and draw him closer to you. he will need to feel your love in the form of fatherly approval. look for ways to show approval and turn a blind eye to this indescretion. dont hide the fact, in shame, that your son is living with his girl. maybe better than simply calling her his “wife” maybe ask the two of them, together, how you should refer to her. in a sincere and solicitous way. as in “when I introduce you to family and others, should I say wife, girlfriend, friend, roommate? I am asking purely because I want to show respect for you both and your relationship”. make a conscious decision to love his girl . tell your son you trust him to do what is right for his wife and love her and respect her. be sure to make her feel welcomed and fully included in any family events. avoid meddling in their relationship as in “when are you going to marry the girl.”
model that true morality focus on the happiness of others. focus on your own behavior and not theirs. your son must know that you do not approve. there is nothing more you are obligated to do or say in this regard.
love your son in the form of expressing your approval of him as your son.
LikeLike
‘You know this modern, humanistic and worldy idea that love always includes tolerance is from the pit.”
Yeah, Jesus was all about not tolerating other people’s sins for the sake of religionwait-what?
LikeLike
you’re right. that Pastor isn’t a clown.
That pastor is evil.
LikeLike
It depends on where you go and what the church’s polcies are. Some will charge for pre-marital counseling, as well as any materials involved. Churches also often charge for the use of their property.
And weddings usually cost money. Yes, we can cut those expenses quite a bit and the amount spent does not make marriage better or worse. Still though, most people (justifiably) want to have their wedding some place special, with people they care about, and all that bears a cost.
LikeLike
No, your pastor is not a clown.
This is a tough situation for you as a father.
However, are we to put up with the immoral man? You son is well old enough to be considered man and should treated as such. I would submit it would be unloving to tolerate. You know this modern, humanistic and worldy idea that love always includes tolerance is from the pit.
If your church does not want to deal with as a church discipline matter [ if your son is a believer in your congregation] then yes, your pastor is a clown. But if he is simply seeking the best in the long run for the young man then he is most definelty not a clown.
You sir, must stand lovingly strong.
LikeLike
Jonathan, you nailed it…
…also, consider the very “definition” of “marriage” was different in historical biblical settings — at a young age, a couple would “consummate” their love interest and then marriage be pronounced. Totally unlike today’s age, where sexual awareness and maturity occur at a significantly earlier age but yet age of marriage is delayed for decade(s).
To just utter blindly “premarital sex is sin” without acknowledging the dichotomy of traditionalist practices vs. modern (sub)?urban living seems rather blockheaded.
No, not ceding that premarital sex or cohabitation is an optimal route, just that conflating those times where little overlap existed in coming of age to today, with a great time margin, and also the difference in stimuli exposed (think internet, TV, “big city”, etc.…) to a bunch of raging hormone addled, unduly peer pressure influenced adolescent/young adult…
LikeLike
The Didache itself presents practices that are at variance with the Orthodox Church. And there is no proof or certainty that the Didache presents what was believed and practiced everywhere, always and by all. Neither the understanding nor the practice of the Eucharistic was uniform in the church’s early days. As I said, even the New Testament presents varying information about the practice and its meaning.
LikeLike
Oh man, I’m so sorry.
LikeLike
I was thinking that for a while (while reading this discussion), Jenny, but then I remembered Christ’s encounter with the woman at the well. He seemed to discern between her husbands and her lovers.
(That said, he didn’t do anything that resembles sending her away, which to me, is point most pertinent here.)
LikeLike
Tom, in your opinion, why would your congregation not be accepting of a celibate gay person?
LikeLike
Your pastor is a clown.
LikeLike
Strangely, in reading your post, my emotions aren’t conflicted at all: Be patient with your son, and kind to the woman he loves. It’s okay for the two of you to disagree about religion. No matter who is right, he will be better off having a healthy relationship with his father, and a college education. Your pastor’s advice is, shall we say, unhelpful (and I will leave it at that).
LikeLike
Thanks for that, Patrick. Your point is never more clear to me than on Communion Sunday, when — even though I’m praying extemporaneously, it seems I am confessing the same exact sins I’ve been confessing for the past 30 years. (Er…not that Communion Sunday is the only time I confess. But it is a time I’m hyper-aware of the content of my confessions.)
LikeLike
Amen. Such growth contradicts all human wisdom, but seems to reveal most clearly the real power behind the church.
LikeLike
In the Didache 9:5 it specifically says that no unbaptized or unreconciled person could be admitted to the Eucharist. The Didache was listed by Eusebius as being alongside the books of Scripture as important for understanding the Church. Please note that the Didache is now acknowledged to have been written while some of the apostles were still alive.
However, the argument about there being no unified practice is only partially true. Note in the New Testament that the apostles are constantly having to go around to correct the practice in the different churches. Not all variety was acceptable. Guidelines, such as the Didache were written precisely to control and corral aberrant variety. Saint Luke specifically writes his Gospel in order to assure that people would know the truth about what happened during the lifetime of Our Lord Jesus Christ.
The arguments from the New Testament about there being no guideline to shut people out of the Eucharist and thereby questioning whether that was the practice is only possible if one ignores the other historical documents from that era. Could there have been places where all were allowed to the Eucharist? Yes. Was that corrected whenever a Church leader found out about it? Undoubtedly.
The problem with Bradshaw’s argument (and others who argue like him) is that it legitimizes anything that one cares to call Christianity. Thus, there is no reason to call Gnostics heretics, they are simply yet another variety of Christians. Thus Christianity is too easily defined as any proclamation of Jesus with any content and almost any practice! It is an anachronism that reads the current cultural situation back into the then historical situation.
LikeLike
Again, let me point you to Church history. The Church grew and grew rapidly during the period when non-Christians were not allowed to even see a Eucharist. It is a very American argument to do a hypothetical that argues that we should not have boundaries. But, when one looks at history, the Church with the boundaries and the strongest call to holiness (see the Liturgical Gangstas post on Ananias and Sapphira) was the Church that grew quickest!
LikeLike
I’ve lurked here for a long time. Always enjoy the discussion. I feel compelled to comment this time because this is happening to me right now. We always say we would do this or we would do that, this is right and this is wrong, yadda yadda yadda. But until it actually happens to you, do you really know how you would deal with it? I’m torn right now because my 21 year old son, raised in the church all his life, has moved in with his girlfriend. My pastor recommended “cutting him off.” He’s still in school and has only a part-time job. Part of me says yes, that would be “tough love.” The other part of me says he is my son and will I give him a stone when he is asking for bread? I simply do not know what to do. He is my son. If I reject him I feel I am doing him no good. I find it incredibly hard to embrace this woman who has come into his life but I do my best. They seem to care for each other a great deal. I honestly think he is making a mistake but he is 21 and I cannot tell him what to do. Yes, I can cut off school funding, ban him from my house, etc. but I don’t honestly think that will change his mind. I hear “no one condemns you” and I hear “Go and sin no more.” I have no answers at the present time. I just know it all looks very different when it is happening to your own child.
LikeLike
“the more exotic (and Juicifer) the better.”
^how I first read this
LikeLike
“and the unofficial understanding by the priests that the peasants were just going to do certain things and would have to be given penance and married after-the-fact.”
Sort of the entirety of divine history in a sentence, huh?
LikeLike
I would not disagree that sometimes churches can really present a cold, judgemental (and usually hypocritical) message. However, for me, the idea that we should try to be as accomodating as possible on sinful behavior goes against the basis of Reformed theology (to which I subscribe) in a big way.
A key tenet of reformed theology is that people are NOT searching for or honestly struggling to find God. Sure, people may be looking for happiness, for a group to be a part of, etc—but actually coming to grips with sin that requires repentance is not something anyone does on their own. Reformed theology says that people will come to God only when God Himself draws them. It’s a fundamentally important idea, because if one has that viewpoint, there is no need to try to broadly appeal to popular culture or to “update” the message with the times to try to accomodate as many people as possible. My point here is not to argue Reformed theology but to say that that viewpoint informs my own personal thinking on this very issue. If God is drawing people to Himself, they will respond even if a change of behavior is required. If people are coming to church for other reasons (and my opinion is that that is the case frequently), calls to repentance will not generally be responded to favorably. The problem is not the message but the motivation of the hearers. My opinion, obviously.
As with all things, there’s a right balance in the tone, content and timing of saying things.
LikeLike
I dont think I have an detailed answer for you, but I am very certain that THE answer will be found by you and me ONLY in the Person and work of Jesus. Indeed in the specific context you ask about, scripture seems, at least in good part, to interpret itself. and seems to reconcile everything in Jesus: John 3 verse 23 And this is His commandment: that we should believe on the name of His Son Jesus Christ and love one another, as He gave us[e] commandment. 24 Now he who keeps His commandments abides in Him, and He in him. And by this we know that He abides in us, by the Spirit whom He has given us.
the other two passage that MAY help, IF i understand your dilema are “whatsoever is not of faith is sin” which I take to assert the radical proposition, and it IS radical, that the opposite of sin is what? goodness? righteousness? no. it is faith. faith=righteousness.
again “the just shall live by faith.” I take this to mean that
pagans are being mortified in the flesh by the law and are dying, but they look for life in pursuing the carrots that Law offers (work hard and you will be rewarded!) and in trying to defeat or avoid the fear the law instills (what people do to resist aging for instance) and look to live by doing the law.
christians , in contrast are being mortified in the flesh by the law, and are dying. they are doing the SAME law things that pagans are doing… things like discipline, exercising will power, telling each other how they should behave (eg ” you SHOULD do good works only out of a motive of loving response to what Jesus did for you” . we DONT do that do we? LAW!) etc etc.
ok NO contrast there at all. christians need to keep the SAME law /will of god as pagans do, using the SAME very unspiritual methods. and actually pagans usually seem to do this better dont they?
so the contrast is where? faith in Jesus christ. something no will power can do. in fact will power must die for this to grow. an invisible thing. christians look for their LIFE in Jesus.
Ok, now where can you find a good book that will break this down? Gene edward vieth “spirituality of the cross” better yet is to go to where he gets his best stuff from. a handy volume called the “book of concord” which you can actually find , in its entirety, on line.
your questions are excellent. you are certainly on the right track so far as I can tell, one blind man to another, dont stop and dont despair or be discouraged. trust that Jesus will resolve ALL your questions, in his very body, sweetly, by grace!
the lord’s peace be with you!
LikeLike
and dont forget those fat church ladies! throw those obviously unrepentant gluttons out, unless they can demonstrate TANGIBLE proof of repentance in the form of having their stomach stapled or some other form of medical intervention that will allow them to claim victory!!
LikeLike
“Something about, “let he who is without sin, cast the first stone!†comes to mind.”
interesting that alot would race to the part of THAT story that says “now go and sin no more!”, only Jesus doesn’t say, “now go and stop that sexual sinning! ” he says alot more than that doesnt he? he says “now go and completely stop sinning”.
The law is our schoolmaster to bring us to Christ. we cannot just stop sinning. we THINK we can fix the situation by overcoming our more important (read sexual) sins.
the idea that the church is a hospital for sinners is dead wrong. sinners need to die and be reborn. they dont need to simply ‘get better’. the church is better thought of as a hospice for the dying.
LikeLike
You can be pretty sure someone has spilled the beans when people who you aren’t particularly close to start asking, “How is your spiritual life going?”
LikeLike
Or, childless married couples (heterosexual), who are given the icy-cold shoulder due to a lack of arrows in the quiver.
(I was an aging, never-married single, who got married at 40, and God’s direction in our lives was to choose not to have children. Christian women have shown me their “I’m superior to you because I’m a MOTHER” attitude often. And, that’s why I don’t go to women’s retreats anymore. As a never-married single, I was more accepted by the church and much more involved in ministry than I am now.
Once, Kay Warren, pastor Rick’s wife, said something about it being a Christian woman’s duty to have children… said this at a women’s retreat. She received a barrage of emails, and retracted her statement.
)
LikeLike
Tim, you’re assuming more familiarity with the was the table is fenced in my denomination (the PCA) than you should.
We practice “open communion” in the sense that anyone is welcome to come, not just members of our congregation or denomination. But we also “fence the table” in that we invite those who are professing believers in Christ to come to the table. Those who are not believers are urged to refrain from taking the sacrament.
In clarification of what I said before, then: if someone comes to be a part of our community– they worship with us, then attend Bible study, they share in fellowship with us– then I trust that they are respectful of the invitation to partake IF they profess faith in Christ and are members of a Bible-believing church, as well as respectful of the urging to refrain if they are NOT believers.
Some will say that by asking for membership in a Bible-believing church I am adding to the Gospel. But in fact all that membership in a Bible-believing church IS is a public profession of faith in Christ, which has been heard and accepted by the leaders of the congregation. Why is this important? Because I need to know that my faith is orthodox; that I haven’t assumed that I understand the Gospel when I don’t.
If someone came before our Elders to join the church, and they could not articulate that they acknowledged that they were sinners, hopeless in their sin but for the saving grace of Christ alone, then we would not accept their profession of faith as credible no matter how vehemently or sincerely they offered it. Likewise, when a member who has professed their faith credibly becomes fearful through a lack of assurance, their membership is for them a means of assurance.
So when we ask for them to be members in good standing in a Bible-believing church, we are simply asking that their profession of faith be orthodox and biblical, not simply “however they might understand it.”
LikeLike
The Catholic Churches (the Latin + the Greek + the Oriental + etc. + etc.) variously considers itself to be the only Real church, through which the graces are commuted and under whom the Christian life is taught without abbreviation. The Catholic marriage is a sacrament of the Church, and considered a vocation – a way to live the Christian life of intimacy, love and service to God, and a place in a person’s life that the Church speaks into. Regarding the communities of millions who abstain or reject the primitive Church but still consider themselves followers of Jesus Christ (Lutherans, Seventh Day Adventists, whatever and what-have-you), the Church knows that they can’t be heard (the Sacramental character of the particularly Catholic marriage is rejected), so while a loving marriage between a Catholic and a Protestant might be natural and licit, the Catholic Church won’t call it Catholic – i.e. it will recognize (validate) a separated brother in Christ marrying one of its daughters, but won’t stop insisting it’s particularity around people who Protest about it.
Consensual sex outside of marriage is an offense against chastity, which every Christian knows – whether he likes it or not. It’s an offense because of the holy character of Christian marriage and the gravity of what sex is – a creative act between God and a couple. Contravening that holy character of human sexuality (by masturbating, or pulling out, or whatever) is unnatural and sinful because it attempts to remove God from sex by having sex outside of the mini-Covenant he blesses (which, for Christians, is essentially denying God’s sovereignty over their lives) and nature from sex (by trying to keep nature from taking its course), and making sex un-holy and un-natural is basically blasphemous and an insult to our souls.
You don’t have to buy it, but that’s the rationale. I’m sure Martha or one of the other folks on here could add to this.
LikeLike
I agree that the church should take a stand for principles, however unpopular. Mature Christians in particular should be expected to “stand their ground” when asked to compromise on their convictions. Likewise, I agree what we shouldn’t cop out by claiming we (or others) can’t change. Christianity is predicated on the notion that we can change — or rather that God can change us.
I guess for me the gray area appears when you ask a different question: How do you offer pastoral care to someone who is seeking God but to whom Christian standards are foreign? Can they stand up for convictions they don’t yet have? How are we going to get them to this point unless we give them access to the means of grace and some kind of believing community where they can come to know God?
An rather different historical example might be found in medieval Catholicism in Europe. The church certainly had standards of conduct. We also know ordinary people often didn’t conform to these expectations. But Europe stayed Christian anyway, and people had access to the church, because the church had a built in system for keeping people in it … and the unofficial understanding by the priests that the peasants were just going to do certain things and would have to be given penance and married after-the-fact. One could argue that this ability to keep most people in the church, despite their misbehaviour, may have actually promoted the spiritual well-being of more people.
Or maybe not. I’m not arguing a firm position here. Just musing about the question.
LikeLike
I’m trying to be sympathetic Joel, since I lived in So Cal for five years, and you are taking quite a beating on this board.
1st off, part of the marrying young problem is cultural. My wife and I are from Texas. I was 22 when we married, and she was 21. We moved to CA for seminary right after our marriage. Getting married that young in Texas was not weird.
Californians, on the other hand, thought we have come from another planet for getting married so young. They talked us as if we had gotten married in high school or something.
A major part of the problem is how much the culture has changed in this area: for the first two thousand years of the church, most people reached sexual maturity later (like 14-15), and got married around 16-17. [Except for the upper class and nobility]. That means that at most, people had to deal with no godly way to deal with sexual urges for like a year or so. Anybody can wait 2 years.
In our culture, for various reasons, like fatty diets, hormones in milk, and overtly sexualized media, children are entering puberty earlier, some as early as 10. And yet because of our cultural expectations of education and specialization, they are getting married much later, like 30ish or more.
So what was at most, like two years of frustration, between puberty and marriage, is now like 20 years.
And what is the church’s solution to this very difficult situation that it hasn’t actually dealt with before though it thinks it has? True Love Waits. HA!
So like I said, I’m sympathetic. The church has to find better ways to deal with this. This first step would be realizing that this is actually a NEW problem for Christians, that a ten fold increase in time between puberty and marriage is a new level of difficulty for young Christians.
I just don’t think that co-habitation is the solution.
LikeLike
Here’s a question. Suppose the cohabiting couple comes in and says something like this to the pastor: “Hi. We know we’ve been living together, sexually active, all that, and we don’t apologize for it and disagree that its a sin. We think it was the right decision for us. But now, we’re ready to take that next step of commiting to each other for life, and we want you to give premarital counseling to us and marry us. And no, we aren’t going to move out during the pendency of the enagement.”
Is that enough? By which I mean, should the pastor agree? And should the couple be fully welcomed as members, at least once the wedding actually happens?
LikeLike
It seems from 1 Corinthians 14 that the services and preaching/teaching from the Scriptures were originally open to all, including inquirers, unlearned and unbelievers. I suspect that persecution and Christianity becoming an outlawed sect caused this to become limited to believers.
Whether the Eucharistic blessing and partaking of the bread and wine and the Lord’s Supper/agapê meal (whether combined or separated) were originally open to all, or one or both were part of a closed covenant meal/partaking, is not clear from 1 Corinthians 10 & 11. I suspect the partaking of the bread and wine were likely to have been limited to believers, but I don’t think anyone can say with certainty. Paul uses the “when you come together [in church]” language for both the Lord’s Supper and a meeting at which unbelievers may participate, which suggests that they might have been a combined activity and open to all.
We know the church was more diversified in its practices and beliefs in its early days than some who say their practice was believed at all times, everywhere, and by all would want you to think. See, e.g., Paul F. Bradshaw, The Search for the Origins of Christian Worship (Second Edition). Thus, even if one could prove from 1 Corinthians 10 & 11 that the agapê meal and/or the Eucharistic blessing of the bread and wine were either restricted or open to all, that wouldn’t prove it was that way everywhere. If it was regarded as a covenant meal or practice, then it would naturally be limited to believers. But if it was regarded as a continuation of Jesus’ sitting at table with saints and sinners alike as a foretaste of the Messianic banquet, then it need not have been a restricted rite or practice.
(The problem is in the New Testament itself. In Matthew and Mark, the covenant Jesus is making is for the sake of “many.” This could support a meal open to all for whom Jesus died or would die, inviting all to dine with Jesus and accept His invitation to enter His kingdom. In Luke and 1 Corinthians, Jesus speaks of His covenant as being only for the sake of the “you” to whom He is speaking, i.e., His disciples. In the subsequent paragraphs in Luke’s account (Luke 22:24-30), Jesus continues speaking to His disciples – about their role and behavior in His coming kingdom, including that they will judge the twelve tribes of Israel. This seems to support a more limited idea of the covenant than that it is for “many.” Paul in 1 Corinthians applies the meaning and benefits of Jesus’ words and actions to all Christians, not just to those who sat at table with Him the night in which He was betrayed.)
This is all to say that the later restrictionism with respect to the service and the Eucharist might not have been that way at or from the beginning.
LikeLike
And what about all the others who have been gently refused, who were still locked in the matrix of false culture, but who were still searching, who were still honestly struggling, who could not, for whatever reason, break out of that culture and fully embrace the way of the faith instantly, whose hearts were not doors that just opened in a flash, but whose hearts opened slowly, hesitantly, uncertainly….what happened to all the others gently refused? Perhaps they feared that Christians were not as loving as they had supposed. Perhaps they went away and never came back.
LikeLike
Both my previous church and my current church does this. The small/cell/connection group is where the mentoring/teaching/guiding happens.
LikeLike
“The notion that anyone who has sex becomes “one flesh†(in the permanent sense) is perverse, though I do see how the gospel could be read that way.”
I apologize. I meant no offense. That is what I was taught being brought up, though I admit I could have misunderstood what my teachers were saying.
“Catholic theology teaches that the couple must intend / agree to marry one another (i.e., say the equivalent of “I doâ€), and call on God to witness this union. Just having sex isn’t enough… The priest is necessary to make the cermony licit, but not for validity.”
I can totally see where that view is coming from, even if I do respectfully disagree on some points. However, I do have one question-
Why is the priest necessary to make the marriage licit? I thought that in Catholic theology, the two that are being married are the one officiating the Sacrament (pardon if I’m using wrong terminology)? Is the priest just there to say, “The Church recognizes this Marriage, and gives it’s blessing?” Or am I just confused on the subject?
LikeLike
Michael
Thanks for the continuing interesting topics on your blog. While I haven’t read all the comments on this, I wish to speak my opinion.
It seems that God (FatherSonHolySpirit) has made it clear that it was always intended that men and women live together in a bonded manner. This we call marriage. That all the other ways for men and women to find intimacy (what are called adultery,co-habitation,homosexuality) are not right and will in the course of time result in problems of varying degrees.
It therefore seems that people coming to my congregation are going to be broken in many ways and by many persons. Since it is my responsibility as Christian to help them to find healing in Jesus I have to resist my erge to judge them and get them started in knowing Jesus and the God He came to reveal.
If Jesus really takes hold in them, then they probably will look at their own lives and make the changes necessary.
I agree that people who wish to be members in my congregation should be willing to conform to our standards of behavior (which correspond to conservative Christian living).
Thanks for being here!
LikeLike
I am amused at the implicit suggestion that fornication is most tolerable when performed furtively, in the back seats of cars, and with a minimum of premeditation.
Because that allows for the “WE DIDN’T MEAN TO — IT JUST HAPPENED!” diminished-capacity defense.
(This might or might not be related, but somebody at a party once bloviated to me about how a similar diminshed-capacity defense lies behind the attraction to BDSM. Except there the diminshed-capacity defense was “I didn’t mean to enjoy it! He had me tied down & helpless!”)
LikeLike
I agree with what you’re saying, and perhaps I’ve spoken more broadly, but essentially what I’m trying to say is that the nurturing impulse in a strongly evangelistic community keeps us from holding too tightly to discrepations about how ‘with us’ those who are not ‘against us’ are – because we know that people change and the grace of the Gospel should change them, and a half-hearted Christian can, with grace, commit himself.
LikeLike
“Live creatively, friends. If someone falls into sin, forgivingly restore him, saving your critical comments for yourself. You might be needing forgiveness before the day’s out. Stoop down and reach out to those who are oppressed. Share their burdens, and so complete Christ’s law. If you think you are too good for that, you are badly deceived. Make a careful exploration of who you are and the work you have been given, and then sink yourself into that. Don’t be impressed with yourself. Don’t compare yourself with others. Each of you must take responsibility for doing the creative best you can with your own life.” – Galatians 6:1-5 (The Message).
LikeLike
That’s because you’re Eastern Orthodox, not small-down Evangelical. Things can get very different on the other side of the Adriatic.
In a lot of churches, “Thou Shalt Gossip” — usually in the form of “just sharing this so you know to pray for X” — is an Eleventh Commandment, enforced by the Church Ladies who really run the show.
And no sin both obsesses and freaks out Christians like sexual sin — the more exotic (and Juicier) the better.
LikeLike
Or aging never-married singles…
LikeLike
Usually the difference is “Whatever THEY do that *I* don’t.”
“I THANK THEE, LORD, THAT I AM NOTHING LIKE THIS FILTHY PUBLICAN…”
LikeLike
There is plenty wrong with J.O.’s theology.
But God brings people to him in many ways. When someone walks in for the first time carrying one of his books, we don’t start lecturing them on how bad his theology is. Just the same as anyone else and whatever baggage they bring in.
LikeLike
Hmm, actually look at the Apostolic Constitutions, the Didache, etc. A Christian who would only show up on Sunday and have no other reasonable contact with the community would not have been though of as a committed Christian.
LikeLike
We do not realize how much we have bought into the thinking of this culture. This culture says to us that sexual self-control is impossible. We have not only bought into that but we have bought into the whole idea that our sins cannot really be overcome in a practical way. We now make excuses for many sins under the “battle cry” that we are incapable of becoming holier.
No, this does not have to do with Protestant theology. Calvinists, Puritans, Wesleyans, Nazarenes, Pentecostals, etc., have always claimed that there can be and ought to be a perceivable growth in holiness. I repeat that we really have bought into this culture’s idea that our “natural” impulses are too strong to really ever control.
LikeLike
It is helpful to look back at the worship of the Church in the first few centuries. Please notice that one can read that anyone could attend the first part of the worship of the Church. In fact, one of the stories is that of Saint Mary of Egypt, who was a courtesan and had finished a monetarily successful trip with a caravan in which she provided services. She then proceeded to go to visit a church! God stopped her and she had an incredible conversion experience, but had God not stopped her, she could have just walked in.
However, at a certain point in the service, all who were not Christians, and those who were penitents, were asked to leave, for the Liturgy of the Eucharist was only for those who were Christians. In the Divine Liturgy this is commemorated when the priest would say, “Let the catechumens depart, let all catechumens depart. Catechumens depart!” This is followed a moment later by the cry, “The doors, the doors, in wisdom let us approach!” In those days this would be a signal for the deacons to make sure that the doors were closed until the end of the Eucharist.
Thus, all were welcome and would hear the preaching of the Word of God and experience something of the presence of the Holy Spirit. But, at a certain point, by being shut out, they would be challenged to become something more, to make a decision and come in the doors. And, given the cry to the catechumens they would know that it involved a period of training and that Christians were serious about their faith.
Thus, for those who have talked about fencing the Lord’s Table, it was not merely fenced in those days, the doors were literally used to shut people out of the Lord’s Table!
Both the welcome of God and the need for a decision were expressed in such a setup. I know that it is not possible to do that today, but some type of analog of that needs to be present. In passing, yes, at least one time I have gently refused the Eucharist to someone in the receiving line and simply given them a blessing. It became an opportunity for conversation and that person is now married to a good Orthodox young man.
LikeLike
I meant: Wise remarks, Danielle.
LikeLike
Wise remarks. Thank you.
LikeLike
And people dis’ Joel Osteen to no end ad infinitum ad nauseam…. 🙂
LikeLike
Hmm, I have preached several sermons on gossip in the last several months. Gossip and outside of marriage sex are both verbotten.
LikeLike
An example (good I would hope) from my church
We have a lot of people come through our doors that are “interesting”
One cohabiting couple started attending (drawn actually by listening to Joel Osteen and believing him when he says you have to find a local church)
Got involved in a small group, got to know the pastor and through those relationships decided to follow Christ, and that you know, they actually should be baptized and married.
So we, and they did.
Great couple. Share the gospel, bring all sorts of other interesting people to church (most recently some bikers)
LikeLike
It is tempting to look at things as you mention, But my opinion is that the early church stood out for going against the norms of society around it. Paul says people should be scratching their heads wondering why Christians are behaving so differently than everyone else—saying that things can’t change overnight and letting cohabitation (or other issues) slide seems contrary to this idea. I agree it’s difficult largely because the church has such a poor record of being consistent, but my opinion is that it’s helpful to look at how members of the church in the first few centuries were willing to be put into situations of poverty, banned from the world around them and even put to death rather than compromise—not just on issues of worshipping the emperor but also on moral issues, particularly sexual ones. Church history is full of saints who chose death or exile rather than give in to immorality that nonbelievers thought was very ordinary behavior.
LikeLike
And we haven’t even gotten to divorced people yet…
LikeLike
Horrifying.
LikeLike
“What is the benefit (or the point) of providing a Christian marriage ceremony for people who are not followers of Christ?”
Do any Christian churches intentionally do this?
I know it happens all the time (cultural Christianity and all), but is this a policy in any church or community that you know of?
LikeLike
Bro. Ed, I appreciate very much what you say and aggree whole heartedly with what you say. But, here’s the but: When you said this, “Thus, when we “fence the table†and discuss the conditions by which someone may come to the table of the Lord’s Supper, then I assume they will pay attention to it (essentially, that they must be a member in good standing of a Bible-believing church, e.g., they have a valid public profession of their faith in Christ)”. I cannot see how a person is not doing exactly what you attibuted to gnostisism, placing them at lower, less priviledged level of discipleship.
If a person can meet in worship with you, not barred from membership, ect. and you would gladly let them represent your congregation in the various ministries of your church, I would think this would mane that you would think they were a member of a Bible believing church and that they certainly had faith in Christ.
So, how could you turn them away from the table and sharing in the Christ they believe in? Doesn’t having a closed door policy to the Lord’s table ultimately always put tthe elders or the minister or someone other that Jesus on the judgement seat for the purpose of declaring who is and isn’t a true believer?
Tim
LikeLike
I don’t believe co-habitation is sanctioned by Scripture or Christian teaching. Thus I do think the church ought to articulate some kind of opposition to it. However, excluding people who begin coming to church after they have begun cohabitating seems to be the wrong approach — or at least a deeply problematic one.
At this time, I have no firm personal conclusions on this question. But here’s what I am tempted to say:
Something like half the population now cohabitates before marriage. Further, there are entire demographics of people for whom this is the usual pattern, not a deviation. At the time you reach one of these young people with the gospel, they are already in these situations, and they may be the second or third generation to follow the pattern. They have their partners, who they don’t want to loose; they have leases; they often don’t have the funds to move out; they may not have much of a family support network; there may be children involved. And in point of fact, a fair number of people who cohabitate, even if they don’t marry, will eventually be married according to common law.
So, a question: Why tell people to back up, by breaking up or moving out? Maybe its best just to let the church’s stance on cohabitation stand as the ideal but to accept the cohabiting couple as they are. They could be told that Christian teaching does not affirm their current arrangement. But they could also be told that it is good they are in a loving relationship, and that God cares about them as individuals and about their relationship. The pastor and other church members could offer to come alongside them and support them as they seek to know God and God’s will, just as they would for any other couple. They could be encouraged to make God a part of their home. Part of that process could be studying what Christian marriage means and moving in that direction. You can’t expect that to happen overnight, because personal growth takes time, and knowing whether you are ready for marriage takes time. It’s like any other issue, really: We all live in situations we can’t change overnight, and few sins are moved past all in a day.
It also seems worth noting that social censure and church discipline work when you are already in a community, don’t want to leave it, and are committed to its values. It doesn’t work on people who aren’t in the community. All it does is lead them to conclude that they are “not church people.”
LikeLike
“Nor, oddly, is it enough to have a secular wedding, or any other wedding in which God is not invoked. (i.e., the children of Buddhists are all living in sin.)”
This is a misrepresentation. Buddhist children are not the product of sinful marriages in the eyes of the church – Catholics recognize natural marriage as valid, but not licit; we also recognize marriage between Catholics and non-Catholics as licit (recognizing Christ, under the awning of the community of Christian believers) but not sacramental, and marriages between Catholics as fully sacramental, licit, and natural.
The Church wants everybody to be married within her walls for the sake of souls and for the graces we believe that Catholic marriage provides – not because we think that non-Catholic marriages are sinful or produce illegitimate children! The Sacrament of Marriage, like all the other Sacraments, isn’t “fire insurance”, it’s part of a life of witnessing the Gospel and expressing the little rites of human community with the particular post-Pentencost Christian intentionality that natural marriage simply can’t compass.
This is basic Catholic theology, whose aim is ultimately to free us from our natural Pharisaical suspicions of others and encourage the formation of a community of love.
Also, refer your CCC – we totally don’t support polygamy, or divorcing non-believers for non-believing.
LikeLike
What if they’re not ready? What if they worry about their ability to weather relationship difficulties down the road? An awful lot of people experienced their parents’ divorces and been made commitment-shy as a result.
In my own family, my parents got divorced when I was young. All of my sibs have gone through at least 2 divorces thus far. I’m the only one who hasn’t. And yes, I lived with my partner for 5 years prior to marriage.
LikeLike
My brother, too, was eventually outed to the congregation when he confided in the pastor that he was gay. Although he has been celibate well over 15 years he never went back to church after that experience as a young mane and is now in his 50’s. What a shame.
LikeLike
“I know there is a good lecture out there on social stigma and the value of marriage in a community. I’m old school. Co-habitation makes me a little less nervous than your grandmother, but not significantly.”
Hah, less nervous than your grandma? Really? I haven’t been a pastor too long, but have found grandmas don’t seem to care anymore that their granddaughters are letting the cow be milked for free, and it is becoming more and more common to see grandma herself shacked up!
I have had to deal with this a couple times, I let them come to church, let them know I love and care about them, talk to them about marriage, and let them know this has to be cleaned up before I can allow them to commune. If they get engaged, and set a date, I get a bit more lenient. I try to explain to them though that there is a lot more to loving, and being married than “being in love”. And often “being in love” is used as a very poor excuse to do unloving things to each other, like use one another for your own gratifications, without any commitment to stay with one another and love one another when the times get tough, or the chickens come home to roost.
LikeLike
“I would also venture that in the first century church, anybody that only showed up once a week to gatherings and who only took part on the Eucharist perhaps once a month (if that) would be regarded strongly with suspicion by all involved.”
You think so? I prefer to think that they’d just be happy to see that guy when he came, as I hope we would be.
LikeLike
I think the perception is that we can’t require non-members to give money to the church (tithe). Or expect them to behave responsibly toward matters of the church. Whereas, if you’ve made a commitment…
LikeLike
Which is why the first verse of the Sermon on the Mount clearly states “All of the poor in spirit will burn in hell.”
LikeLike
I would also venture that in the first century church, anybody that only showed up once a week to gatherings and who only took part on the Eucharist perhaps once a month (if that) would be regarded strongly with suspicion by all involved.
These people lived together, worked together, shared everything in common together, met and worshiped and prayed daily, etc.
They had no such thing as “your secular life” and “your church life”. There was just life.
They also had no patriotism to Israel, or Rome, or any other such thing. There was only Patriotism to Christ.
We would all appear to be severely lacking and doubtful to them, no matter how passionately we can preach.
LikeLike
Excellent quote, thanks.
Certainly, there are times when we may be called on – specifically – to speak to someone, invite them to study the Scriptures perhaps, or counsel with someone they trust as a means of helping them to think through a particular issue.
But if our Father is the gardener, why are we hovering around with hedge-trimmers in hand? Can’t we simply trust God to speak to people, and shape their lives in a Gospel pattern, if we show them how to listen? Or do we think God needs a megaphone (that would be us…?)
Our big problem comes when people – such as the gay couple described above – go away and do that, seek God for themselves, and don’t get the answer that WE think they should get based on the way that we’ve read and interpreted the Scriptures. But as Monk says, that’s a different problem.
LikeLike
If sinners are barred from participation in church, there will be a lot of empty buildings out there.
Personally, if I have to make a choice between following the dictates of Jesus’s Disciples or whatever Jesus said or did, I’m going with Jesus. I’m guessing that He knew what He wanted.
LikeLike
Excellant post. Too many times Christians feel they have to sanctify themselves and others rather than let the Holy Spirit do the santification. God does just fine in exposing my sin to me.
LikeLike
I agree totally with those who’ve asked how we can possibly ask the co-habitators to leave but not the gossipers, gluttons, etc. But, I’ve yet to find an explanation of the letter of 1st John that makes sense to me. If the author of that letter were writing to the church we’ve been discussing, (or commenting on this thread), I can easily imagine him saying, “But those who keep on sinning have never known him or understand who he is,” which, of course, is what he wrote to those Christians 2000 years ago (1 John 3:6). It’s a recurring theme of the whole letter! Anyone who can point to a good commentary, book, article, etc that makes sense of the statements of 1st John in the context of us being saints and sinners simultaneously….bring it on. I need it.
LikeLike
Huh. Never thought about it that way. That does cast the story in a different light.
LikeLike
“Now everyone has a right to their standards but if you’re going to cut out cohabiters why not cut out alcoholics, adulterers, child abusers, wife beaters, tax cheats and all the other sinners in the congregation.”
Yes, why not cut out all of those? Anyone practicing those things openly SHOULD be sanctioned by the church following the procedures outlined by Paul and in the Gospels. Cohabiters shouldn’t be singled out, but neither should we say let’s just forget about having any standards at all. I think you make a good point that we should be consistent, but I would tend to disagree that we should be consistently standards-averse.
LikeLike
Wow.
LikeLike
Indeed. Most, maybe all, of our sins are parts of larger patterns. We merely comfort ourselves with the thought that our mistakes are isolated incidents.
LikeLike
Cohabiting Parishioners!
Granted, dealing with the thorny issue of what to say to couples in the pews living in sin, isn’t easy to resolve, yet, I thought addressing these thorny issues in our society IS the role of religion. But what about a practice among some in Baptist churches who say.. “if you’re shacking up, you’re NOT welcome here.â€
Jesus came for the sinners… except in Seattle!
Beverly Park Baptist Church in Seattle, stresses that people must be made aware of biblical teaching and that some moral standards must be met before individuals are accepted for church membership. Oh my, I wonder what Jesus would say about this “moral†standard?
Soooooooooooo, when an unmarried, cohabitating couples who’ve been attending the church inquire about joining, they’re told that the congregation is glad with their presence. BUT you’re not welcome as a member unless you marry or move apart. Guess who sleeps in or goes camping next Sunday.
Now everyone has a right to their standards but if you’re going to cut out cohabiters why not cut out alcoholics, adulterers, child abusers, wife beaters, tax cheats and all the other sinners in the congregation. Something about, “let he who is without sin, cast the first stone!†comes to mind.
If there was ever a time for all aspects of society ESPECIALLY mainstream religion to try a different approach to help build and sustain marriages, it is now especially when…
Divorce rates for 1st marriages can exceed 70% depending upon factors such as age, education & income
Our rate of marriage has dropped 50% in 40 years while cohabitation is skyrocketing
Fewer people are getting married now than ever
For the 1st time in U.S. history more of us are single than married
Churches must figure out better answers to tough questions about cohabitation as society’s definition of marriage and family continues to evolve. A USA TODAY poll of 1,007 adults found that most today reject the notion that couples who live together before marriage are more likely to get divorced. Instead,
• 49% said living together makes divorce less likely
• 13% said it makes no difference
• 31% said living together first makes divorce more likely
Like it or not, Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie have become the new American family role model for many and why not, who else can the youth of today look to for answers on how to avoid the high failure rate of marriage in America… highest in the world.
Brad and Angelina have no wedding plans and Angelina said, “The focus is the kids, and we are obviously extremely committed to the children and as parents together… to have a ceremony on top of it is nothing.â€
This is the new reality and it is going mainstream, as the USA Today poll also found, respondents appeared open-minded on whether unmarried couples can have a committed relationship. 57%, when asked if an unmarried couple who have lived together for five years is as committed as a couple married five years, said yes
To say come back when you’re no longer living in sin seems to be the absolute opposite of what Jesus was all about. Instead, as one pastor at the Park Central Baptist Church in Dallas says, “If we believe ‘come all who are weary and heavy-laden,’ we must love people, not turn them away.â€
So the message seems clear, the congregation should focus on developing relationships first. As a senior pastor of Atlanta’s Wieuca Road Baptist Church states, “churches must build relationships to help people first find faith and then to grow. “We open our membership to anyone… we start with where they are and help them,†“Trying to determine who’s at fault isn’t productive. We take the ‘now what’ approach: [Since] this has happened, now what?â€
Wieuca Road concentrates on accepting individuals, regardless of the issues they face. “Acceptance is not the same thing as condoning. But if you provide the acceptance, there is room to grow,†the pastor said. “If you point fingers, people are more likely to walk away. “I would rather err on the side of acceptance. … People grow with grace. I’ve never seen anyone grow under legalism… Why would people want to go to a church that adds more burdens?â€
AMEN!
LikeLike
Wait – what?
I thought connubial marriage was about God’s opinion – i.e. “the two shall become one flesh”, etc. His opinion is clear on what a marriage is, and community (i.e. state) officialization is fine by Him.
-Your- opinion of God’s opinion seems quite precious to you, but when thousands of years of Church practice has upheld the holiness of ‘secular’ marriage all over the globe, you should at least check your premises and get curious as to why you prefer that Christians should accommodate pointless frivolity (expensive weddings) by accepting a habit of sin (pre-marital sex) in the community instead of just being chaste and on-the-cheap – in obedience to Scripture and the Spiritually-formed conscience.
Jesus established the values of chastity and stewardship pretty clearly for us Christians – do you opine otherwise?
LikeLike
fws…interesting point about the kind of folks Jesus chose: doubters, liars, betrayers. Good thing we do not have to be perfect before Jesus chooses to love us! We would all be in big trouble.
LikeLike
amen brother! we preach that ‘forgiveness of sins in christ’ is what the church has to offer the world, but things boil down to a choice between the survival of an institution and tending to a smoldering wick, we always chose the institution as the greater good.
better to throw hurting individuals under the bus than to allow for the risk that an instittion will be damaged by the scandal of being overly forgiving!
LikeLike
interesting question. what would Jesus do?
he would chose Doubting Thomas and ” I don’t know the man!!” Peter. and “kills the christian!” Paul to head his lineup of the 12 who would be responsible for continuing his work.
He would choose Judas to be treasurer for the apostles. Jesus , who knew what was in a man.
So what should we suppose Jesus would do here?
LikeLike
marriage is part of the ‘civil estate’ it is not a sacrament or something unique to christians.
LikeLike
wow. the webmonk starts out by clearly saying he frowns on cohabiting and finds it to be a sin.
why is it you require more of him than this? on what scriptural basis?
LikeLike
wow . i never heard this. I am going to plagarize this freely….
LikeLike
ah yes. I confided to my pastor that I was gay. I won’t lie in church but also won’t wave a banner because church should be focused on Jesus and not on me.
a young vicar became friends with me, and stayed over at my home a few nights so he would not have to take 3 buses to get home after attenting night school.
the senior pastor chose to disclose to everyone that I was gay, discipline the vicar, and as a result a number of members left over this.
the rediculous result is that I am begging each of those who left to please come back. we need them!
LikeLike
my church has a 20 page questionaire. the responses are kept in strict confidence to avoid the sin of false witness or gossip of course. the questionaire attempts to ensure purity among our congretation in terms of proper repentence with solid evidence of it in the form of doing alot of good things (references required) and not doing anything bad or shameful that anyone could reasonably find out about. We want to make sure that at least you are properly ashamed if you are going to sin and keep it under wraps.
no one has yet to be accepted as a new member of our church. even though we have had hundreds of questionaires filled out.
I am totally at a loss to explain why that is.
I belong to landover baptist church by the way…..our church website is here:
http://www.landoverbaptist.org/
LikeLike
proverbs 6:16 These six things doth the LORD hate: yea, seven are an ABOMINATION unto him: 17 A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, 18 An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief, 19 A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren.
So Todd, we can agree that God is disgusted with divorce and cohabitation and even MORE disgusted with pride and lying?
I think we CAN know that ALL sins EQUALLY disgust God and merit, justly, both temporal and eternal punishment. “the soul that sins, it shall die” “even all your most righteous works look like filthy menstrual rags” etc etc…
Question: If ALL sins merit hell, then doesn’t it look like rearranging the deck chairs on the titannic to argue about which sin disgusts the Almighty more?
LikeLike
i am not sure that sex is what drives cohabitation. in the beginning God said that ‘it is not good for man to be alone” this urgency, which seems implied to be a fundamental part of being created in God’s image is instrinsic, rather than ‘ordinated” (ie driven by a command “be fruitful and multiply” , “be horny” “procreate”).
this same intrinsic urgency drives men and women, both heterosexuals and gay men and women, to cohabit. form a relationship.
last time I checked with married folk., cohabiting often resuts in less sex, not more. being a swinging single has the ‘advantage ‘ of the possibility of more sexual ‘adventure.
fornication, hedonism, prostitution, cheating on a spouse…. none of these result in the forming of a society of two, where mutual respect , forgiveness, and even how to love the unlovable must be practiced and learned.
now. I am not saying that people SHOULD shack up or gays should marry and/or have sex with each other. but we should be open to maybe a little nuance and the forgiving wisdom we often see in older grandmothers who have ‘seen it all’ and manage to love their erring children and grandchildren, not forgiving their error, but guiding them with unshakable love in a practical way.
LikeLike
This post makes me think of my niece and her husband. They started dating as teenagers, and, at one point, it was discovered by their parents (and soon after by the whole church) that they were having sex. To make matters worse, my niece’s father (my brother-in-law) was an elder in the church. In typical church fashion, a church leadership meeting was held, and it was decided that my brother-in-law needed to put an end to his daughter’s sinful relationship with this boy or else step down as an elder. He actually tried for a while to break up the relationship, but the two teens were determined to be together, no matter what anybody said or did.
Now, several years later, the two are happily married with two beautiful girls. And, for such a young couple, they are amazingly stable and have made faith in Christ a central part of their growing family. Sadly, the real victims in all this were my sister and brother-in-law. After the initial scandal, they stepped down from leadership and ultimately left that church. And while my sister is presently involved in a different church, my brother-in-law has pretty much written off church altogether.
Looking back on it all, I have come to see that the real villians of the story were those (myself included) who attended that leadership meeting and chose to act as the pious upholders of the church’s moral integrity (and public image) — rather than showing love and understanding to a family that was going through a crisis. Outraged at such scandalous sin (or rather embarassed that it had come out into the light), we utterly failed to even consider the depth of love and dedication those two young people had for each other. We also treated one of the church’s founding couples as if all their years of faithful, self-sacrificing service meant absolutely nothing. Worst of all, we failed to place our faith in God and that He might work all this out for the good — without us having to invent and impose a solution on the situation. We didn’t even bother to spend any time in prayer seeking God’s will in the matter. And, truth be told, many of us at that meeting made that ill-considered judgement knowing full well that we were harboring (and hiding) equally scandalous sins in our own lives and households.
I’ve done a lot of terrible things in my life, but participating in a religious inquisition against members of my own family is the one for which I find it hardest to forgive myself.
Now, I’m not trying to say that the church should not guard against sin. I just think it’s important to keep in mind that of all forms of sin, Jesus spoke most harshly against hypocrisy and self-righteousness. And, if we look at church history honestly, we’ll see that this particular variety of sin has been more damaging to the cause of Christ than any other. So, maybe, we would do well to focus our main efforts on rooting out that kind of sin first before we try to deal with other kinds of sin. And I think we’ll find our vision vastly improved once we’ve removed the logs from our eyes.
LikeLike
yes. here you have captured the essence of how american evangelical christianity looks to me.
mark galli of christianity to day says this well:
The doctrine of grace is so radical and so contrary to our assumptions about what religion is about, that once we express it in a clear fashion, it will appall people. Because we’re all so anxious—even people like me who preach grace—to justify our lives. We want our lives to be meaningful, purposeful, useful. So we hook our futures to God and think, “Now I can really make my life purposeful and useful and I can do something for God in the world. And if I work with God, he’s going to change me.†We’re not so interested in God a lot of times, we’re tired of who we are and we’re more interested in wanting to be a different kind of person so we can feel better about ourselves. So much of our religious language and religious motive is about ourselves: justifying ourselves or improving ourselves, with God as a means to that end. Well, the fact of the matter is it’s not about you. But that’s shocking and appalling to most people because we’re so used to thinking that religion is about us, even though we’ve learned to use religious language to suggest otherwise. But in fact, it really ends up being all about us.
http://mockingbirdnyc.blogspot.com/2009/11/exclusive-interview-mark-galli-of.html
LikeLike
i have heard this expressed as ‘we need to clear out the sinful clutter of our lives so there is room for God. ‘ God does not need us to do this.,
LikeLike
excellent! i can add another reason: many (not all) ‘gay friendly’ churches or ‘gay churches’ are short on good doctrine, believe in the bible as god’s word and most of all, short on the Gospel of Jesus christ (=his life death and resurrection for the forgiveness of sins).
a true christian would naturally put up with a certain amount of rejection or discomfort by joining to a church where some might say ignorant things to them rather than chosing the more ‘comfortable’ but less comforting route of joining to a church where the Gospel is not preached.
we do not question the possiblility of faith in the hearts of fat persons or baptists or lutherans or calvinists or arminians or those who sincerely do not see the bible condemning what we see as unrepented of error and which they do not see.
Only hearing the gospel can produce faith/sanctification which results in the fruits of faith. why would we want to cut anyone off from the ONE thing that would produce this.
often pastors invite people to look for another church because they are lazy or fearful of opening a pandoras box (pastors are human too!). I think it would be wise for pastors to resist such impulses and let God sort thing out.
LikeLike
We don’t have any sinners at our church, sexual or otherwise. We’re very pure and any gossipers, slanderers or greedy people who come through the door are left in no doubt as to their moral failure and asked to leave. I find this makes for a very peaceful, quiet service where I can meditate in solitude. The lump of wood in my eye is, however, most uncomfortable.
LikeLike
They are married, in actual fact, aren’t they? One flesh and all that? They’ve just not accepted it yet, or got the certificate, but they have “left and cleft”, so are married in biblicl terms, and although to split up permanently may be legally straightforward, it is still, biblically speaking a “divorce” of two who have become one flesh.
LikeLike
amen!
LikeLike
naw. tell them the whole truth and let them hunger and thirst for Righteousness found only in Christ and wholy outside of ourselves. if your sole aim is behavior modification, then maybe you are right. IF that is your aim dear ben. but then, you do not need christ at all for that. you only need free will, reason, will power, self discipline and all the other tools that DO allow pagans to most often succeed at being MORE rigteous outwardly than the best of christians seem to manage to be.
LikeLike
true Chris G! but there are scripture passages like the one you quoted that says ‘treat him like a brother’ and those other pesky passages that trouble aspiring ‘fruit inspectors’ like those about leaving to Jesus to separate sheep/goats, wheat/weeds.and his comment that in our zeal to pull up weeds we risk also pulling up the wheat. and then also those passages about smouldering wicks and bruised reeds…..
the other problem is that we do all this righteous weed-pulling ..um… rather selectively. Gluttony is a sin that is um… BIG and is listed as one of the seven deadly sins. I might point out that none of the various forms of sexual sinning we love to home in on are named directly in that list.
So you are teling me that you are dragging christ through the mud by not ‘reading’ every fat church lady the riot act because it is oh-so-obvious that her very faith and soul are in jeopardy because she isn’t exercising enough discipline? why.. that would be a GREAT way to utterly decimate the population of most baptist evangelical and penticostal churches that I have ever been to!
God bless you in your journey dear brother. if you apply these same standards , honestly, to your own self, you must have one very terrified conscience.
LikeLike
Costs of premarital counselling? It’s free isn’t it? Or do you think it “expensive” if the couple have to suffer the indignity of being told that living together is not ideal?
I hardly think a wedding is something that requires a great deal of saving for. How much does the pastor charge? And a bring and share lunch need hardly cost the couple anything. A “simple gold band” may be extravagant to some (Adam and Eve?) but I don’t think mine was as much as $20
LikeLike
The notion that anyone who has sex becomes “one flesh” (in the permanent sense) is perverse, though I do see how the gospel could be read that way. Sex by itself lacks the crucial element of intent (to marry), in addition to the obvious practical problem of deciding which of various former partners Christ requires us to go back to.
Catholic theology teaches that the couple must intend / agree to marry one another (i.e., say the equivalent of “I do”), and call on God to witness this union. Just having sex isn’t enough. Nor, oddly, is it enough to have a secular wedding, or any other wedding in which God is not invoked. (i.e., the children of Buddhists are all living in sin.) The priest is necessary to make the cermony licit, but not for validity.
Some other interesting questions: Does Christianity allow polygamy or concubinage? (Who decides?) To what extent must a Christian couple observe secular laws relating to marriage? May (or should) a new convert divorce his or her non-believing spouse?
LikeLike
“Hey Peter! Your master is no good, he eats with tax collectors and sinners” What kind of a man would associate himself with sinners? The Lord Jesus.
LikeLike
This all sounds really good, in the world of tolerance, But the interesting thing I noticed was the almost complete lack of scripture to back the opinions set forth on this post. There were vague references to Jesus never, Judgement, but isn’t our faith and practice guided by scripture alone
II Thes 3:13-15 As for you, brothers, do not grow weary in doing good. 14 If anyone does not obey what we say in this letter, take note of that person, and have nothing to do with him, that he may be ashamed. 15 Do not regard him as an enemy, but warn him as a brother..
Maybe I’m foolish but isn’t the Church the called out ones and that the called out ones are repenters, so while a person is welcome to come to church building for there is the power of the gospel. They would if in open sin be not showing the fruits of repentance that occur in rejeneration.
Wouldn’t the reason that it would be approving of the sin by winking at it and giving it a pass, and in so doing dragging the bride of Christ thru the mud?
LikeLike
Ed:
Great gospel-centered response. I only wish more churches took the same approach. . .
LikeLike
I was pondering on this question of attitudes to truth and grace last week, and came up with this expression of the two options:
“Tell them the whole truth
And let them burn
Or tell them half the truth
And let them learn”
LikeLike
Oh, and Patrick, I actually believe that the State of California ..and any other secular state… does not have the authority, religiously speaking, to marry people. In otherwords, the state legal paperwork does not make a marriage or a wedding in my opinion.
LikeLike
That’s very true. When I think of weddings, I do think a lot of expenses can be cut, nonetheless there are costs. Like the cost of pastoral, pre-marital, counseling (yes, I know most of them would demand the couple not live together).
LikeLike
It is one thing to extend a courteous welcome… but sometimes another when they want to get involved in the life of the church. What would you do if the couple wants to lead a bible study group?
LikeLike
Matthew, can you please point me to the passages in scripture that delineate how church membership and “permission to take communion” are laid out? Also, which other sins matter? Do we close the table to gossips as well? To liars, cheaters, and layabouts? How about to any man who looks at a woman and lusts after her? I mean, if I take Matthew 5:27-28 seriously (and I do), and I cannot allow anyone to the table who lives in sin, pretty much every teenage boy would be sitting communion out.
This is not written in a spirit of rebellion, nor am I suggesting that you are right or wrong about this. I just would love to hear how you get to that particular point. You aren’t alone here, taking that position, and I don’t disagree with you on the face of it. I’m just looking for scriptural support for this particular stance. Anyone else who wants to chime in, please do. It would help me a lot.
LikeLike
My church history may be a bit rusty, but isn’t insistence on regenerate church membership:
1) A Baptist distinctive?
2) A relatively recent development in the history of th e the Church?
LikeLike
“The possibility of seeing someone repent of sin, come to Christ and move toward true gifts of forgiveness and marriage is apparently less appealing than the Pharisaic joys of letting sinners know they aren’t welcome with us or the God we worship until they clean up their mess.”
Amen. Preach it, brother.
LikeLike
In most counties in California, it costs forty-five dollars to get a marriage license.
The end.
LikeLike
“There’s a difference between sinning and living in sin, with no intention of repentance.”
That difference falls apart pretty quickly with introspection.
LikeLike
Let’s just remember that we all have a story. We are all broken. The gospel shall find it’s way. It’s not on our time. The God we worship is much grander and much more in tune with their story. Let us embody Christ in our lives as broken people who need Christ. The living waters shall engulf those who seek his love. We just need to keep it real and love as Christ loved us. Keep it up Mike. Let us remember that people like that are the most important people in the room. The most important thing we can show them is Love. We are just a piece of their story and a small but grand part of a bigger picture.
LikeLike
What exactly defines what is and what is not “wordly”? Because, so far as I have been able to tell, “being worldly” only really means being against the ‘pet project’ of the person you are talking to. I have been told that everything from listening to rock music to drinking (even within moderation) to dancing to movies are “worldly” and “real Christians” would not be participating in these terrible activities. But the thing is, the passage that you are referring to isn’t all that specific about what is actually worldly and what isn’t. “Be not conformed to the ways of the world” is essentially a more poetic way of saying “If Sally jumped off a bridge, would you do the same?” it’s basically saying “just because other people do it, doesn’t mean that you should as well”.
However, that being said, that verse DOES NOT mean that everything “the world” does is sinful. I do enjoy rock music, dancing and movies. (I’m under 21, but even if I wasn’t I just don’t enjoy alcohol. Although I respect my friends who do). And yes, I’m also not entirely sure that the bible really is against premarital sex. In the same way that I believe Paul was misinterpreted to allow slavery and to ban women from being ordained ministers, he MAY be misinterpreted in relation to premarital sex. It isn’t something that I am willing to go 100% on either way, as I have not looked into the topic too much.
I agree with you that we should follow God’s Law, but that doesn’t mean that we agree as to what God’s law actually is.
LikeLike
Amen. Good words. I believe God wants us to really try to connect with people as fellow humans and go from there. We have that bond by creation and we need to start from that. We’re all broken, and your points here are so true. Thanks.
LikeLike
“Seems to me that in this instance at least, “co-habitation†without the benefit of a marriage ceremony created the one-flesh bond. ”
Well… um… technically the marriage ceremony isn’t what makes you “married”. It is just the public recognition of the intent, so that before “God and everyone and their mothers”, people might know, “Hey, these people are getting married!”
It is the act of consummation that makes one married, i.e. “the two flesh shall become one”.
“What is the benefit (or the point) of providing a Christian marriage ceremony for people who are not followers of Christ?”
I’m not sure I follow you here.
LikeLike
“Are there churches that actually do this?”
My church does. Grant it, I haven’t been able to be too involved, but thats because I’ve been sick.
But to answer your question, I think that whole “taking someone under your wing” approach is easier in smaller churches (no offense to the big churches out there). While I suppose there can be issues with small churches (as there is in all churches), one of the benefits is that you can really get to know most of the people.
However, any church can do it- they just have to be willing to actually mentor someone (and with the way we are these days, that is a difficult concession to make).
LikeLike
This is a really good post. All the secondary conversation is really for another post, IYAM.
LikeLike
Great discussion…here’s my bit of fuel for the fire…
Genesis 24:67 – Then Isaac brought her into his mother Sarah’s tent, and he took Rebekah, and she became his wife, and he loved her; thus Isaac was comforted after his mother’s death.
Seems to me that in this instance at least, “co-habitation” without the benefit of a marriage ceremony created the one-flesh bond.
What is the benefit (or the point) of providing a Christian marriage ceremony for people who are not followers of Christ?
LikeLike
“A simple gold wedding band”?
Sounds like materialism and worldly foolishness to me. Where in the Bible does God tell a husband and wife to wear gold wedding bands? Did Adam and Eve have gold wedding bands?
LikeLike
It is often as thoughtyour posts simply sit on the fence on certain issues
[and yes I speak a tad out of ignroance as I am relativley new to your site]
It is sometimes difficult to gain your standing/convictions on issues like this.
In no way shape or form is a church to allow co habitating, “shacking up” couples to be members or patrake in communion. To avoid a certain vagueness and confusion you need to be clearer.
However, I like your pointing to the Gospel.
This is not in the spirit of a rebuke but rather I appeal to you as an older man.
LikeLike
Even the sexual sins sometimes don’t get much attention. I married a divorcee; that is on shaky grounds scripturally, to put it mildly. But we’re accepted in our (SBC) congregation. I doubt the congregation would be accepting of a celibate gay man, let alone a gay couple. A cohabiting couple who do not have a plan to get married would probably get a cool reception.
LikeLike
‘Imagine a Who Would Jesus Dine With bracelet.’
Now that’s some (I hate to use the term) ‘Jesus Junk’ that might actually be useful!
LikeLike
This is a great post with real relevance. I think the place to start is where they are. By that I mean that we don’t (in most cases) know much about the ‘why’ or other circumstances. We just assume it’s because they enjoy ‘living in sin’ and we don’t like that (and of course, are afraid our perfect kids will get ideas of their own).
Reading this I was reminded of my surprise (and shame) when I heard a fellow student (in an oral presentation) note that in New Testament times Jewish women (and almost certainly Samaritan women as well) did not have the option of divorcing their husbands – but the husband could easily divorce their wives. When that ‘historical context’ issue is understood, the story of the Samaritan woman in John 4 takes on a whole new light. It is very likely that John wants us to see this woman as a victim of immoral men rather than (as is usually preached) an immoral woman. Her only options were prostitution or living with the man who was not her husband. It is very likely that when Jesus ‘confronted her’ it wasn’t ‘about her sin’ as we so often hear. It might very well have been to show her, a woman who had spent her whole life being used by men, that someone really does care about her and loves her, where she is, without judging her. (The fact that the encounter takes place at a well, Jacob’s well, with all the OT motifs of finding brides at wells, lends support to this idea.) And it seemed to change her life (though we don’t know the rest of the story).
How many of the women (or even men) whom we see co-habitating are doing so because they were kicked out by parents, rejected by good church-going folks, or simply have no other apparent options? I have seen this in a number of cases. Surely we could have the compassion to at least listen to their story. If this young woman wants to come to church, is it not likely that God is drawing her? To me it is an indictment against the church that she would ask the question. As iMonk noted, some parent, meddling aunt, or more likely, moralistic preacher, gave her the idea that church is for good folks, not broken folks.
LikeLike
Churches are full of sinners, with no few persistent ones. The only thing really different about the cohabitating couple is that their sin is quite visible while sins like greed or prejudice or pride or lingering resentment and many others are more easily hidden, and probably less stigmatized socially in some places also. Jesus tells us that it is the sick who need the Great physician, and the blind and lame and crazy and homeless and lost and outcast are the precisely ones the Master seeks for his banqueting table. God forbid we should do any less.
LikeLike
For one thing…. I know a couple of serious, young Catholics who cohabitate for economic reasons. They are engaged, and are both virgins. They volunteered this information, I never asked for it, and I believe it. They are very much frustrated by the assumptions that people make.
But to get real, most couples who cohabitate probably are sexually active. But Christ never placed conditionality on community or kindness extended. He placed conditionality on plenty of other things, but he made it explicit which class of people he came to save. Imagine a Who Would Jesus Dine With bracelet.
Now talking about dining has made me think of the Lord’s Supper, and that’s a whole other can of worms….
LikeLike
Were we as diligent in keeping gossipers from our midst as we are with cohabitors and gays and lesbians, how would our church numbers be? And Paul puts gossip on the same level as murder.
LikeLike
Ditto.
LikeLike
KL, a handful of about two dozen of my closet friends and mentors are those who are qualified and know me well enough to comment on my views about sex, marriage, relationships etc. You are not among them, so please don’t imply that you know what influences my thinking on that matter.
I will say though, that one of the practical consequences of a divorce is further shame on Church. The Church issues a sacrament, that is then broken by often the most devout members. Co-habitations don’t bring this, since there was no sacred ceremony to be violated in the first place.
LikeLike
It’s good advice ONLY if what is meant by “they’d like to get involved in various ministries” means that they want to lead in those ministries in an official capacity.
Otherwise, BAD advice.
Here’s why: first of all (in response to BillyHW above), I would contend that ALL of us are living in sin— even the Wesleyans among us. Some of our sin is more public (i.e., “obvious”) than others, and the sin of cohabiters and homosexuals is in that category. But your leaders don’t tell you that YOUR sin precludes you from participation in body life, and they shouldn’t tell a cohabiter or homosexual that they can’t participate in body life, either.
If they want to be involved in the ministries of my church (attending Bible studies, participating in mercy ministry activities, engaging in worship) then they are welcome. I hope they will be, and that they will grow in their understanding of the Gospel (in both indicative AND imperative) through their participation. But I don’t expect them to “clean themselves up” before participating, any more than I expect all of the other sinners who participate (including myself) to “stop sinning”.
Second: if you say that, what they will hear is, “there is no place for someone like you here.” And that translates into one of two things: a) this church believes in a gospel other than the Gospel of salvation by grace alone, or b) this church teaches and believes that there are different levels of Christianity to which I must attain before I’m really “in”.
“A” is the reason why Paul wrote the letter to the Galatians. “B” is essentially a core aspect of the Gnosticism that the apostles and early church did such battle with.
Now, in welcoming them to participate then I assume that they will actually listen and respectfully follow the instructions of the leadership. Thus, when we “fence the table” and discuss the conditions by which someone may come to the table of the Lord’s Supper, then I assume they will pay attention to it (essentially, that they must be a member in good standing of a Bible-believing church, e.g., they have a valid public profession of their faith in Christ).
But I do not require that someone clean up their lifestyle BEFORE they may come to our congregation, EVEN FOR MEMBERSHIP. The vows of membership in our denomination stipulate that, with the ongoing help of the Holy Spirit, then members will ENDEAVOR to live in accordance with the teachings of Scripture, NOT that they ALREADY live fully in accordance with them.
Sometimes this will eventually bring up discipline issues, which I won’t get into. But in order for someone to be disciplined, there must be a degree of certainty that they have a clear understanding of the moral teachings of Scripture that they are assumed to be rebelling against. These days, it’s a reach to assume that of anyone outside of the church (and of many inside the church).
If they want to become an officer of the church, or teach Sunday School, or some other formal leadership role, that is a different matter. But we add nothing to the Gospel when it comes to welcoming others.
LikeLike
Most people not convinced that co-habitation or pre-marital sex is a sin are of course looking through a worldly lense…what is more fun and satisfying for ME? Sex now, of course, rather than waiting until marriage. Sex now to test-drive, just to make sure *I* will be fleshly satisfied and safe and unscathed, instead of faith that the Holy Spirit has allowed me to have the wisdom to choose the right wife, heed red flags and end courting relationships that show this particular woman is not after the heart of Jesus, and trust in the Holy Spirit to have a marriage and sex life that will please God.
“Practical results of co-habitation break up are far less” — of course if your mindset is one of the least amount of inconvenience to yourself or your property and assets, instead of your desire to obey and please God. This is a worldly viewpoint seeking security and comfort and convenience, instead of faith in God. You don’t need a big and untouched bank account, you only need God. God will provide. Even if it means you live in a lesser house or need to move out of the urban, expensive “L.A. area” that is pressuring you to conform to its worldly values.
LikeLike
I think there’s a long conversation to be had at some point about what a Jesus-shaped wedding looks like and how that corresponds to the contemporary cultural expectation.
LikeLike
I’ve never understood why…….they don’t just get married?
LikeLike
As a practical matter, it sounds like they would be happier attending a more liberal church. Send them to the Unitarians, or whatever the equivalent would be in Kentucky.
An interesting question is, what happens when people in a church disagree about what Christianity / the Bible / church tradition commands, or does not command? Do the pastor / elders / members have the right to “lay down the law” and state that one reading is definitely correct, or is it sola scriptura all the way?
Another question: given that the couple are already living together, would greater damage be done by encouraging them to break up, or marry before they are ready? Should outsiders even be involving themselves in such a personal question?
I am amused at the implicit suggestion that fornication is most tolerable when performed furtively, in the back seats of cars, and with a minimum of premeditation.
LikeLike
“That should be the way it goes. Introduce them to someone who can guide them. Who will lovingly confront them when needed, but mostly just love them.”
I’ve been going to church all of my life, and I’ve never found a church that would do this for me, let alone other people. Are there churches that actually do this?
LikeLike
“Third, both cohabitation and divorce are sins that disgust God, and you can’t know to read his mind as to which is worse, and if one is close behind the other.”
So, you express God’s disgust for Him? Since we can’t know what disgusts Him more…
LikeLike
Jonathan, I think it is great when the Church helps out financially and with living situations and such. I am greateful for the times the Church has been there for me.
Sadly, the Church is not always there for everybody.
LikeLike
I should mention that I am not totally convinced that co habitation is a sin, pre-marital sex and all.
Secondly, even considering that marriage is “on-the-job training” (which it is), and even if I do concede that co-habitation is a sin: the practical results of a co-habitation break up are FAR LESS severe than a divorce.
LikeLike
Of course they should be welcome to attend. How else will they – or anyone else – hear the Gospel? Allowing co-habiting couples or adulterers, homosexuals, drunks – actually all of us “normal” sinners for that matter – to attend should not mean that a church must shrink from addressing sinful behaviour. It is not a case of “we’re letting them in because we’re ‘soft’ on sin”. Far from it. However, when it comes to church membership, the church should make it clear that members agree to abide by certain minimum standards, and in that case the co-habiting couple would have to make a choice as to whether they wanted to become members and leave their sinful lifestyle or not join.
LikeLike
Yeah, but research shows that couples who cohabitate are more likely to divorce. There is no such thing as a trial marriage. Marriage is an on-the-job-training kind of thing.
I think the best solution would be for church members to rent the couple spare bedrooms for dirt cheap, (and help out with the wedding expenses). I think churches need some imagination in helping couples pay for weddings. A friend of mine from seminary (which is in So Cal) and his fiancee raised money for their wedding by recycling cans. Their church, family, and seminary communities rallied around them. It was fun to be a part of.
LikeLike
To respond to your first point: if you don’t want to marry young, fine, date but don’t live together. Follow God’s law.
Secondly, living together to “save for nuptial expenses” is unnecessary, unless you think having a $30,000+ wedding is more important than following God’s wishes and just having a marriage at the Justice of the Peace or eloping in order to spend within your means. Also, don’t fall into the “one or two carat diamond requirement” because that’s WORLDLY FOOLISHNESS and materialistic boasting. A simple gold wedding band will do. Do not put these materialistic things ahead of God!
Third, both cohabitation and divorce are sins that disgust God, and you can’t know to read his mind as to which is worse, and if one is close behind the other.
LikeLike
But that’s actually pretty good advice. There are Churches out there that welcome gay people without hesitation, so if it’s a stretch for a given body to welcome someone, why not refer them to someplace that will? I mean, if all churches are part of the worldwide church, then directing people to where they can serve best seems OK to me.
LikeLike
There’s a difference between sinning and living in sin, with no intention of repentance.
Why not welcome them to your church, but ask them to refrain from receiving communion until they either get married or change their living situation?
LikeLike
Great post.
My husband and I are partnering with some friends to launch a new church in town. One issue that has come up is whether or not to welcome people who have been cast out of other churches because of sins related to sexual activity. Right now, I’m voting “yes!” 🙂
If a church is supposed to look like Jesus, then it should share the reputation of Jesus – hanging out with sinners, associating with the poor and the sick, breaking bread and celebrating with friends.
Most churches are filled with gossipers, gluttons, greedy people, angry people, and prideful people. It bugs me sometimes that sexual sins are usually the only ones that get attention. This is one reason why I’m not a big fan of church “membership.” Whose sins are bad enough to disqualify them from regular fellowship?
I’m not saying that all sins are equal. I’m just saying it’s easier to got at other people’s specs with tweezers.
LikeLike
First of all, I’m not too sure how I feel about membership and it’s Biblical basis, but I know that’s not the point of the post. I’m just saying that because it was brought up a tool to encourage someone to get Biblically correct.
In my opinion, someone in the church needs to take a wayward person under their wing and lead them the right way. We can’t expect Sunday morning to be the dose of morality everyone wants. Very few people accept Christ as savior and immediately also as Lord. It takes time. Still is for me. But people can come to understand what God wants in their lives. They just need more than the pastor to show them.
“So yes, stay here at church. You won’t have to leave. And may I introduce you to my friend here?” That should be the way it goes. Introduce them to someone who can guide them. Who will lovingly confront them when needed, but mostly just love them.
LikeLike
What about 1 Corinthians 5. Would that only extend to ‘members’ in a sense?
LikeLike
As someone who lives in the expensive land of Southern California, I am actually becoming more and more understanding of co-habitation.
First off, not everyone gets married young. Especially those who try to make a career or pursue education in a place like Los Angeles. Secondly, not everyone has the same family support should they want to get married. Combining incomes, by combing rent, is I think a reasonable way to save for a marriage if your family can’t/won’t cover your nuptial expenses. Third, I still stand on the principle that a young couple in co-habitation, followed by a break up, is still preferable to a young MARRIED followed by a DIVORCE.
LikeLike
“People are broken and looking for something to glue themselves together”. That’s what it’s all about. Membership can be conditional for obvious reasons, but Christ loved the unlovely. How hard it is for us. Good post.
LikeLike
>Which clear biblical sins get a pass (cohabitation; fornication; lying; anger) and which don’t (adultery; homosexual lifestyle; paedophilia)? Is it all or none, none at all, all but one, or whatever?
Is this actually what you are hearing in this post? The possibility of a “pass” on pedophilia?
I’m asking if the sex offender across the street can worship, eat, be prayed for. Not if he can run the nursery.
I don’t believe I said “abandon all wisdom” when I said “let’s not be moralists or Pharisees.”
peace
ms
LikeLike
>when does grace become license…
Could you please suggest a concrete example of actual grace as Jesus extended and modeled it becoming license as condemned by scripture?
Do you mean did the Prodigal son have to shape up after the party? On a schedule?
thanks
ms
LikeLike
You’re right of course. But I struggle with the edges–when does grace become license, and truth become legalism? Out of a heart of grace that wants to be welcoming, does a pastor then soften the edges of Scripture on sexual immorality to not offend a culture no longer follows biblical standards? Or does the pastor sharpen those edges into a faithful preaching of Scripture to confront the sexual sin that is harming countless youth, children, and families? Or does the pastor simply blur the edges of “grace and truth” into a kind of “gracey truthiness” that accepts everyone into the fellowship of the body because we’re “all sinners” and “all on the journey to wholeness”? Which clear biblical sins get a pass (cohabitation; fornication; lying; anger) and which don’t (adultery; homosexual lifestyle; paedophilia)? Is it all or none, none at all, all but one, or whatever?
There is no real membership to withhold anymore, so that’s out as a spiritual tool for encouraging conviction and repentance. Perhaps the much-maligned and usually memberless “seeker sensitive” evangelical churches have it right–Sunday morning is for anyone in any condition; mid-week and discipleship groups are for the faithful; let the Holy Spirit convict of sin and righteousness; preach the gospel of a better life. No, that does’t sound like a solution to me either, but I’m not sure that there is one. It’s complicated? It’s inscrutable!
LikeLike
Yeah, that’s the rub about “welcome to attend”, but no joining, membership and more essentially, involvement in ministry, volunteering, etc.… …and this could be applied to gay attendees…
I understand the concern of ensuring leadership is above board… …but I always think about an incident I heard once — a gay couple coming to church and speaking to one of the pastors, asking if it was OK for them to attend and how’d they’d like to get involved in various ministries. To which the pastor responded — “you’re welcome to attend, but maybe you should find another church more suited to you”…
LikeLike
Christ said that the sick need a doctor. Hospitals don’t tell those who are sick “Please Go away until you’re better.” . Why then do churches insist that you should be sinless before you start attending? Of course, it depends on what sins you are committing. Gossip is ok, sex is verbotten.
LikeLike
That’s the complications I referred to, but the issue of being with us, worship, eating, being prayed for, being somewhere on the journey….those are things we should be able to express straightforwardly.
LikeLike
Thanks for the reminder. My default setting is all too often, legalism. Michael, have you read any Jerram Barrs? I think you would dig him a great deal.
z
LikeLike
I used to be a youth pastor at a church in Western North Carolina, in the middle of the projects in a small town in western NC. There were a lot of minorities there, which you don’t typically see in the Appalachians. There was a guy who had grown up at our church who had two kids with disabilities. His wife had been abusive towards the kids and he was in a really long process of a custody battle and divorce. At the time I was there, he did not have custody of the kids. From what I understand, this had been going on for a year or more.
He was cohabiting with his girlfriend, who had three kids from a previous marriage. While in many places, this would be irrelevant, in North Carolina, there was the added stigma that he was white and she was black. Both of these people were Christians, and though they had admitted that they had “drifted” or whatever you want to call it for a while, they were just looking for direction and a place to belong.
Anyway, they were both very capable and wanting to serve in children’s ministry. Being in the middle of the projects, we desperately needed help. But our church just had tons of limitations on what they could actually do. They could “assist” with children’s ministry, but could not be involved in anything other than crowd control or whatever.
Eventually they left. I think they went to another church and had the same rejection there. And then stopped going all together.
LikeLike
I am not discussing members or church discipline.
Co habitating members are a matter for loving counsel and conversation with the elders of the church and the eventual stance of the church toward such a member or couple is a matter for the elders to work with.
I have never taken a stance towards approving of co habitation of any kind. But I’m a sinner too and my sin is as much a part of any church community as theirs.
LikeLike
thank you for these words. I appreciate your willingness to grapple in these areas.
I was recently referred to your site and am happy it’s back up again.
let grace and love abound
LikeLike
Obviously we want to be a welcoming community to the fallen world, and by no means want to be Pharisees. I understand the girl and boyfriend in this situation weren’t church members, but does your opinion on not having to leave apply if they are members as well? I am speaking of church discipline. I know it’s a little different, but I am interested in what you have to say about that given your inclination to welcome people where the are, spiritually speaking.
Happy Thanksgiving.
LikeLike