Evidence for God from Science

She should be given chances to repent. First in person, then before the elders, then before the congregation. If she continues in this and refuses to repent, her church membership should be over and she should be excommunicated. (Matthew 18:15-18, 1 Corinthians 5:1-12). There is no need to seek "unity" among those who won't recognize the seriousness of this sin. (2 Corinthians 6:14)

2 corinthians 2:5-11

Let's pray it comes to this.

puritan lad wrote:She should be given chances to repent. First in person, then before the elders, then before the congregation. If she continues in this and refuses to repent, her church membership should be over and she should be excommunicated. There is no need to seek "unity" among those who won't recognize the seriousness of this sin.

I agree with you.

She was given a chance to repent in person, then before the elders. She hasn't gone before the congregation. Perhaps that should be done.

Matthew 18:15-18 is a good one. Thx

Lot of good interaction on this.

I've been through a few of these types of situations in differing capacities, (fortunately not as the offending party, thanks be to God.)

There are two levels of concern.

1. Her fitness to serve in a public ministry position. This is a matter that goes beyond what is permissable or her salvation. Someone who is in a position of leadership is held to a higher standard. This is demonstrated in Scripture where qualifications are given for elders in passages that I hope are familiar to most. If not. ask and I'll post them. Someone who has made a decision to live in a manner contrary to the standards of Scripture in an openly defiant, persistent and public manner, is unfit to serve within a Church. Clearly, with the facts presented in this situation, someone who is living in an openly homosexual or lesbian relationship and who has made a public announcement to the effect that they are "gay" and living in an openly gay relationship has made it an issue to where their leadership within a Church, could not be construed to be anything other than the Church's acceptance of her lifestyle.

The second level is her fitness to attend and participate within the Church. Here we have a different standard. That needs to examined Biblically and then also by the membership requirements of the individual Church, the latter of which may vary. Most Churches, whether they practice them or not, have some basis for Church Discipline. Unfortunately, all too often, they are not practised for several reasons, usually touching on the overall permissiveness of our society, relativistic values which encourage us to accept everyone or everything, lest we be guilty of violating the only standard that our society apparently values above all else, tolerance. To be fair, sometimes too there are legal issues that discourage leaders from acting in a manner that might incur liability.

The truth is, and I have some basis and experience for saying this, that as long as a Church follows what its written policy is with regard to Church Discipline, then it is highly unlikely that any court will accept a case against them. Where Churches get into problems is where they don't follow their policy which then takes them outside that protection. I think it's important too that Church's, even if there could be consequences, never compromise what they say they believe and stand for by fearing man more than God.

That's the technical issues to be aware of. The important issue to be aware of, in my opinion, beyond that is to come to grips to where we draw the lines and how we walk our values as a Church community. Jesus clearly modeled, loving the sinner and rejecting the sin or behavior. This situation may well be one where church discipline must be invoked. The purpose of Church discipline is usually two-fold:

1. First and foremost to restore the offending party to full fellowship first with Christ and then with the congregation. It is never the goal of Church discipline to punish, harm, or hold up to public ridicule anyone.

2. Second, and some may elevate this as first and I'll not argue it, Church discipline extends beyond the individual and has a purpose to not allow open sin in the camp. There is a corporate need that goes beyond the needs of the individual for purity. While obviously all of us are sinners and have not arrived, we're not talking about a believer here who has slipped and is wrestling to get up. We're talking about one who has surrendered and further is openly proclaiming their rebellion against clear Scriptural teaching.

This is never an easy thing for a Church to go through, especially with a public leader and one who is personally loved.

I pray for your Church and for your Pastor. My experience in these situations is that those involved in leadership need prayer and support now more than ever to handle this wisely and balance the competing Scriptural interests that are involved. Anyone who relishes or enjoys this type of situation or who can face this type of situation without anguish and tears while working through the very important elements involved, is probably not fully sharing the mind and heart of Christ who loves each of us deeply and passionately.

Occasionally these matters result in repentance and restoration to fellowship, and eventually even ministry. Not always however.

People will remember more the attitude, love and humility of leadership than what they necessarily say, although that is important too.

Led Wrote: She was given a chance to repent in person, then before the elders. She hasn't gone before the congregation. Perhaps that should be done.

Did she repent in private or not? I think thats critical to know.
If she didn't repent in private then I don't know if going before the congregation is going to change anything.

Mike

She didn't repent.

I think going before the congregation is more for the body to know where she stands so that they don't sympathize with her.

On the one hand they want to move with love for her so that she will come back, on the other hand they can't let her gain sympathy and think it's ok.

Right now as far as Matt. 18:15-18 says. I think they need to remove her and see her as not saved. "let him be to you like a heathen". So that she will see the seriousness of it and return.

Repentance and Restoration is always the goal of Church Discipline. Unfortunately, once it gets to the point where it is brought before the congregation, very rarely is there repentance, although it does happen. (In fact, she probably won't show up). Nonetheless, it should be done, with teary eyes, for the benefit of the congregation. This isn't to just make a public spectical out of her, but it will clear up any confusion as to why she is being excommunicated, and teach the church the need for church discipline to garner a pure church. Just as Baptism and a confession of faith is public, so is church discipline and excommunication, as it will make it clear to all that she is a heathen. Then we may pray that the Lord Jesus Christ would use that discipline to save her soul in the Day of Judgment.

I agree.

She is really gifted in the Lord and pray that she comes back.

It's sad to see someone before your eyes who was once saved now on the path to losing her salvation if she doesn't repent and come back.

Its funny how believers don't hessitate to call other people "sinners"...

What kind of moderator edits a post like that just because he does not agree? Funny how that kind of things only happen on this forum...

It's sad that non-believers would dispute that fact...

You guys are assuming that homosexuality is a sin. Why? Because it says so in the Bible you answer. Obviously. But Christians do plenty of other things said to be sinful in the Bible. Leviticus 11:7 talks about pork as being unclean meat. Leviticus 11:9 says that eating anything from the sea that lacks fins or scales is a sin. There are lots of other examples. But Christians eat pork and lobster don't they? They don't go to hell for that. So why do you apply the words of the Bible inconsistently? It seems this is more a personal problem some Christians have with homosexuality than something derived from true Christianity.

RE wrote:You guys are assuming that homosexuality is a sin. Why? Because it says so in the Bible you answer. Obviously. But Christians do plenty of other things said to be sinful in the Bible. Leviticus 11:7 talks about pork as being unclean meat. Leviticus 11:9 says that eating anything from the sea that lacks fins or scales is a sin. There are lots of other examples. But Christians eat pork and lobster don't they? They don't go to hell for that. So why do you apply the words of the Bible inconsistently? It seems this is more a personal problem some Christians have with homosexuality than something derived from true Christianity.

Liberal revisionists and others often attempt to denigrate the Old Testament's moral laws (particularly those touching upon homosexuality in Leviticus) by pointing out that we do not eat shellfish, wear garments of mixed fibres, execute Sabbath-breakers etc. If we have “abandoned” the latter laws, they ask, why do we hold onto the former laws as absolutes?

The Big Picture — God's overarching purpose has always been to restore mankind to himself. It was all of humanity that fell in the Garden of Eden and it was to all of humanity that he promised a “seed of the woman” who would crush the head of the serpent (and have his heal crushed in return). God began to unfold this plan by calling out a man from Ur of the Chaldees—Abram. God made a covenant with Abram, promising to make him a nation and bless him so that he could be a blessing to all nations (again, all of humanity is in focus). Israel herself would be a light to the nations and would ultimately produce the Messiah (the seed of the woman) who would restore all of humanity-- and indeed all of creation-- to God.

This is significant in that Israel's unique place in God's grand scheme, while honourable, was temporary. At the right time God would draw all nations to himself through “ideal Israel” as found in her rightful King (Jesus), and create a new people not distinguished language or ethnicity. So how does this touch upon the Law?

The Law — God used the law to transform a rabble of ex-slaves into a holy nation that would reflect his glory to the nations. It acted as a kind of constitution for Israel, defining the rights and responsibilities that they shared in their covenant with God. It had to tell them what was right and wrong (moral), and it had to tell them what kind of nation they would be (national).

1. Moral law — The moral components deal with what is right and wrong-- it is right to love the Lord your God and your neighbours, to care for the needy, to shelter orphans etc. It is wrong to commit murder, to steal, to have sexual relations with animals, near relations, members of the same sex, and so on. These morals find their origin in the unchanging holiness of God, and are in themselves unchanging. It is worth noting that one finds them echoed in the New Testament as well as the Old. These laws remain absolutes-- it is wrong to murder, steal, commit adultery and so on whenever and wherever you live.

2. National law — The national components cover everything from administrative, criminal, and civil laws to ritual laws.

The first category describes how God wants Israel to function—and it is comprehensive. They are told where to put toilets in relation to the camp, how kings should reign, how to deal with refugees, how to punish crimes and resolve disputes and more. While we can learn lots from it (it reveals God's heart and is full of wisdom), it remains their constitution and not ours.

The second category (ritual) operates on at two levels:

a) It deals with how one relates to God (issues of sin, atonement through the shedding of blood and the releasing of the scape-goat, remembrance of God's acts in the Passover and other festivals, and so on). These served as “types” (pictures) foreshadowing what Christ would accomplish through his life, death and resurrection. They were fulfilled in him, and so they no longer apply.

b) It also explains how Israel, as a nation, is to keep itself holy, separate from its pagan neighbours. Food laws, instructions on how to cut ones beard, what kind of clothes to wear are examples of this level. Again, Israel's place at centre stage was temporary. Now, through Christ, there is no longer any distinction between Jew or Gentile, slave or free, male or female— all peoples have been made clean through Christ's acts. The laws of separation no longer apply.

Basically moral laws are to be distinguished from ritual and other laws.

Therefore, yes, homosexuality is a sin but eating shellfish is now not considered so.

Jesus did mention "sexual immorality" as a sin, and as a Jew speaking with Jews He did not need to list what these specific practices were as all Jews were well aware of them from their knowledge of what was written in Leviticus. Likewise, He did not mention paedophilia or necrophilia or bestiality, etc, but there is no doubt that these are also regarded as sexually immoral acts.
The Apostle Paul speaks far more about homosexuality as is recorded in the New Testament, and there is no doubt there that such practices are regarded sinful. Paul's own educational and spiritual background had him very well versed in Jewish law, and since his conversion and the apostolic authority inferred upon him, he is teaching from his knowledge of Christ and the Holy Spirit.

Perhaps this explanation will help folk understand the differences between certain Old Testament laws and why eating shellfish and not stoning our disobedient children anymore is no argument to refute the fact that homosexuality is still an abomination to God.

Good Answer Judah and Nice to see you

G'day Bizzt, I do pop in from time to time and try to keep up with events on here.

This argument that is used to question the validity of homosexuality being a sin is so hackneyed, along with the accusations of Christians applying Scripture inconsistently, that sometimes I feel too tired to answer it.

What amazes me is that people will make assumptions without checking further into the issue, in this case, that being the different categories of law from which these prohibitions are an example. From not realizing that there are differences, folk will immediately jump on you with the notion that we are too ready to push some moral absolutes and not others (those others not being, in fact, moral absolutes at all) and that therefore we Christians are being inconsistent. The truth is not that we are being inconsistent, but that our accusers are acting out of a lack of knowledge.

Always, if there appears to be some inconsistency, it is better to do some research to understand the issues more thoroughly. A superficial knowledge often leads to embarrassment if one does not do the required homework, and doing the homework can often lead one to many very worthwhile treasures of understanding as an extra reward.

The prohibition of not eating shellfish or pork back in those Old Testament days had a great deal of wisdom attached. In modern times we know a lot about microbiology that was absolutely not known to humans back then, and in those hot climates such food would have become very unsafe very quickly. God's wisdom protected people from severe illness and it was written as law to keep people safe. These days we have refrigeration plus storage and cooking knowledge that makes these foods safe to eat. They are no more moral absolutes than would be a specific way to tie one's shoe laces.

But the moral absolutes, a reflection of God's holy character, remain the same throughout all time and for all over the planet. Surely the most casual glance at a bunch of Old Testament laws must tell a person that they are not all in the same league with each other? After all, most countries distinguish between criminal and civil offences, and even common sense tells you that it is far worse to rape a woman than to light up a smoke in a designated non-smoking area.