Baptism while living in sin...

[Carl Emerson]

The word control is inappropriate and skews the conversation towards abuse.

It is in fact the Holy Spirit that constrains.

A Shepherd watching the flock would be looking out for behaviours inconsistent with the righteous culture that accompanies redemption.

The thief would be caught, the immoral would be cautioned to consider action appropriate to their holy calling.

We seem to have strayed away from the serious nature of koinonia and moved to a socially acceptable culture that is structured so as not to offend.

 

[dqhall]

We havn't agreed on a definition of marriage and I expect the same will apply to fornication.

If folks start being sexually active in a 'casual' relationship then remain together for a longer period - how long do they have to be together before they are considered married in your view?

And when does their activity switch from fornication to whatever else you want to call it ???

Do they have anything to repent of ???

Is their casual sex deemed acceptable in retrospect?

The Greek inappropriate contenteia is supposed to mean prostitution and sexual immorality - premarital or extramarital sex. Prostitution remains illegal for both the woman and her customer. A wealthy American football team owner was arrested for trying to pay for sex in a massage parlor sting operation.

Not much can be said for premarital sex or homosexuality as there are no vaccines for HIV or Hepatitis C. The treatments for these are very expensive. There was both homosexual and heterosexual/bisexual transmission. Heterosexual heroin addicts shared needles. Promiscuous behavior led to death.

Fornication resulted in bastard children growing up in single mother households. Birth control is available, but not always affordable. Some methods are less than 100% safe as there was breakage. A simple formula of celibacy for singles and fidelity in marriage should suffice.

 

[Paidiske]

The word control is inappropriate and skews the conversation towards abuse.

So the "cautioning" you expect leaders to do isn't controlling? So after the caution is given, the person receiving it is free to take it on board or ignore it, as they see fit?

We seem to have strayed away from the serious nature of koinonia and moved to a socially acceptable culture that is structured so as not to offend.

I don't think it's about offending or not offending. That's often the accusation but to me it's beside the point. I say things that offend my parishioners more often than they would like! But it's not my place to try to control their choices.

 

[Aussie Pete]

Hi there,

On a couple of occasions I have known churches to baptise candidates who are living with partners unmarried.

I have a couple of questions about this.

First do churches that believe in salvation by baptism believe the candidate is saved in this case?

Secondly should a candidate be re-baptised when they later come to repentance and stop such wilful sinning?

Sadly some churches don't check out such issues before the event.

Hi there,

On a couple of occasions I have known churches to baptise candidates who are living with partners unmarried.

I have a couple of questions about this.

First do churches that believe in salvation by baptism believe the candidate is saved in this case?

Secondly should a candidate be re-baptised when they later come to repentance and stop such wilful sinning?

Sadly some churches don't check out such issues before the event.

When couples who are unmarried get saved, we encourage them to marry or live apart until they decide what to do. It's tricky, but I would not baptise anyone who is living in a sinful relationship. "Repent" precedes "be baptised". It's even messier if there are children involved. How do you explain to children what's going on when the dad has to live elsewhere? Some Christians believe that living together is the same as marriage. In Australia, defacto relationships are treated as marriage in many respects. However, we are required to avoid even the appearance of evil. So no, I would not baptise an unmarried couple.

 

[Carl Emerson]

Sorry duplicate post.

 

[Carl Emerson]

So the "cautioning" you expect leaders to do isn't controlling? So after the caution is given, the person receiving it is free to take it on board or ignore it, as they see fit?

Me - Of course but there should be "wrap around council" that involves both parties, and the issue worked through appropriately. It is not controlling to lay out expectations.

I don't think it's about offending or not offending. That's often the accusation but to me it's beside the point. I say things that offend my parishioners more often than they would like! But it's not my place to try to control their choices.

Me - You keep raising the issue of control - as I said, the Holy Spirit does the controlling.

 

[Paidiske]

Quote's going funny, but you said:

"Of course but there should be "wrap around council" that involves both parties, and the issue worked through appropriately. It is not controlling to lay out expectations.

You keep raising the issue of control - as I said, the Holy Spirit does the controlling."

I'm not getting a clear answer from you. If you had someone in this situation, and you "cautioned" them, and they chose to ignore that caution, would that be the end of it? Or would there be some negative consequences (such as excommunication, barring them from membership or participation in the life of the church in any way, or the like)?

Because if you think you can "lay out expectations" and expect that people will conform, to me, that definitely sounds like control.

Frankly, I'm deeply suspicious of your claim that "the Holy Spirit does the controlling" when it sounds as if there's an awful lot of human meddling going on.

 

[Carl Emerson]

In a previous post you said...

"There isn't a "victim" of fornication..."

I disagree, there are two victims, both violate God's order and carry the consequences.

I'm not getting a clear answer from you. If you had someone in this situation, and you "cautioned" them, and they chose to ignore that caution, would that be the end of it? Or would there be some negative consequences (such as excommunication, barring them from membership or participation in the life of the church in any way, or the like)?

It would be up to you to make that call. If you get it wrong you could put your members at risk.

 

[Carl Emerson]

I have seen this happen - a member has a problem with fornication that is not managed properly and others in the congregation are put at risk.

We had to leave a church where this was happening.

 

[Paidiske]

In a previous post you said...

"There isn't a "victim" of fornication..."

I disagree, there are two victims, both violate God's order and carry the consequences.

Not in the same sense that there is a victim of theft. We might have to shoulder the consequences of our decisions and actions, but that's not the same of doing something to someone else.

It would be up to you to make that call. If you get it wrong you could put your members at risk.

You're still not telling me what you think should happen, or does happen in your church, though.

I have seen problems in a congregation when the unaddressed adultery of one member became public knowledge. I have not seen what you describe with some put "at risk" by the sexual behaviour of others (unless you are talking about non-consensual behaviour).

 

[Carl Emerson]

On the control issue, scripture teaches that to qualify for leadership, ones children must be under control.

In some parts of the world this directive is taken seriously and leaders are required to stand down if it isn't sorted quick.

What we learn in the family prepares us for service in the church.

This is appropriate not abusive effective oversight.

 

[Paidiske]

On the control issue, scripture teaches that to qualify for leadership, ones children must be under control.

In some parts of the world this directive is taken seriously and leaders are required to stand down if it isn't sorted quick.

What we learn in the family prepares us for service in the church.

This is appropriate not abusive effective oversight.

This is irrelevant to the point in question. I might need to manage my household well, but my congregation members are not my children, and it's not appropriate to treat them as if they were.

 

[Carl Emerson]

Not in the same sense that there is a victim of theft. We might have to shoulder the consequences of our decisions and actions, but that's not the same of doing something to someone else.

Since when is fornication not doing something to someone else???

 

[Carl Emerson]

This is irrelevant to the point in question. I might need to manage my household well, but my congregation members are not my children, and it's not appropriate to treat them as if they were.

I didn't say that... scripture makes the connection - argue with the author.

 

[Paidiske]

Since when is fornication not doing something to someone else???

Providing they both consent, then it's more doing something with someone else, isn't it?

A better analogy for theft would be rape; where the victim has no choice in actions which harm the victim for the sake of the gratification of the perpetrator.

I didn't say that... scripture makes the connection - argue with the author.

You're dodging the issue.

I say it is deeply morally wrong - spiritually abusive, in fact - for church leaders to use their authority to attempt to control the behaviour of their congregations. (Again, outside particular well-defined narrow parameters, like what happens in services).

I'm having difficulty getting a clear statement from you addressing this point, but you seem to be arguing that provided church leaders do so for what they perceive to be good reasons, it is excusable and even necessary.

Is that a misrepresentation of your position?

 

[Carl Emerson]

Providing they both consent, then it's more doing something with someone else, isn't it?

No... they are both party to committing a serious sin that carries serious consequences. They have both violated each other.

You're dodging the issue.

I say it is deeply morally wrong - spiritually abusive, in fact - for church leaders to use their authority to attempt to control the behaviour of their congregations. (Again, outside particular well-defined narrow parameters, like what happens in services).

I'm having difficulty getting a clear statement from you addressing this point, but you seem to be arguing that provided church leaders do so for what they perceive to be good reasons, it is excusable and even necessary.

Is that a misrepresentation of your position?

Was it deeply and morally wrong, spiritually abusive in fact - for Paul to deal with the sexual sin of a member?

 

[Paidiske]

No... they are both party to committing a serious sin that carries serious consequences. They have both violated each other.

Whatever. I maintain that theft is not a good analogy.

Was it deeply and morally wrong, spiritually abusive in fact - for Paul to deal with the sexual sin of a member?

We don't know what Paul actually said or did. So I can't answer that question.

And again, you have failed to answer my question directly. Is it, or is it not, wrong for church leaders to attempt to control the behaviour of church members?

 

[Carl Emerson]

And again, you have failed to answer my question directly. Is it, or is it not, wrong for church leaders to attempt to control the behaviour of church members?

Yourself have indicated that this is sometimes necessary and I agree with you.

Case in point - during Covid that is exactly what you did.

So the issue is not if control is OK - scripture requires it. It is a matter of when and how it is done.

Control has a bad name because of abuse, yet it is one of God's attributes.

It is like anger - anger has a bad name because of abuse, but it is one of God's attributes.

Scripture says we can be angry and not sin - likewise we can control and not sin. The issue is that it must be done in love for the good of those being advised or corrected.

Jesus controlled the activities of the money lenders with zealous anger...

and look at what Paul said...

1 Cor 5:
1 It is actually reported that there is immorality among you, and immorality of such a kind as does not exist even among the Gentiles, that someone has his father’s wife. 2 You have become arrogant and have not mourned instead, so that the one who had done this deed would be removed from your midst.
3 For I, on my part, though absent in body but present in spirit, have already judged him who has so committed this, as though I were present. 4 In the name of our Lord Jesus, when you are assembled, and I with you in spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus, 5 I have decided to deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of his flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.
6 Your boasting is not good. Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump of dough? 7 Clean out the old leaven so that you may be a new lump, just as you are in fact unleavened.

Need I say more???

 

[Paidiske]

Yourself have indicated that this is sometimes necessary and I agree with you.

Case in point - during Covid that is exactly what you did.

No, I didn't. In fact, I wanted to close the church earlier than we did, but I didn't have the agreement of key lay leaders at the time.

So the issue is not if control is OK - scripture requires it. It is a matter of when and how it is done.

When it comes to the church, it is fine for the church to order the affairs of the church (allocate the budget, manage the property, order the worship life and so on). Some of those functions of the church will be delegated to particular people and/or leaders, but if the governance is healthy, everyone will have a chance to participate at some level.

Deciding what hymns we will sing next Sunday is not the same as controlling people's behaviour in matters outside that kind of function.

Scripture says we can be angry and not sin - likewise we can control and not sin. The issue is that it must be done in love for the good of those being advised or corrected.

No. Here we profoundly disagree. If I attempt to control someone, even in love and for their good, that is in itself a violation of their integrity and is inherently wrong.

Of course there are exceptions, for example those who are too young to govern themselves, those who are for whatever reason unable to make their own decisions, and so on. But in general, it is wrong for one person to seek to control another person.

Including in church. And this is probably the underlying issue for what you're complaining about in your OP. You think my approach is dangerously lax, and I think your approach, at best, runs the risk of being abusive and damaging.

 

[Radagast]

and look at what Paul said...

That's an argument for excommunicating those in persistent serious sin. But the case that Paul is talking in that specific passage represents a fairly extreme case: incest with a stepmother.