Advice Needed

[MariefromTexas]

We have been attending a Church for eight years and while I never have felt 100% comfortable there, my children have. I wanted them to grow up in a Church environment, similar to what I had as a child, with lots of adults who strive to live a Biblical life. In the past two years, I have noticed that this Church seems okay with leaders who travel together and live together before marriage. For example, a minister going on vacation alone with his girlfriend (who held a youth leadership position) several times. Also, the assistant to the children's minister lives with her boyfriend. In both cases, this is public knowledge with stuff posted all over facebook and otherwise openly shared with the children and youth. The senior pastor seems okay with this (liking pictures on facebook and making positive comments). Am I being unreasonable to expect that leaders in the Church would set a good example for my teenage children? Our family doesn't approve of such behavior and we didn't expect our children to be exposed to that sort of thing by people who should be a living example. Are we being too judgmental? Is this now commonplace in every Church?

 

[jacknife]

We have been attending a Church for eight years and while I never have felt 100% comfortable there, my children have. I wanted them to grow up in a Church environment, similar to what I had as a child, with lots of adults who strive to live a Biblical life. In the past two years, I have noticed that this Church seems okay with leaders who travel together and live together before marriage. For example, a minister going on vacation alone with his girlfriend (who held a youth leadership position) several times. Also, the assistant to the children's minister lives with her boyfriend. In both cases, this is public knowledge with stuff posted all over facebook and otherwise openly shared with the children and youth. The senior pastor seems okay with this (liking pictures on facebook and making positive comments). Am I being unreasonable to expect that leaders in the Church would set a good example for my teenage children? Our family doesn't approve of such behavior and we didn't expect our children to be exposed to that sort of thing by people who should be a living example. Are we being too judgmental? Is this now commonplace in every Church?

I just wanted to give you the heads up that you've stumbled into a part of the forum where people who aren't christian (like me) are allowed to post if you find this undesirable you may want to consider moving your post.

 

[Look Up]

We have been attending a Church for eight years and while I never have felt 100% comfortable there, my children have. I wanted them to grow up in a Church environment, similar to what I had as a child, with lots of adults who strive to live a Biblical life. In the past two years, I have noticed that this Church seems okay with leaders who travel together and live together before marriage. For example, a minister going on vacation alone with his girlfriend (who held a youth leadership position) several times. Also, the assistant to the children's minister lives with her boyfriend. In both cases, this is public knowledge with stuff posted all over facebook and otherwise openly shared with the children and youth. The senior pastor seems okay with this (liking pictures on facebook and making positive comments). Am I being unreasonable to expect that leaders in the Church would set a good example for my teenage children? Our family doesn't approve of such behavior and we didn't expect our children to be exposed to that sort of thing by people who should be a living example. Are we being too judgmental? Is this now commonplace in every Church?

In NT terms, the message as you represent it of the church leaders is that fleeing toward sexual temptation rather that away from it (1 Cor. 6:18, cf. 2 Tim. 2:22) is acceptable, and indeed that fornication is implicitly winked at or approved by the leaders in question (cf. 1 Cor. 6). The leaders of our church do not accept such behavior among themselves or our members and even take steps to avoid such possibilities, and while I cannot speak to the practice of churches generally in the US of today, generally such sexual and marital lackadaisical-ness (to put it mildly) would be broadly contrary to confessional statements and traditions. A few decades ago (in the US), similar practice as you describe of church leaders would be socially unacceptable even among non-church goers, though recent stats such as I have seen suggest a large percentage of younger generations--rather more than older ones--consider such practice acceptable (more or less like the pagan Corinth to which Paul wrote).

 

[MariefromTexas]

In NT terms, the message as you represent it of the church leaders is that fleeing toward sexual temptation rather that away from it (1 Cor. 6:18, cf. 2 Tim. 2:22) is acceptable, and indeed that fornication is implicitly winked at or approved by the leaders in question (cf. 1 Cor. 6). The leaders of our church do not accept such behavior among themselves or our members and even take steps to avoid such possibilities, and while I cannot speak to the practice of churches generally in the US of today, generally such sexual and marital lackadaisical-ness (to put it mildly) would be broadly contrary to confessional statements and traditions. A few decades ago (in the US), similar practice as you describe of church leaders would be socially unacceptable even among non-church goers, though recent stats such as I have seen suggest a large percentage of younger generations--rather more than older ones--consider such practice acceptable (more or less like the pagan Corinth to which Paul wrote).

Would you consider leaving a Church over something like this? We are not sure what to do. Our children have friends here, but we feel that staying would send the message that we are okay with this behavior. However, leaving would feel like a punishment for something they had nothing to do with.

 

[Cearbhall]

There are some Christians who don't see a problem with premarital sex, and I think it's reasonable to assume that some of them are in leadership positions. I would say that this is just another case of deciding whether you want to challenge this particular church's position on the issue, or whether you want to find another church that already matches what you believe.

 

[MariefromTexas]

There are some Christians who don't see a problem with premarital sex, and I think it's reasonable to assume that some of them are in leadership positions. I would say that this is just another case of deciding whether you want to challenge this particular church's position on the issue, or whether you want to find another church that already matches what you believe.

In this denomination's statement of faith, they specifically state this is not acceptable behavior. So I am wondering if the modern day thing is for Church leaders to openly act in defiance of the official position. I have similar issues with the leaders ignoring the stance on alcohol as well.

 

[Strivax]

So, is there something wrong with the concept of 'try before you buy'? Human sexuality is a messy business, and though people will always want to contain it and control it, I fear, in the end, they are doomed to failure. The tragedy is that while conservatives concern themselves with other people's harmless sex lives, real tragedies, such as deaths by preventable disease, and gratuitous violence, and even starvation, go unaddressed.

You asked for advice. Mine is, get some global perspective, and sort out priorities, and only then, if you feel the same way still, seek out some church community sympathetic to your sentiments.

Cheers, Strivax

 

[MariefromTexas]

So, is there something wrong with the concept of 'try before you buy'? Human sexuality is a messy business, and though people will always want to contain it and control it, I fear, in the end, they are doomed to failure. The tragedy is that while conservatives concern themselves with other people's harmless sex lives, real tragedies, such as deaths by preventable disease, and gratuitous violence, and even starvation, go unaddressed.

You asked for advice. Mine is, get some global perspective, and sort out priorities, and only then, if you feel the same way still, seek out some church community sympathetic to your sentiments.

Cheers, Strivax

If that is how you choose to live, that is your right and I support that. However, when you are representing an organization that is against something, and you do it openly, you are not representing that organization well.

The fact that you consider marriage "buying" someone disturbs me.

 

[Strivax]

If that is how you choose to live, that is your right and I support that. However, when you are representing an organization that is against something, and you do it openly, you are not representing that organization well.

The fact that you consider marriage "buying" someone disturbs me.

Dearest Marie,

It was an analogy, a metaphor, a simile, not an attitude towards the state and church recognition of the estate of matrimony. Nevertheless, it is the case that women, particularly, tend to look for high status, wealthy, partners for the perfectly good reason that they need looking after, being largely economically inactive, while they are bearing and rearing children.

As for representing an organisation, well, I consider organisations are best represented by genuine, authentic people, for all their faults, than cowed and constrained ruleservers who inflict their existential cowardice on everyone else.

But your mileage may vary.

Best wishes, Strivax

 

[Cearbhall]

In this denomination's statement of faith, they specifically state this is not acceptable behavior.

Ah. Then it would make sense to point this out.

So, is there something wrong with the concept of 'try before you buy'?

If the church leaders aren't practicing what they preach, there's a problem. There should be consistency so that church members know what they're going to get and can decide whether that church is a good fit for them.

Nevertheless, it is the case that women, particularly, tend to look for high status, wealthy, partners for the perfectly good reason that they need looking after, being largely economically inactive, while they are bearing and rearing children.

What country are you from, out of curiosity?

 

[MariefromTexas]

Dearest Marie,

It was an analogy, a metaphor, a simile, not an attitude towards the state and church recognition of the estate of matrimony. Nevertheless, it is the case that women, particularly, tend to look for high status, wealthy, partners for the perfectly good reason that they need looking after, being largely economically inactive, while they are bearing and rearing children.

As for representing an organisation, well, I consider organisations are best represented by genuine, authentic people, for all their faults, than cowed and constrained ruleservers who inflict their existential cowardice on everyone else.

But your mileage may vary.

Best wishes, Strivax

Yet you are on a message board criticizing me for not agreeing with you? Isn't that kind of the same thing?

 

[Strivax]

If the church leaders aren't practicing what they preach, there's a problem. There should be consistency so that church members know what they're going to get and can decide whether that church is a good fit for them.

Indeed, there is then a problem, and there should be consistency. We humans have very well adapted hypocrisy detection apparatus.

What country are you from, out of curiosity?

Does it matter? If so, why?

Cheers, Strivax.

 

[Cearbhall]

Does it matter? If so, why?

Just wondering, because mothers are largely economically active in my country (U.S.), but I know it varies drastically from country to country. That being said, hypergamy is still more common with U.S. women than men. I'll look for a husband who has a good education and promising earning power, for sure, but mainly to complement my own income.

 

[Strivax]

Yet you are on a message board criticizing me for not agreeing with you? Isn't that kind of the same thing?

I'm not criticising you. I'm just suggesting a perspective that may be different to yours, thus far. You are perfectly free to ignore it, and me, entirely. But you asked for advice; maybe you only really wanted confirmation of your point of view. Decide which; it will help you in your deliberations.

Best wishes, Strivax.

 

[Strivax]

Just wondering, because mothers are largely economically active in my country (U.S.), but I know it varies drastically from country to country. That being said, hypergamy is still more common with U.S. women than men. I'll look for a husband who has a good education and promising earning power, for sure, but mainly to complement my own income.

It seems to be a genetic imperative, dating back to our evolutionary past. Men like young women, capable of reproduction, and pretty, as proof of their genetic fitness. Women like socially successful males, as proof of their genetic fitness. For men, sex is the thing, the relationship is secondary. That way they spread their genes most widely. For women, vulnerable at child-bearing and rearing times, the relationship is the thing, and sex is secondary. That way, women's greater biological investment in their offspring is best protected.

This is not a national thing, but a species thing. Or so the evolutionary psychologists argue.

Best wishes, Strivax.

 

[Look Up]

Would you consider leaving a Church over something like this? We are not sure what to do. Our children have friends here, but we feel that staying would send the message that we are okay with this behavior. However, leaving would feel like a punishment for something they had nothing to do with.

You list reasons for leaving and reasons for staying, and there are probably more matters to consider, possibly like your other church options within a reasonable driving distance. I recognize your decision is difficult, but don't feel that I am in a very good place to advise you.

You may consider teaching your children (age appropriately) your reasons for disagreeing with the implied sexual morals (regarding stance toward marriage, for example) of the church leaders in question, and respectfully confronting a leader or two or asking them questions which give you some indication of the actual doctrinal stance which undergirds their behavior (despite the church's confessional standard), and if there is a church hierarchy above your church leaders (as there may be in Methodism), doing some investigation and/or appeal at that level. You may also want to ask yourself where this is headed and where your children are headed spiritually, say in five or ten years (not that that necessarily very clear).

Conferring with your children's church friends' parents (or other parishioners/members) on the issue can be a delicate matter, and one possibly fraught with dangers of schismatic tensions and hard feelings, yet in the long-ish haul if you are alone in a strong moral conviction, one wonders if you really have a church home, especially if sexual morals are not the only matter behind the leaders' moral drift from the church's statement of faith.

May the Lord give you courage and humility, wisdom and love for God and your neighbor, as well as children who think and act and even feel as God would have them do.

 

[Spiribala]

We have been attending a Church for eight years and while I never have felt 100% comfortable there, my children have. I wanted them to grow up in a Church environment, similar to what I had as a child, with lots of adults who strive to live a Biblical life. In the past two years, I have noticed that this Church seems okay with leaders who travel together and live together before marriage. For example, a minister going on vacation alone with his girlfriend (who held a youth leadership position) several times. Also, the assistant to the children's minister lives with her boyfriend. In both cases, this is public knowledge with stuff posted all over facebook and otherwise openly shared with the children and youth. The senior pastor seems okay with this (liking pictures on facebook and making positive comments). Am I being unreasonable to expect that leaders in the Church would set a good example for my teenage children? Our family doesn't approve of such behavior and we didn't expect our children to be exposed to that sort of thing by people who should be a living example. Are we being too judgmental? Is this now commonplace in every Church?

It sounds like you're torn. On one hand your children have found a community they're comfortable with. On the other, the church blatantly disregards the traditional Christian ethic. In my opinion, you should definitely leave.

It's definitely a drawback that you would have to leave a community your children enjoy. That said, your children can keep the friends they've made at the church. They can also make friends at a new church. While any good church should create a friendly, welcoming atmosphere and provide Christian fellowship, the primary purpose of the church is to spread the gospel message. This includes many things, but it seems you would agree with me that one of those things is treating sin seriously as something Jesus condemned. I would also imagine that a disregard of the Christian sexual ethic is probably just the most visible problem with your church in its treatment of sin and therefore in how it views the gospel message. Jesus died for the sins of the world. Knowing and believing that should drive home the pernicious affects of sin.

What you see in your church, isn't something you see in every church. Just be careful and have a talk with the pastors of any church before you decide to join expressing what you believe the gospel message is and how it pertains to church and community life. I hope you're blessed if you do indeed search for a new church!

 

[Look Up]

In this denomination's statement of faith, they specifically state this is not acceptable behavior. So I am wondering if the modern day thing is for Church leaders to openly act in defiance of the official position. I have similar issues with the leaders ignoring the stance on alcohol as well.

In my former post I had mentioned something about "the actual doctrinal stance which undergirds [your church leaders'] behavior." A bit vague, but as long as Strivax more or less raises the issue (and reminds me of something in so doing), naturalistic evolution might be an example of what undergirds your church leaders' sexual morals--not that it necessarily does, but the issue raises a convenient possibility for me to explain my phrase ("for the sake of argument") and a certain possible logical flow. And the topic might be one you could broach with your leaders, depending on your discretion.

In Mt. 19, Jesus bases His prohibition of divorce on the creation narrative in Gen. 2, which language suggests Adam and Eve's relationship constituted the paradigm for marriage--"and the two shall be one flesh" (and "leave" and "cleave," etc. from Gen. 2:24 and textual environs). Paul uses the same Gen. 2 language (among other things) to prohibit prostitution in the same chapter of 1 Corinthians I cited earlier on this thread (ch. 6) ... and argues in Rom. 5 & 1 Cor. 15 that death came through Adam, but life through Jesus Christ.

The creation narratives in Genesis form part of the introduction to the five books of Moses, for our purposes here for example suggesting that the God of Abraham was also identified as the God who created all things in the beginning--the God not only of the chosen nation of Israel, that is, but of all nations on earth. "Worthy art thou, O Lord, for thou hast created all things," as John's Apocalypse records (4:11). Sexual and marital morals in the Bible and our obligations to God stem in no small measure from our status as creatures under this Creator.

Do your church leaders then derive their sexual morals and view of marriage from such Scripture tradition, a tradition to which Jesus and the apostle Paul, at least, appear to have subscribed? If your leaders understand humans instead as products of evolution that can be very largely explained in purely naturalistic terms (which may be challenged in other venues than this thread), even if they believe in the presence and in some ways at least the acts of God, they may be inclined (to some degree) to view human behavior with respect to sex and marriage not as morally adhering to or departing from the divine standard (depending on action) but as functional or dysfunctional with respect to the reproduction and survival of the members of the species (depending on actions which may overlap or not with the actions flowing from belief in the Genesis creation case).

And that, I fear, digressed longer than I had hoped by way of explanation of one possibility (I wish the digression to end here). I hope you see how it illustrates what I had in mind even if I did not have evolution specifically in mind when I wrote my previous post.

Unfortunately, the above explanation (or attempt at it) does not address why your church leaders appear to have been unfaithful to their responsibility to uphold the church's statement of faith regarding sexual morals, but of course I don't know their hearts and minds, only that since and because of the fall of Adam, "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (myself included).

 

[essentialsaltes]

Am I being unreasonable to expect that leaders in the Church would set a good example for my teenage children?

Maybe they are.

 

[Cearbhall]

This is not a national thing, but a species thing. Or so the evolutionary psychologists argue.

Humans act far beyond our instincts, and sometimes contrary to them. I was speaking statistically. The fact of the matter is that the norms regarding the role of mothers in the economy and in the home do differ greatly around the world, and in my country, the current norm is for a mother to continue working.

I'm not passing judgment one way or another. I'm just pointing out that the majority of women in my particular nation have already been supporting themselves for years by the time they start looking for a husband, so it doesn't play nearly as large of a role in our selection as it used to (nor as you suggest). "The perfectly good reason that they need looking after," as you said, does not exist in my culture.