Two Scenarios: Two Hearts: Your Counsel?

[ForHimAlone]

Two Scenarios: What say you, counselors?

#1 - Woman, candidate for baptism; lives with a guy not her husband by law -though perhaps by common law - has children with the man. Do you:
A) receive her for baptism after Q&A with her to make sure she knows what the Christian life allows and disallows and baptize her anyway, or
B) refuse her for baptism until she knows what the Christian life demands of her.

#2 - Woman, trustee board member in position of leadership and authority; lives apart from but still has intimacy with a man not her legal husband though the father of children between them. Do you:
A) Q&A to see if she is aware that her practice is not acceptable Christianity and, seeing she knows this, desires to amend her life - thereby retaining her position or
B) She knows and will not yield to discipline, forcing you to have her removed from leadership.

I have read extensively on this subject. I serve an outside church apart from my normal pastoral duties. I am not the pastor of the church where this situation is going on. The pastor is kind and loving, and perhaps too easy and tender in the area of discipline. I suspect he might even justify the case of #2 based on cultural norms.

Dr. Adam Clarke was convinced that "If this leaven - the incestuous person (cf. I Cor. 5.1ff) be permitted to remain among you...the flood-gates of impurity will be opened on the church" (Clarke's Commentary, six volumes, vol. vi. I Corinthians - Revelation, William Tegg: London, n.d., (1860-70), 40.

But he also challenged ministers to take the task of discipline very seriously, exclaiming, "But what judgment, prudence, piety, and caution, are requisite in the execution of this most important branch of a minister's duty!" (42).
Clarke vehmently denied the visible church could exercise the same sort of judgment Paul made to hand the incestuous brother over to Satan (5.5), saying that only the Apostles possessed this power, and that it was not conferred on the church in general afterwards, they only retaining the general ability to publicly or privately excommunicate or disown the wilfully disobedient among them who would not amend their lives.

In I Cor. 5.11, he says that those who profess Christianity, but who yet are found to be fornicators, covetous, &c. were not to be kept in sacred or civil company, even for sharing common meals, let alone communion. When Paul said to have the man "taken away from among you" he discerns that such individuals, disowned from the general assembly, should not be admitted to the "sacred ordinances," by which I presume he means either the Lord's Supper, Baptism, or both.

I questioned two pastors on this topic. One told me that no one has any authority to judge another because all are sinful; therefore church leadership cannot act like "Sheriff John" and go around condemning others' lifestyles.

The other pastor I questioned (both are personal friends of mine) said that in the case of the first woman he suspected ignorance present which would be rectified by Biblical instruction; whereas the other woman was likely wilfully disobedient and should know better, and to prevent the church from assuming it should sanction such living she should be counseled and, if ammendment not take place, be removed from her office.

What say you? No cries of dissimulation, please. I take every, such incident as this most seriously. See: Galatians 6.1. I seek not to judge according to the appearance but righteous judgment, even though my first pastor friend thinks a pastor who would counsel and then discipline either of these women (in the case of wilful disobedience) would be acting as the "dogs" Paul warned about in Philippians 3.2.

OK. There are your scenarios. Tell me what you think and please use Scripture, whenever possible, in your responses.

Blessings,
FHA

[Crow]

Two Scenarios: What say you, counselors?

I'm no counsellor, but I'd like to take a crack at this. I figure if I stick my neck out and I'm wrong, at least I'll know where I'm wrong the next time. :lol:

#1 - Woman, candidate for baptism; lives with a guy not her husband by law -though perhaps by common law - has children with the man.

I'm assuming that you're coming from the angle of letting this woman join the church and not from the "baptism is salvic" angle. Baptism gets argued enough around here and it's generally fruitless, so I'll only say that if one truly believes baptism is salvic, there is no excuse for not baptising this woman. Show me one person who's ever been sprinkled or dunked aside from our Lord that hasn't been unrighteous of his own acts and won't continue to be. Even if you don't believe baptism is salvic, how do you justify not allowing this woman to make her profession of faith to other Christians?

From whether or not this woman should join the church because of the immorality of her living arraingements, that's the stickier issue. She appears to be living monogamously and there are children involved. It's far from the ideal situtation, but my feeling on this is that she is in a damned if you do, damned if you don't scenario. She came into her relationship with Christ in this situation. Her children would suffer in their relationship with their father if she were to leave. If she were just hopping from one man to the next, I would not accept her into the assembly--clearly that is a detriment to the congregation. But this is a bit different.

I have no doubts that some of the original Christians were women who were slaves forced into immoral relationships by their owners, yet they were accepted. In this woman's case, the children's interests would be compelling enough to severely restrict her freedom to leave. I would accept her, making sure that she understands that this is a situation she should work to the best of her ability to rectify. That would be my call, and I don't claim to be perfect in my judgement on this. I would not put her into a position of leadership while she is living monogamously but unmarried with this man, just as Paul would not put a man married to more than one wife in the office of Deacon.

#2 - Woman, trustee board member in position of leadership and authority; lives apart from but still has intimacy with a man not her legal husband though the father of children between them. Do you:
A) Q&A to see if she is aware that her practice is not acceptable Christianity and, seeing she knows this, desires to amend her life - thereby retaining her position or
B) She knows and will not yield to discipline, forcing you to have her removed from leadership.

I would not put a person practicing sexual immorality into a leadership position. As per Paul's instructionship on deacons, there is a standard of conduct expected of those in leadership positions that is higher than those who are not in positions of authority and serving as an example to the rest of the congregation. I would remove her from a leadeship role, and her "common law husband" too if he is also involved in leadership, until such time as they marry.

[ForHimAlone]

I'm no counsellor, but I'd like to take a crack at this. I figure if I stick my neck out and I'm wrong, at least I'll know where I'm wrong the next time. :lol:


Redneck: Thank you for your kind reply. You're always welcome to respond to my posts.

#1 - Woman, candidate for baptism; lives with a guy not her husband by law -though perhaps by common law - has children with the man. I'm assuming that you're coming from the angle of letting this woman join the church and not from the "baptism is salvic" angle.

Correct. I do not endorse, neither does the church I speak of (which is non-calvinistic baptist denominationally) endorse the doctrine of "baptismal regeneration."

Baptism gets argued enough around here and it's generally fruitless, so I'll only say that if one truly believes baptism is salvic, there is no excuse for not baptising this woman.

Agreed. We take Peter's position, that water baptism is "not the putting of of the filth of the flesh," but "the answer of a good conscience, by the resurrection of Jesus Christ."

Show me one person who's ever been sprinkled or dunked aside from our Lord that hasn't been unrighteous of his own acts and won't continue to be.

Yes, all who are baptized yet continue to commit sin, but the act of being baptized itself is a commendation to amend one's life. When someone commits gross sin after baptism such an one could be for a time deluded and deceived by the enemy of their soul and given into temptations to live in gross error. Such should have the church come along side the person that they may be shown the truth of the deception that they might renounce the errors and returned to a better state of communion with Christ.

Even if you don't believe baptism is salvic, how do you justify not allowing this woman to make her profession of faith to other Christians?

By her profession she would be saying that she desired to die to the old life/self and be renewed in the spirit of her mind. Many believe that baptism is an outward sign signifying the inward reality of renewal in the mind, a heart of sorrow for sin which then leads the person to desire and be satisfied by the righteousness of Christ.

I wonder what sort of witness it would be to the church to admit one to baptism - as it represents one who had already been born again - who, knowing the error of their living would yet continue to live the same way. Let's say the person was a practicing homosexual, living with their partner. Would the church tacitly say they sanction such living by admitting such a person to baptism?

From whether or not this woman should join the church because of the immorality of her living arraingements, that's the stickier issue.

Agreed. Sticky indeed. Are we to presume that baptism assumes that a person has already been born again?

She appears to be living monogamously and there are children involved. It's far from the ideal situtation, but my feeling on this is that she is in a damned if you do, damned if you don't scenario. She came into her relationship with Christ in this situation. Her children would suffer in their relationship with their father if she were to leave. If she were just hopping from one man to the next, I would not accept her into the assembly--clearly that is a detriment to the congregation. But this is a bit different.

Scripture tells us that if the unbelieving partner is pleased to dwell with the believing partner then the believer mustn't shun the unbeliever in this case. But the unbelieving partner might find the living arrangement more difficult as the believer's witness grows. The children would suffer with a one-parent household. From what I understand, the father is a drunkard and perhaps abusive as well. In such a situation the value of his participation in the relationship with the children already suffers. As far as I am aware the woman is faithful and is not bed-hoping.

I have no doubts that some of the original Christians were women who were slaves forced into immoral relationships by their owners, yet they were accepted.

Yes, I imagine that they would be received. I doubt they would allow themselves to be subjected to prostitution, however, after receiving Christ. But that's another issue.

In this woman's case, the children's interests would be compelling enough to severely restrict her freedom to leave. I would accept her, making sure that she understands that this is a situation she should work to the best of her ability to rectify.

To rectify the situation for me I would suppose involve giving the children a legitimate father by lawful marriage.

...I would not put her into a position of leadership while she is living monogamously but unmarried with this man, just as Paul would not put a man married to more than one wife in the office of Deacon.

Agreed. Woman #1 is not in a position of leadership. This added difficulty of circumstance belongs to woman #2. As far as I am aware woman #1 is monogamous with an unbelieving partner.

#2 - Woman, trustee board member in position of leadership and authority; lives apart from but still has intimacy with a man not her legal husband though the father of children between them. Do you: A) Q&A to see if she is aware that her practice is not acceptable Christianity and, seeing she knows this, desires to amend her life - thereby retaining her position or B) She knows and will not yield to discipline, forcing you to have her removed from leadership. I would not put a person practicing sexual immorality into a leadership position. As per Paul's instructionship on deacons, there is a standard of conduct expected of those in leadership positions that is higher than those who are not in positions of authority and serving as an example to the rest of the congregation. I would remove her from a leadeship role, and her "common law husband" too if he is also involved in leadership, until such time as they marry.

Again, right on the money. Woman #2 should know better. I will, because of not having to name names and so retain the person's privacy and dignity, mention that the man involved happens to be black. Why should I mention this, you may ask...to me, it makes no difference concerning either person's cultural/ethnic makeup. It's not important at all. But there is a dynamic of this aspect that throws another perspective on the situation.

You see, it is my experience working with black ministers and parishioners that some among them concede to the idea that such a living arrangement by some appears sanctioned among some of the black Christian populace. The woman happens to be caucasion. The minister is black as well. I have heard, by other black ministers I know, that this "living together" (aka, shacking up) arrangement is sanctioned by many in the black community. Judging from the statistics of un-wed black mothers (as well as white mothers who've been with black men) I can see correspondence with this mindset worked out practically speaking.

On the other hand, I know of plenty enough caucasion couples who practice "living together" equally so its not exclusively a "black thang," as it were. I would have to see some hard numbers before drawing a conclusion that blacks have more difficulty with marriage than whites. But it seems as if the ethnic group with the highest number of un-wed mothers continues to be black women and white women given children by black men. Black ministers I know lament the difficulty they have of attracting young black males to the church.

At any rate, regardless of the ethnic issues involved, I would deffinitely not let this woman have a position of authority in the church while her living arrangement is public knowledge in the body. For the body to sanction her behavior would make them partakers of her sin, would this not?

The pastor involved I suspect may not wish to say anything for fear of losing a family. But to remain silent would be, to my mind, akin to allowing Achan to go unchecked in the camp. The body allowing her to remain un-disciplined brings reproach to them. I don't think they see it that way. Perhaps they see it as a way to "show mercy," but where, then, would be the command to repent in such a case?

If they were to permit this, why not allow practicing homosexuals baptism, the Lord's Supper, and position of authority in the church equally? Why say anything to teenagers wrestling with the temptations they face while going through puberty?

My first pastor friend says that to say anything at all would be "judging" and "uncharitable." He also indicated that this would be like "sin-sniffing," and uses Philippians 3.2 to justify his idea.

But I don't think that saying something to the person would be the same as "Judaizing." For my one pastor friend, the only thing a person has to do is "have faith" that God will change their life and that they have not duty or command of Christ to desire holiness in personal living. I have grave problems with his supposition here.

I am amazed, frankly, that you were the only person that took the time to respond. Perhaps a few others would show me the same kindness you have in a few days. I would be especially interested to hear answers from any TWebers who work in ministry at any level, whether deaconate, pastoral or otherwise.

Blessings!
FHA

[Ryokan]

Two Scenarios: What say you, counselors?

#1 - Woman, candidate for baptism; lives with a guy not her husband by law -though perhaps by common law - has children with the man. Do you:
A) receive her for baptism after Q&A with her to make sure she knows what the Christian life allows and disallows and baptize her anyway, or
B) refuse her for baptism until she knows what the Christian life demands of her.I'd baptize her. After all, everyone sins, and maybe being part of the Christian community would encourage her to get married and settle things up. I am not a protestant, but I would hope that any prebaptismal education program you have would have already clued her in common law marriage is not as preferred as an actual ceremony.

#2 - Woman, trustee board member in position of leadership and authority; lives apart from but still has intimacy with a man not her legal husband though the father of children between them. Do you:
A) Q&A to see if she is aware that her practice is not acceptable Christianity and, seeing she knows this, desires to amend her life - thereby retaining her position or
B) She knows and will not yield to discipline, forcing you to have her removed from leadership.


It really depends. Does she openly acknowledge her relationship with the man? How do you know she is doing it, presently, not just in the past? If she is open about the relationship, you really don't have a choice but to sack her. If she is not, well, it does seem like sin sniffing to me.

[Crow]

By her profession she would be saying that she desired to die to the old life/self and be renewed in the spirit of her mind. Many believe that baptism is an outward sign signifying the inward reality of renewal in the mind, a heart of sorrow for sin which then leads the person to desire and be satisfied by the righteousness of Christ.

I wonder what sort of witness it would be to the church to admit one to baptism - as it represents one who had already been born again - who, knowing the error of their living would yet continue to live the same way. Let's say the person was a practicing homosexual, living with their partner. Would the church tacitly say they sanction such living by admitting such a person to baptism?

My biggest consideration in this situation is the children. Since you go on to state that the "partner" is a drunk and possibly abusive, this woman is not only living in a state of immorality, but is putting her children into an abusive state. Yup, I would say that being a drunk abuses others around you even if you never raise a hand to them. I would not counsel a woman to stay in an abusive situation or marry an abusive partner to maintain morality within the church assembly.

I've seen similar situations like this over the course of my lifetime. An insecure woman hooks up with a jerk and has a few kids by him. She thinks that if she takes his crap it will somehow change him. Big suprise, instead of respecting her more he treats her worse because she's too doubtful of her abilities or too stupid or too afraid to do what most other women would do. Which is kick his worthless butt out. Many of these women grew up in a similar situation and the reality is that even though they might know better, they feel somehow that it is their fault and that this is something they deserve and/or can't escape. This is not a situation of a woman who is married to a nonbeliever who has regard and affection and functions as a father to his children--this goes beyond the scenario that Paul was addressing in his instructions for a believer married to a nonbeliever.

My question now is this--what is the body of Christ prepared to do for this woman?

This is what I believe would help to remedy this situation. The pastor might spend some time thinking about people within his congregation who would be willing to help this woman and who can keep their big mouths shut--usually the pastor's wife can give a detailed list drawn from sad experience of who the loose lips are in the henhouse. Then, the pastor or his wife could tactfully approach the people they feel are best suited to help and tactfully discuss if they would be willing to assist another person in finding housing and employment and childcare and offering emotional and practical suppport in excess of "putting them on my prayer list." From those who are willing, he could select 2 or 3 to discretely research what resources they might have to offer the woman. When he had a good handle on what could be done, he and/or his wife could ask to speak with her privately.

If it were me, I would lay it on the line and tell her how I felt--that her situation is bad not only from a moral position but from what it is doing in terms of harming her children and her. Her life is being ruined by abuse and her children are being reared in a situation which will poison their lives both spiritually and emotionally, and the lives of their children as well. I would tell her that I and the rest of the congregation love her and have concern for her and do not want to see her or her children suffer this sort of future. I would tell her that the church is ready to commit it's efforts, support, and resources, emotional and practical, to help her free herself from her situation. Then I would wait for an answer and pray that she makes the right decision.

There is more to being a Christian and functioning as the body of Christ than basking in warm happy feelings. There is the nitty gritty reality of facing the damage that sin does in the lives of people and dealing with it as a body. If that means buying school clothes instead of recarpeting the sanctuary and if it means asking around and finding out who in the congregation can fix a car up for this woman to drive to work or find a decent place for her to live until she's on her feet, then it should be done. Many of these women have been raised in abusive households and don't know of any other way to survive except to shut up and put up. When they get the support they need to break free it's amazing what they can accomplish in their lives and through improving the lives of their children.

Anyway, that's my take on what should be done.


To rectify the situation for me I would suppose involve giving the children a legitimate father by lawful marriage.

I don't see that as necessary. The children are innocent in this matter. There's no Jew or gentile in the body, and there shouldn't be any bastards either. How they were conceived reflects upon their parents and not upon them.


I agree with you in the case of woman #2. People shouldn't lead until they are worthy of being followed.

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

Two Scenarios: What say you, counselors?

#1 - Woman, candidate for baptism; lives with a guy not her husband by law -though perhaps by common law - has children with the man. Do you:
A) receive her for baptism after Q&A with her to make sure she knows what the Christian life allows and disallows and baptize her anyway, or
B) refuse her for baptism until she knows what the Christian life demands of her.I think that a brief period of introduction to the Christian life, and then baptism, would be a good thing. I would certainly not refuse to baptise her, but I would certainly explain to her that she will face a certain degree of unfair scrutiny in the Church. I would, however, counsel her to marry if possible. It's not that I think de facto couples are living in sin, but I do think that being in legal marriage makes a person's relationship beyond reproach in a different way. In other words, there is value in having no appearance of evil, but I would not refuse her from baptism or membership just because of the risk of what other people would say.
#2 - Woman, trustee board member in position of leadership and authority; lives apart from but still has intimacy with a man not her legal husband though the father of children between them. Do you:
A) Q&A to see if she is aware that her practice is not acceptable Christianity and, seeing she knows this, desires to amend her life - thereby retaining her position or Certainly, tell her to repent of what she is doing.
B) She knows and will not yield to discipline, forcing you to have her removed from leadership.If she will not repent, then removal from leadership is not what is called for. Excommunication is called for.

She should already be removed from leadership, regardless of whether she repents.

[Camasjune]

To me, it depends on your definition of marriage. Do you accept God's definition or the State's definition? Is a state license required to be married in the eyes of God?

Both women should be examined on the state of their relationships, level of commitment and the state of their hearts to determine if they are married in the eyes of God because it appears both women are married. Even though the second woman does not cohabitate with her man, it doesn't really reflect on their commitment to each other and the children. Many state-married couples choose to live in separate households, too.