Posted on 12/26/2007 5:32:03 AM PST by day10
We have a bit of controversy at my church and I thought I'd throw it out there for FReepers to discuss.
We had a guest preacher who was trying to make the point that we should not exclude people based on appearance, background, past history, etc., and as an illustration stated that, after all, Joseph and Mary were only living together and were not actually married - would we have excluded them?
He is correct that all are welcomed by Christ as we all are sinners. But they show that they wish to change.
Anyone is encouraged to attend. However, communing is another matter. First Corinthians warns that only the repentant should be taking communion.
I agree with your position based on what I read in my NIV version and after looking into a couple of commentaries. The speaker is stating that since the marriage was not consummated it was not yet an actual marriage. I assume he is claiming this in a spiritual sense.
Agreed, hoever communing was not the issue here, but just our acceptance of people who attend/come to our church regardless of appearance, past history, etc.
Although the scriptures jump ahead after Joseph’s dream. I am certain they are married by the time they get to Bethlehem because the rigid Jewish world would not have allowed cohabitation.
I know. I was only pointing out that everyone should be encouraged to attend church services, afterall churches are full of sinners but when it comes to communing, if someone refuses to give up a known sinful lifestyle they are not worthy to commune.
It seems to me that he’s saying that Joseph and Mary lived in sin. That just displays an astonishing level of ignorance.
Biblical betrothal held the same legal status as marriage.
I don’t know all the details, like were they allowed to sleep together during betrothal, but I do know that he should have known better than to use this example and cast aspersions on the earthly parents of Jesus Christ.
Some people are just too impressed with their own selves. ack!
Agree. I can quickly think of 5 or 6 better illustrations to use than this one to make this point. Well, this speaker is only an interim until we find a new pastor for our church, I am just praying the search goes quickly.
I agree with big ol’ Freeper — all are welcome, but they must want to change. And NO they were not ‘living together.’ What twaddle.
The lesson is to go forth and sin no more. The Church could accept memberships from each of them but not as a “couple living together”.
If a man is an adutlerer who flaunts his latest gal every Sunday and they sit in the front row, are they observing members of the faith?
He can be an adulterer and still be observant but when he flaunts his sin and celebrates it (as in Gay Pride), and denies it is sinful, the Church can look down upon the actions.
Sounds like this “pastor” needs to study the scriptures a little more. Joseph and Mary never lived together. They were betrothed and then Joseph took Mary as his wife but did not “Know her” in the biblical sense before Jesus was born.
Ping for later
This soulds like yet another leftist attempt to hijack Christmas, like how they claim that Mary and Joseph were homeless. Mark Steyn wrote a great column on this recently.
The customs were different.
The bible says both that they were betrothed and that Joseph considered divorcing her.
The homeless claim always makes me laugh out loud.
Does your Church currently exclude people based on these criteria? Must everyone be a white, heterosexual married couple with 2.3 perfect children and a net worth of $500,000, for example?
Where does the Bible say that Joseph and Mary were only living together and were not actually married?
Not at all. Let me supply a little more background. Our church (American Baptist, FWIW) recently made a major change in deciding to have both a “traditional” and a “contemporary” service each Sunday. The message the speaker was attempting to get across (I think, anyway, as this message was disjointed at best in it’s presentation) was that we should not exclude people based on appearance characteristics, background, etc.
The speaker was saying this in the context of this “contemporary” service, which I believe he is somewhat uncomfortable with. To make the claim that Joseph and Mary were not married, however, went over the line for me and I am happy this individual is only being used on an as needed interim basis until our search for a pastor is complete.
I cannot find that anywhere, which is why this claim has caused a bit of a stir... :-)
It astonishes me that some churches do exclude people who don’t “fit the mold.” My stepmother was aghast that her Southern Baptist church permitted drums, guitars and tambourines at the service and that men weren’t required to wear suits anymore.
When we decided to have the “contemporary” service, we had a couple of families leave our church over it. One guy even said that exact same thing: “There is no place in church for drums and guitars!”
It amazed me, frankly.
You are not understanding the culture of that time. There is much more to the story than your simple lead in statement.
Have you researched that cultural point of view yet?
Please do. They were not living in sin.
Check up on the customs and culture of that day. This was normal.
You indicated that this was a guest preacher. I’d probably give the regular preacher or governing board a chance to come before the congregation, and either endorse or repudiate the guest speaker. I’d then take further action, if necessary, based on their action.
At the very least, the guest preacher did a poor job in his choice of illustration, and distracted the congregation from the message he was trying to deliver. I’d expect a commitment that he wouldn’t return based on that alone.
As to his point, a couple that was shacking up would be clearly welcome to attend our services and hear God’s message. They should not, however, be approved for membership, and probably would not be allowed to marry in the church.
How seriously is their religion taken?
Not sure I understand your question?
Not sure I understand your question?
Sorry about double post - not sure what happened there.
Sounds like an Episcopalian.
Our church (American Baptist, FWIW)
What do you expect from a liberal denomination. You need to switch from a mainstream NCC denomination to a denomination that is Christ centered. Start by running from any congregation that is affiliated with a denomination that is part of the National Council of Churches. http://www.ncccusa.org/members/index.html
No wonder you've been exposed to bad theology.
And for the benefit of your deacons who aren't familiar with the Bible, I'd mention Mat. 1:16 and 18-19 (literally translated 'her man', but widely understood for centuries to be more properly rendered 'her husband' (see KJV, the older Geneva Bible, and the modern ESV. See also the Catholic Douay Rheims. )
The speaker was saying this in the context of this “contemporary” service,
The use of a contemporary service is frequently an indication that the church is trying to come down to the level of the people, rather than raise up the people. Thus, they try to be 'hip' as we would have said in my generation, or 'relevant' as you younger folks might say. ('Meet the people where they are' is a longer phrase you might sometimes hear.)
While contemporary services can be done right, they rarely are, and are generally a symptom of a bigger problem.
Did the guest preacher use the same terminology at the traditional service, or just at the contemporary gathering?
But, in short, you probably should look for a Christian denomination - perhaps Southern Baptist, Presbyterian Church in America, Orthodox Presbyterian, Lutheran Church Missouri Synod, Anglican; there are a number of others out there. If you like contemporary, you can find some of those out there doing it (a few well, most, as usual, not.)
While I cannot speak for other American Baptist churches I can tell you we are by no means a liberal church. Not by any stretch.
I was not present at the traditional service so I can’t speak to what he said there.
Our Pastor teaches this also; Mary and Joseph were married by modern standards, but he was in the process of putting together a home for them. In that time, the betrothal period was set aside for that purpose; the groom saved up money and set up a household to take his bride to.
That's not the official position, is it?
American Baptist Churches USA celebrates the racial, cultural and theological diversity witnessed within its dialog, all based on a belief that unity in Christ involves growth and understanding.membership. American Baptist Churches USA today is the most racially inclusive Protestant body. Represented in our churches are equally diverse worship styles, cultural mores and approaches to Scriptural interpretation. The resulting challenges and opportunities have made us stronger — through fellowship, respect, mutual support and dialog, all based on a belief that unity in Christ involves growth and understanding.
http://www.abc-usa.org/resources/10facts.pdf
And just how many genders are there in the 'pluralism of... genders' that the American Baptists 'embrace'?
http://www.abc-usa.org/identity/idstate.html
And what do some American Baptist churches advertise about themselves? " A progressive, liberal American Baptist Congregation"
http://www.oldcambridgebaptist.org/
Still say the denomination is not liberal?
But perhaps you don't consider 'gay rights' to be a liberal issue. See, for example, the web site of this American Baptist church. "“I don’t see anywhere in Jesus’ teaching that 'these’ certain people are not welcome in church,” said File, a member of College Park Baptist Church ... “I don’t remember a list.”
http://www.collegeparkchurch.com/news_record.htm
As to whether we are a member of “American Baptist Churches USA”, I honestly dont know, but again, none of the positions you list reflects the beliefs or teachings of my church. I can give you example after example if you like. The simple fact that this interim’s statement has caused the controversy that it has within the church is evidence, for example.
If the Old Cambridge Baptist Church you link to can advertise itself as a “liberal” congregation, why can’t my church be the exact opposite?
Do they care about appearence? Are they contrite about lapses in their background, past history, etc. If with child, are they married?
How seriously do they take the religion that they've apparently affiliated with? How seriously do they take religion in general?
Is there adherence to The Ten Commandments, or is it just "feel good" religion?
This would be a requirement as to membership in our church. You must have a saving knowledge of Christ, period. Weegee’s post 11 says it well.
In refernce to Weegee’s post, we have recently denied membership to 2 people that I know fairly well (and also denied them inclusion in our church directory which got that whole thing started) because they were cohabitating outside of marriage. Our pastor told them when they righted the clear and obvious wrong they were welcome, but not in their current arrangement.
I expect the preacher was referring to "different-looking" couples like two men, two women, two transgendered, two unmarried people living together, etc. If, after being exposed to the Gospel, they do not choose to change, then they should not be welcome to become members, IMO. Not that we do not all sin, but churches have to watch for infiltration from those who want to change the church in question to something it is not.
The main reason we go to chuch is to worship God and sing His praises. If we go to show how tolerant we all are, then the service is about "us" and not "Him".
I would like to add a little to this point.
(Luke 2:4-5)
4 And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; (because he was of the house and lineage of David:)
5 To be taxed with Mary his espoused wife, being great with child.
(Matthew 1:24-25.)
24 Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:
25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.
Mathew and Luke talk of Joseph and Mary in different ways. If the guest preacher only took from Luke, I can see how he came to the idea they were not married.
Yet, if you look at both together, even if they were not married on the trip to Bethlehem, Joseph still “knew her not” at that time.
Guest “preacher” needs to brush up on his knowledge of the Oral Law of Kiddushin. Most likely he’s never read it.
“My stepmother was aghast that her Southern Baptist church permitted drums, guitars and tambourines at the service and that men weren’t required to wear suits anymore.”
My church recently had a mass exodus of folks just like that. Its a more peaceful and meaningful worship service since they left.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.