Originally posted by Rajk999 Defining what a drunk is, is difficult. I drink almost every day by the way, but Im not a drunk. Medical science now confirms a daily drink or 2 is good for your heart. So does Paul and Christ.
I think its obvious you have some typical religious hang-ups Whodey, first gays now guys who take a harmless drink.
So what about a woman in your church that needs to have a piece of chocolate every day to make her happy ?
The point of this thread was not to validate what equals a drunk, rather, the point of this thread was to assume someone was a functioning drunk and then to assess what if anything should be done within the church if anything. Especially in light of them being a church leader of some kind. What say you?
BTW: I have no hang ups concerning drinking alcohol so long as it is done in moderation, just so you know.
Originally posted by knightmeister I doubt whether this man was born with an alcohol addiction so therefore he would not be able to argue that drinking was natural for him as part of his identity (as a homosexual could)[/b]
I would have to disagree. You see some people have a predisposition for becoming an alcoholic. For some people all it takes is one drink and they are hooked. In fact, I have met such people. Conversly for me, alcohol has little to no appeal for me in that regard. Therefore, I have been fortunate that my dabblings with it has in no way taken hold of me in such a way. In fact, there are no alcoholics in my family as where I have seen other families in which it seems to be genetically related in some way because many of them within the family seem to become alcoholics.
I think you will find that everyone has sinful tendencies, however, not all are equal in the type of sinful tendency nor are they equal in intensity.
Originally posted by whodey But what he is doing pleases the person in question. What gives you the right to judge him? Have you never hurt your own body by eating or drinking something not good for you? I'm sure you have so how is it you can stand in judgement over such conduct?
But what he is doing pleases the person in question. What gives you the right to judge him? Have you never hurt your own body by eating or drinking something not good for you? I'm sure you have so how is it you can stand in judgement over such conduct? WHODEY
Oh come on! I have no right to judge him , however the central issue here is whther this man could be said to be willfully engaging in sin. He can be said to be doing so both scripturally AND rationally. He is causing harm to himself and potentially others which is something you cannot prove homosexuals to be doing in a convincing way (other than citing scripture)
Originally posted by whodey I would have to disagree. You see some people have a predisposition for becoming an alcoholic. For some people all it takes is one drink and they are hooked. In fact, I have met such people. Conversly for me, alcohol has little to no appeal for me in that regard. Therefore, I have been fortunate that my dabblings with it has in no way taken hold of me in ...[text shortened]... cies, however, not all are equal in the type of sinful tendency nor are they equal in intensity.
Is the person in question an alcoholic? You called him a drunk but that could just mean someone who habitually abuses alcohol but is not addicted to it.
If he is alcoholic then you should ask people in AA what to do about it.
Considering that smoking is similar to the situation you have described in that the apparent sin (addiction and self abuse) is similar would you consider removing someone as a church leader if they are a smoker?
Ok, Ok, so it appears I am loosing everyone. What I am driving at is what should those within the church do for someone who we can all agree is "sinning". In fact, they are a leader within the church in some form or fashion. The problem is, is that their "sin" is not prohibited by law and neither are they "hurting" anyone by sinning other than potentially themselves.
The reason I choose drunkeness/alcoholism is because, for the most part, everyone can see it is a "sin" even though they may not be hurting anyone. Yet they are only potentially hurting themselves. Therefore, what should be done about it within the church if anything? Do keep in mind that the person in question has been confronted lovingly and it has not been recieved well at all. In fact, the person in question told those who confronted him that they were being judgemental and should mind their own business and that any further comments would recieve a similar reply.
Originally posted by knightmeister Oh come on! I have no right to judge him , however the central issue here is whther this man could be said to be willfully engaging in sin. He can be said to be doing so both scripturally AND rationally. He is causing harm to himself and potentially others which is something you cannot prove homosexuals to be doing in a convincing way (other than citing scripture)[/b]
My point is, is that those who sin usually do not recognize it as such. At least they do not admitt to any wrong doing usually. After all, who likes to condemn themselves? Really anything can be reasoned away as being "OK". I know because I have encountered many who do and I have occasionally fallen into this trap as well. For me, holding up the Bible as my moral compus helps me from doing this for the most part. The only problem comes when people use the scripture to defend their sin as I have given an example of. For me it all comes down to wanting to know the truth and that means being willing to humble yourself if you stumble upon the truth. Everything within our lives is fair game because God's will should superceede our own will if we love him above all else. No sacrifice is to great no matter its inconvienence or hardship. It's only a matter of realizing what God may be asking us to give up. We all have a sin nature and have sinned due to our selfish sin nature. We are all asked, in turn, to nail such desires to the cross and to repent or to turn from them. The only problem for many is recognizing them.
Originally posted by whodey The reason I choose drunkeness/alcoholism is because, for the most part, everyone can see it is a "sin" even though they may not be hurting anyone.
I don't think that everyone would agree that drunkenness/alcoholism it is a sin especially when the drunkenness does not extend to undesirable behavior (drunk driving/violence etc).
If the sin in question is 'only potentially hurting themselves', then smoking and obesity are identical. Would you have the same attitude towards a church leader who smoked or was obese?
Do keep in mind that the person in question has been confronted lovingly and it has not been recieved well at all. I do think that the poor reception to criticism means that the person in question might not be such a good leader but without a lot more information it is really hard to recommend removing them from the position. Nobody is perfect and you may be hard pressed to find anyone better. In most churches it takes quite a serious sin for a priest to be removed from the position and in some cases even then it doesn't happen (think child molestation).
You should separate the issue of whether he is able to carry on his job as a leader effectively and your own love for him causing you to want to help him. A confrontational attitude will probably not help him.
Originally posted by twhitehead I don't think that everyone would agree that drunkenness/alcoholism it is a sin especially when the drunkenness does not extend to undesirable behavior (drunk driving/violence etc).
If the sin in question is 'only potentially hurting themselves', then smoking and obesity are identical. Would you have the same attitude towards a church leader who smoked o ...[text shortened]... him causing you to want to help him. A confrontational attitude will probably not help him.
You are proving part of what I said beforehand. It seems not everyone can agree what is sin or even if sin exists!! Having said that, just pick anything you see as a sin. I see that you picked priests molesting children. Exellent!! I think you would be hard pressed to find people defending this position. That is, other than MAMBLA and the ACLU. Just so you know, I find it abhorrent that people put in leadership positions who have committed such crimes are actually allowed to continue in leadership positions within the church. There is not excuse for it and I believe those who turn a blind eye, for whatever reason, will share in God's wrath with those who committed such crimes.
Originally posted by whodey There is not excuse for it and I believe those who turn a blind eye, for whatever reason, will share in God's wrath with those who committed such crimes.
But less serious sins such as extra-marital affairs, stealing, corruption etc are common and often overlooked when it comes to church leaders.
One of the most despicable displays I have witnessed is the way the Churches in Zambia line up to receive bribes. Our previous president used to dish out money to churches and church leaders in the hope of getting votes. The money was often fought over quite dramatically within the churches and the scandals actually caused some church leaders to loose their jobs.
I do not know if the current president continues the practice but it is quite likely as churches are quite influential politically so bribing them is quite effective.
Originally posted by whodey .....what if anything should be done within the church if anything. Especially in light of them being a church leader of some kind. What say you?..
This is as difficult one to answer. Cant say yes or no unless I can have a clearer picture in my mind about the personality in question.
But in general, I would think though that Paul's letter TImothy (I Tim 3) which has some details of the attributes of a leader in the church, should be applied. The long and short of it is that a leader in a church must be blameless and live an exemplary life so those he was meant to lead might look up to him.
Originally posted by Rajk999 This is as difficult one to answer. Cant say yes or no unless I can have a clearer picture in my mind about the personality in question.
But in general, I would think though that Paul's letter TImothy (I Tim 3) which has some details of the attributes of a leader in the church, should be applied. The long and short of it is that a leader in a church must be blameless and live an exemplary life so those he was meant to lead might look up to him.
Exactly!! You win a prize. Our morals are formed from those we percieve to be in areas of authority. Examples include your parents, your politcal leaders/laws, your teachers, and society at large, and/or God. Therefore, is it not problematic for such leaders in the church to be in positions of authority when their authority seems to usurp the authority of scripture? In other words, when the Bible says X is a sin and the leader in the church says no it is not, then there is a power struggle of sorts. Whoever, then is the most influential authority figure will prevail in the hearts and minds of the people.
Originally posted by twhitehead But less serious sins such as extra-marital affairs, stealing, corruption etc are common and often overlooked when it comes to church leaders.
One of the most despicable displays I have witnessed is the way the Churches in Zambia line up to receive bribes. Our previous president used to dish out money to churches and church leaders in the hope of getti ...[text shortened]... s quite likely as churches are quite influential politically so bribing them is quite effective.
I think that ALL sins should be adressed within the church. I suppose you could list them concerning percieved seriousness. For example, child molestation would have to top the list and then work your way down to other sins. However, to diminish a sinful act by saying it is not really serious is problematic if you are believer because you serve a holy God. If sin is seen as the obstacle for relating to God then all sin needs to be adressed and not just the serious ones.
Originally posted by whodey Exactly!! You win a prize. Our morals are formed from those we percieve to be in areas of authority. Examples include your parents, your politcal leaders/laws, your teachers, and society at large, and/or God. Therefore, is it not problematic for such leaders in the church to be in positions of authority when their authority seems to usurp the authority of ...[text shortened]... hen is the most influential authority figure will prevail in the hearts and minds of the people.
Therefore, is it not problematic for such leaders in the church to be in positions of authority when their authority seems to usurp the authority of scripture? WHODEY
Isn't this what the creationists said when Darwin came along? Looking at scripture with a touch of science and humanity is not usurping authority of scripture it's just having some common sense about it. Are you a creationist? If not why not?
Originally posted by whodey My point is, is that those who sin usually do not recognize it as such. At least they do not admitt to any wrong doing usually. After all, who likes to condemn themselves? Really anything can be reasoned away as being "OK". I know because I have encountered many who do and I have occasionally fallen into this trap as well. For me, holding up the Bible as ...[text shortened]... he cross and to repent or to turn from them. The only problem for many is recognizing them.
My point is, is that those who sin usually do not recognize it as such. At least they do not admitt to any wrong doing usually. After all, who likes to condemn themselves? Really anything can be reasoned away as being "OK". WHODEY
I absolutely agree with this . Don't get me wrong , being a liberal Christian doesn't mean you chuck everything out and don't respect the Bible. I just think that this issue IS a special case because it is about sexual identity and not behaviour as such. I think as a church we have to recognise this and not blindly group it under "sinful nature". Once you investigate homosexuality from a scientific , psychological and sociological standpoint you cannot help but wonder about the culture and context of scripture and where this came from. Approaching this from the angle of scripture and scripture only closes us to the fact that this issue is unique and there's a lot we don't know yet. For example , what happens if science were to prove that homosexual identity is as deeply embedded in homosexuals as hetersexuality. How would you feel if you were told you had to learn to love men's bodies sexually or lose your church membership?
Compelled not to change
03 Sep '07 23:271 edit
Back to Top