jodetoad Posted July 27, 2011 Group: Junior Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 8 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 86 Content Per Day: 0.02 Reputation: 4 Days Won: 0 Joined: 05/14/2011 Status: Offline Birthday: 02/06/1953 Share Posted July 27, 2011 Two separate problems here, both challenging. e lansing might have married them, had not the church division problem existed. The brother really forced the issue. My church has division, not related to a particular sin instance, but to personalities who refuse to give a pastor the authority he needs to function. Without that authority, he is an employee, subject to the whims of anyone and everyone. It is a major problem. As it stands, nobody has the authority to remove the problem people, so we barely function, and newcomers are repelled by our absurd politics. So I can see why e lansing had to do what he did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smalcald Posted July 27, 2011 Group: Royal Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 32 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 5,258 Content Per Day: 0.76 Reputation: 42 Days Won: 3 Joined: 06/16/2005 Status: Offline Birthday: 07/22/1960 Share Posted July 27, 2011 Well the key issue here is that these are not new Christians or unbelievers who are seeking Christ. They claim to know Christ already. Excommunication is an accepted and important process that helps people, certainly it is strong medicine, but it also is not permanent. This couple simply had to repent and they would be welcomed back right now. But part of being a hospital is administering medicine not making people more sick by condoning their sin and thus encouraging the sickness. There is also the issue Paul speaks of, how the Lord's name is blasphemed because of the outward sin of Christians in Corinth. In this case he was saying look, there is sin going on among you not even named among the non-believers, you need to put the person out for the sake of Christ and your Church. He also said the person could come back though. We find ourselves in that situation today where the sin practiced within the Church is sometimes worse than sin practiced by unbelievers who mock the name of Christ because of our actions. As far as the scripture E lansing used it was not just one verse, it was a pretty detailed description of the situation he faced and it gave guidance on what he should do. 1 Corinthians 5 Immorality Defiles the Church 1 It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and such sexual immorality as is not even named[a] among the Gentiles—that a man has his father’s wife! 2 And you are puffed up, and have not rather mourned, that he who has done this deed might be taken away from among you. 3 For I indeed, as absent in body but present in spirit, have already judged (as though I were present) him who has so done this deed. 4 In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when you are gathered together, along with my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, 5 deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus. 6 Your glorying is not good. Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump? 7 Therefore purge out the old leaven, that you may be a new lump, since you truly are unleavened. For indeed Christ, our Passover, was sacrificed for us.[c] 8 Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, nor with the leaven of malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth. Immorality Must Be Judged 9 I wrote to you in my epistle not to keep company with sexually immoral people. 10 Yet I certainly did not mean with the sexually immoral people of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world. 11 But now I have written to you not to keep company with anyone named a brother, who is sexually immoral, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or an extortioner—not even to eat with such a person. 12 For what have I to do with judging those also who are outside? Do you not judge those who are inside? 13 But those who are outside God judges. Therefore “put away from yourselves the evil person.”[d] They cannot be excommunicated . They are sinners in need of a Saviour. Hi Littlelamb. I think part of the problem is the common and incorrect understanding of excommunication. Excommunication is not saying you are not saved, it is not saying you are doomed and out of the Church forever. What excommunication is, is simply the final step in Church discipline, the point of Church discipline is to bring people back to Christ. A Church that cannot or refuses to practice Church discipline is hurting the Body of Christ not helping the Body of Christ. Why does St. Paul say to literally shun those who are openly and in an unrepentant way sexually immoral? It is not because he wants to stick it to them or hurt them, it is to show them the error of their ways in hope that they will through being shunned see the severity of their situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldzimm Posted July 28, 2011 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 85 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 1,874 Content Per Day: 0.34 Reputation: 348 Days Won: 12 Joined: 03/10/2009 Status: Offline Birthday: 07/08/1955 Share Posted July 28, 2011 Two separate problems here, both challenging. e lansing might have married them, had not the church division problem existed. The brother really forced the issue. My church has division, not related to a particular sin instance, but to personalities who refuse to give a pastor the authority he needs to function. Without that authority, he is an employee, subject to the whims of anyone and everyone. It is a major problem. As it stands, nobody has the authority to remove the problem people, so we barely function, and newcomers are repelled by our absurd politics. So I can see why e lansing had to do what he did. I have heard on a Christian talk radio program, that most division in a Church comes from somebody on the council having a power trip. An example was given with a new pastor coming to a Church and giving some of the ideas he had. An elder said that is not the way it was going to be, I was here before you came here and I'll be here when you leave. When somebody has an attitude like that, it seem God's works were moved to the back burner, hardly very Christian like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isaiah 6:8 Posted July 28, 2011 Group: Royal Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 426 Topics Per Day: 0.07 Content Count: 3,633 Content Per Day: 0.58 Reputation: 222 Days Won: 13 Joined: 03/23/2007 Status: Offline Birthday: 08/26/1978 Share Posted July 28, 2011 Two separate problems here, both challenging. e lansing might have married them, had not the church division problem existed. The brother really forced the issue. My church has division, not related to a particular sin instance, but to personalities who refuse to give a pastor the authority he needs to function. Without that authority, he is an employee, subject to the whims of anyone and everyone. It is a major problem. As it stands, nobody has the authority to remove the problem people, so we barely function, and newcomers are repelled by our absurd politics. So I can see why e lansing had to do what he did. I have heard on a Christian talk radio program, that most division in a Church comes from somebody on the council having a power trip. An example was given with a new pastor coming to a Church and giving some of the ideas he had. An elder said that is not the way it was going to be, I was here before you came here and I'll be here when you leave. When somebody has an attitude like that, it seem God's works were moved to the back burner, hardly very Christian like. That would be pertinent, if one did not take the steps to ensure accountability. E.Lansing stated his steps and reasoning clearly here. I had to stay away from a Church because the pastor refused to remove a drug/alcohol addict who threatened me physically, because of the "He needs church more then you do, as your walk with god is stronger then his" approach. The man I was speaking about was not repented but came up with excuses for his sin, and has not stopped. I was in that town for over a year with no real church to go to because a sinful man, who has potential to physically harm someone was not removed, even though he was unrepentant. *The man in question told me how he tried to kill someone that stole a jacket from him by running them down with his car* Is it right that a person who is walking the walk get punished because someone who is not is more sinful? Someone living in sin, unrepentant, and encouraging others in the same, and causing division in the church, should not be allowed to continue. That is the point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 28, 2011 Share Posted July 28, 2011 Two separate problems here, both challenging. e lansing might have married them, had not the church division problem existed. The brother really forced the issue. My church has division, not related to a particular sin instance, but to personalities who refuse to give a pastor the authority he needs to function. Without that authority, he is an employee, subject to the whims of anyone and everyone. It is a major problem. As it stands, nobody has the authority to remove the problem people, so we barely function, and newcomers are repelled by our absurd politics. So I can see why e lansing had to do what he did. I have heard on a Christian talk radio program, that most division in a Church comes from somebody on the council having a power trip. An example was given with a new pastor coming to a Church and giving some of the ideas he had. An elder said that is not the way it was going to be, I was here before you came here and I'll be here when you leave. When somebody has an attitude like that, it seem God's works were moved to the back burner, hardly very Christian like. Yeap~! Got To Watch Out For Those Guys But I have a few things against thee, because thou hast there them that hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balac to cast a stumblingblock before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed unto idols, and to commit fornication. Revelation 2:14 Respect Is Often Lost Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you. Hebrews 13:17 In Sin Thy word have I hid in mine heart, that I might not sin against thee. Psalms 119:11 ____________ Be Blessed Beloved Of The KING The LORD bless thee, and keep thee: The LORD make his face shine upon thee, and be gracious unto thee: The LORD lift up his countenance upon thee, and give thee peace. And they shall put my name upon the children of Israel; and I will bless them. Numbers 6:24-27 Love, Your Brother Joe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Littlelambseativy Posted July 28, 2011 Group: Royal Member Followers: 6 Topic Count: 230 Topics Per Day: 0.04 Content Count: 4,941 Content Per Day: 0.95 Reputation: 2,003 Days Won: 14 Joined: 02/08/2010 Status: Offline Share Posted July 28, 2011 Hello my extended friends, yea its been a while. What Im looking for is just feed back, we get all types here so i want to run this by you all and see what say you. A few months ago I had to remove a family from our church. A year ago had a young couple want to get married by me. I told them sure and sat with them to let them know what needs to done in order for it to happen. At first they where good with what needed to happen. two weeks go by and I had not heard from them, i would see them and ask how is everything going, they said fine. Not to long after that we have our yearly fathers day outting I found out that they got an apartment together and had been living together for a few months now. I told them I could not marry them now. I still allowed them to come to church. The young lady has an older brother who has been coming to our church for years and was one of my leaders. I found out that he had been telling his sister that living together was not a sin, since they were getting married any way! I had no Idea he had this view. I talked with him and he just disagreed with not scripture to stand on. So I waited a while. During this time I find out that they are going to church members to discuss this and were dividing the church and people, new people would just walk up to and ask me about cohabitation and other questions about our fellowship, it was just odd. So I get an oppertunity to deal with both of these and asked them to stop speaking against me and our church, they refused, so i removed them from our church for promoting sin in their sisters life and causeing division in the church. I went to my pastors above me and they were divided on my choice. i have no regrets, but this was very hard to do. What say you? Isaiah, nowhere is there any mention of them being born again. The brother is a leader but is he born again? I think there is a confusion in the word 'church' are we talking about born again believers or are we talking about the people who gather on Sunday to hear the sermon preached by a minister/pastor? They are not necessarily one and the same.This young couple may not be born again as is evidenced by their actions. In this case the best thing to do would have been to continue to counsel them and have others in the congregation to minister to them. The brother was not expelled yet they were. Even the other pastors were not in agreement as to what to do. I have posed this situation to a number of born again believers and I have yet to hear 1 (one) person agree that they should have been expelled from the congregation and that is all that it is - a congregation, The term church is being used loosely. Not all who call Jesus Lord will enter into heaven even the rest of that congregation yet they have been allowed to remain. Do they drink? Do they go to places where they should not? Who is to know yet they who call themselves Christian can stay? What about those who abuse their family? It is hidden and they are allowed to stay. This young couple with the right mentoring may have become shining examples of who Christ has come to save and have led others to Him. Where will they learn if not in the church? Perhaps the brother is the one who should have been chastised not the young couple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winsomebulldog Posted July 28, 2011 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 20 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 732 Content Per Day: 0.14 Reputation: 113 Days Won: 5 Joined: 03/26/2010 Status: Offline Birthday: 04/30/1971 Share Posted July 28, 2011 Hello my extended friends, yea its been a while. What Im looking for is just feed back, we get all types here so i want to run this by you all and see what say you. A few months ago I had to remove a family from our church. A year ago had a young couple want to get married by me. I told them sure and sat with them to let them know what needs to done in order for it to happen. At first they where good with what needed to happen. two weeks go by and I had not heard from them, i would see them and ask how is everything going, they said fine. Not to long after that we have our yearly fathers day outting I found out that they got an apartment together and had been living together for a few months now. I told them I could not marry them now. I still allowed them to come to church. The young lady has an older brother who has been coming to our church for years and was one of my leaders. I found out that he had been telling his sister that living together was not a sin, since they were getting married any way! I had no Idea he had this view. I talked with him and he just disagreed with not scripture to stand on. So I waited a while. During this time I find out that they are going to church members to discuss this and were dividing the church and people, new people would just walk up to and ask me about cohabitation and other questions about our fellowship, it was just odd. So I get an oppertunity to deal with both of these and asked them to stop speaking against me and our church, they refused, so i removed them from our church for promoting sin in their sisters life and causeing division in the church. I went to my pastors above me and they were divided on my choice. i have no regrets, but this was very hard to do. What say you? Isaiah, nowhere is there any mention of them being born again. The brother is a leader but is he born again? I think there is a confusion in the word 'church' are we talking about born again believers or are we talking about the people who gather on Sunday to hear the sermon preached by a minister/pastor? They are not necessarily one and the same.This young couple may not be born again as is evidenced by their actions. In this case the best thing to do would have been to continue to counsel them and have others in the congregation to minister to them. The brother was not expelled yet they were. Even the other pastors were not in agreement as to what to do. I have posed this situation to a number of born again believers and I have yet to hear 1 (one) person agree that they should have been expelled from the congregation and that is all that it is - a congregation, The term church is being used loosely. Not all who call Jesus Lord will enter into heaven even the rest of that congregation yet they have been allowed to remain. Do they drink? Do they go to places where they should not? Who is to know yet they who call themselves Christian can stay? What about those who abuse their family? It is hidden and they are allowed to stay. This young couple with the right mentoring may have become shining examples of who Christ has come to save and have led others to Him. Where will they learn if not in the church? Perhaps the brother is the one who should have been chastised not the young couple. It seems to me that you have read the opening post and nothing else. E has repeatedly stated that they were, in fact, born again believers. The brother as well. The suggestion that anyone who willfully sins by default is not or cannot be born again is unsupportable. People choose to commit sins by "justifying" those sins within themselves. People have all sorts of "reasons" for why they do what they do, often like the people here it's simply a determination that their sin isn't really sin because they found someone to agree with their definition of this particular sin. And I have no idea where you got the idea that the girl's brother was not removed from the congregation as well. I must also wonder if the other "born again believers" that you have posed the situation to got the entire story or just your version of it. Meaning, did you direct them here and have them read the entire thread, including every one of e lansing's posts about what he did and why so that they could get a full picture of the situation? Do they drink? Do they go to places where they should not? Who is to know yet they who call themselves Christian can stay? What about those who abuse their family? It is hidden and they are allowed to stay. This logic is not applicable to the situation for one very simple reason. You're talking here about sins that are kept hidden, sins that are practiced in the "shadows," away from the view and knowledge of the rest of the local church body. None of us knows the hidden sins of another, therefore we cannot judge them. However, using your suggestions, let's propose a situation where a church member not only consistently comes to church drunk, but also brings their alcohol into the church with them and drinks during the service. Or how about the person who goes " to places where they shouldn't go." I'm not entirely sure what specific places you mean by this, but let's go with a man who frequents strip clubs. Now suppose that man decided to bring some of his stripper friends to church with him with them wearing their work "attire." Which is to say nothing at all. And then there's the abuser. How about if they come to church and stand up during the invitation or service and begin beating their spouse or children? In these situations would you suggest that the church members should be embraced and mentored? Should their terribly inappropriate and disruptive actions be allowed to continue simply because "with the right mentoring may have become shining examples of who Christ has come to save and have led others to Him?" I mean, "Where will they learn if not in the church?" Seriously, tell me that you would be perfectly fine if any of these situations happened on a regular basis at your weekly church meetings. Tell me that you would not expect them to be asked to stop this behavior. And when they flatly refused to do so, would you condone them continuing to behave this way, to disrupt services and to sow discord among the local congregation? This couple did exactly this. They chose to ignore their sin in spite of the fact that they were professing believers. The girl's brother helped them do this and also condoned their sin. They refused to admit to and repent of the sin they were committing OPENLY. Not only this, they tried to get others to also condone their sin. When their pastor would not do so, they went over his head and were told to abide by his advice. Then they went even higher within the church hierarchy and were told the exact same thing. Yet they STILL refused to repent and accept that they were wrong. I really can't understand why it is so hard for some of you to accept that the Bible flat out tells us to remove disruptive members from the local body if they refuse to repent. As e lansing said, there are plenty of Bible passages that back up the fact that premarital sex is a sin. And the Bible also provides instruction on how to deal with church members who are committing open, obvious, unrepentant sin. There's no doubt that we, as Christians, need to be loving and supportive of those who are struggling. And no one has suggested that the only people who ought to be allowed in church are "perfect" or "sinless" people. The fact is, there are no such people. But we also need to accept that being loving and supportive does not equal being accepting of blatant sin. It brings to mind raising children. If you've got a child who throws a temper tantrum every single time they don't get what they want, do you give them what they want just to shut them up, or do you refuse to submit to their demands and teach them that bad behavior will not be rewarded? How, exactly, would it be beneficial for this couple and her brother to have their behavior condoned? Correcting children is something parents do because they love them. How is what e lansing did any different? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
e lansing Posted July 28, 2011 Group: Senior Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 30 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 895 Content Per Day: 0.17 Reputation: 9 Days Won: 1 Joined: 12/23/2009 Status: Offline Author Share Posted July 28, 2011 Hello my extended friends, yea its been a while. What Im looking for is just feed back, we get all types here so i want to run this by you all and see what say you. A few months ago I had to remove a family from our church. A year ago had a young couple want to get married by me. I told them sure and sat with them to let them know what needs to done in order for it to happen. At first they where good with what needed to happen. two weeks go by and I had not heard from them, i would see them and ask how is everything going, they said fine. Not to long after that we have our yearly fathers day outting I found out that they got an apartment together and had been living together for a few months now. I told them I could not marry them now. I still allowed them to come to church. The young lady has an older brother who has been coming to our church for years and was one of my leaders. I found out that he had been telling his sister that living together was not a sin, since they were getting married any way! I had no Idea he had this view. I talked with him and he just disagreed with not scripture to stand on. So I waited a while. During this time I find out that they are going to church members to discuss this and were dividing the church and people, new people would just walk up to and ask me about cohabitation and other questions about our fellowship, it was just odd. So I get an oppertunity to deal with both of these and asked them to stop speaking against me and our church, they refused, so i removed them from our church for promoting sin in their sisters life and causeing division in the church. I went to my pastors above me and they were divided on my choice. i have no regrets, but this was very hard to do. What say you? Isaiah, nowhere is there any mention of them being born again. The brother is a leader but is he born again? I think there is a confusion in the word 'church' are we talking about born again believers or are we talking about the people who gather on Sunday to hear the sermon preached by a minister/pastor? They are not necessarily one and the same.This young couple may not be born again as is evidenced by their actions. In this case the best thing to do would have been to continue to counsel them and have others in the congregation to minister to them. The brother was not expelled yet they were. Even the other pastors were not in agreement as to what to do. I have posed this situation to a number of born again believers and I have yet to hear 1 (one) person agree that they should have been expelled from the congregation and that is all that it is - a congregation, The term church is being used loosely. Not all who call Jesus Lord will enter into heaven even the rest of that congregation yet they have been allowed to remain. Do they drink? Do they go to places where they should not? Who is to know yet they who call themselves Christian can stay? What about those who abuse their family? It is hidden and they are allowed to stay. This young couple with the right mentoring may have become shining examples of who Christ has come to save and have led others to Him. Where will they learn if not in the church? Perhaps the brother is the one who should have been chastised not the young couple. It seems to me that you have read the opening post and nothing else. E has repeatedly stated that they were, in fact, born again believers. The brother as well. The suggestion that anyone who willfully sins by default is not or cannot be born again is unsupportable. People choose to commit sins by "justifying" those sins within themselves. People have all sorts of "reasons" for why they do what they do, often like the people here it's simply a determination that their sin isn't really sin because they found someone to agree with their definition of this particular sin. And I have no idea where you got the idea that the girl's brother was not removed from the congregation as well. I must also wonder if the other "born again believers" that you have posed the situation to got the entire story or just your version of it. Meaning, did you direct them here and have them read the entire thread, including every one of e lansing's posts about what he did and why so that they could get a full picture of the situation? Do they drink? Do they go to places where they should not? Who is to know yet they who call themselves Christian can stay? What about those who abuse their family? It is hidden and they are allowed to stay. This logic is not applicable to the situation for one very simple reason. You're talking here about sins that are kept hidden, sins that are practiced in the "shadows," away from the view and knowledge of the rest of the local church body. None of us knows the hidden sins of another, therefore we cannot judge them. However, using your suggestions, let's propose a situation where a church member not only consistently comes to church drunk, but also brings their alcohol into the church with them and drinks during the service. Or how about the person who goes " to places where they shouldn't go." I'm not entirely sure what specific places you mean by this, but let's go with a man who frequents strip clubs. Now suppose that man decided to bring some of his stripper friends to church with him with them wearing their work "attire." Which is to say nothing at all. And then there's the abuser. How about if they come to church and stand up during the invitation or service and begin beating their spouse or children? In these situations would you suggest that the church members should be embraced and mentored? Should their terribly inappropriate and disruptive actions be allowed to continue simply because "with the right mentoring may have become shining examples of who Christ has come to save and have led others to Him?" I mean, "Where will they learn if not in the church?" Seriously, tell me that you would be perfectly fine if any of these situations happened on a regular basis at your weekly church meetings. Tell me that you would not expect them to be asked to stop this behavior. And when they flatly refused to do so, would you condone them continuing to behave this way, to disrupt services and to sow discord among the local congregation? This couple did exactly this. They chose to ignore their sin in spite of the fact that they were professing believers. The girl's brother helped them do this and also condoned their sin. They refused to admit to and repent of the sin they were committing OPENLY. Not only this, they tried to get others to also condone their sin. When their pastor would not do so, they went over his head and were told to abide by his advice. Then they went even higher within the church hierarchy and were told the exact same thing. Yet they STILL refused to repent and accept that they were wrong. I really can't understand why it is so hard for some of you to accept that the Bible flat out tells us to remove disruptive members from the local body if they refuse to repent. As e lansing said, there are plenty of Bible passages that back up the fact that premarital sex is a sin. And the Bible also provides instruction on how to deal with church members who are committing open, obvious, unrepentant sin. There's no doubt that we, as Christians, need to be loving and supportive of those who are struggling. And no one has suggested that the only people who ought to be allowed in church are "perfect" or "sinless" people. The fact is, there are no such people. But we also need to accept that being loving and supportive does not equal being accepting of blatant sin. It brings to mind raising children. If you've got a child who throws a temper tantrum every single time they don't get what they want, do you give them what they want just to shut them up, or do you refuse to submit to their demands and teach them that bad behavior will not be rewarded? How, exactly, would it be beneficial for this couple and her brother to have their behavior condoned? Correcting children is something parents do because they love them. How is what e lansing did any different? Well said my friend Thank you e Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
e lansing Posted July 28, 2011 Group: Senior Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 30 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 895 Content Per Day: 0.17 Reputation: 9 Days Won: 1 Joined: 12/23/2009 Status: Offline Author Share Posted July 28, 2011 Two separate problems here, both challenging. e lansing might have married them, had not the church division problem existed. The brother really forced the issue. My church has division, not related to a particular sin instance, but to personalities who refuse to give a pastor the authority he needs to function. Without that authority, he is an employee, subject to the whims of anyone and everyone. It is a major problem. As it stands, nobody has the authority to remove the problem people, so we barely function, and newcomers are repelled by our absurd politics. So I can see why e lansing had to do what he did. I have heard on a Christian talk radio program, that most division in a Church comes from somebody on the council having a power trip. An example was given with a new pastor coming to a Church and giving some of the ideas he had. An elder said that is not the way it was going to be, I was here before you came here and I'll be here when you leave. When somebody has an attitude like that, it seem God's works were moved to the back burner, hardly very Christian like. Yeap~! Got To Watch Out For Those Guys But I have a few things against thee, because thou hast there them that hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balac to cast a stumblingblock before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed unto idols, and to commit fornication. Revelation 2:14 Respect Is Often Lost Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you. Hebrews 13:17 In Sin Thy word have I hid in mine heart, that I might not sin against thee. Psalms 119:11 ____________ Be Blessed Beloved Of The KING The LORD bless thee, and keep thee: The LORD make his face shine upon thee, and be gracious unto thee: The LORD lift up his countenance upon thee, and give thee peace. And they shall put my name upon the children of Israel; and I will bless them. Numbers 6:24-27 Love, Your Brother Joe e Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
e lansing Posted July 28, 2011 Group: Senior Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 30 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 895 Content Per Day: 0.17 Reputation: 9 Days Won: 1 Joined: 12/23/2009 Status: Offline Author Share Posted July 28, 2011 Two separate problems here, both challenging. e lansing might have married them, had not the church division problem existed. The brother really forced the issue. My church has division, not related to a particular sin instance, but to personalities who refuse to give a pastor the authority he needs to function. Without that authority, he is an employee, subject to the whims of anyone and everyone. It is a major problem. As it stands, nobody has the authority to remove the problem people, so we barely function, and newcomers are repelled by our absurd politics. So I can see why e lansing had to do what he did. I have heard on a Christian talk radio program, that most division in a Church comes from somebody on the council having a power trip. An example was given with a new pastor coming to a Church and giving some of the ideas he had. An elder said that is not the way it was going to be, I was here before you came here and I'll be here when you leave. When somebody has an attitude like that, it seem God's works were moved to the back burner, hardly very Christian like. That would be pertinent, if one did not take the steps to ensure accountability. E.Lansing stated his steps and reasoning clearly here. I had to stay away from a Church because the pastor refused to remove a drug/alcohol addict who threatened me physically, because of the "He needs church more then you do, as your walk with god is stronger then his" approach. The man I was speaking about was not repented but came up with excuses for his sin, and has not stopped. I was in that town for over a year with no real church to go to because a sinful man, who has potential to physically harm someone was not removed, even though he was unrepentant. *The man in question told me how he tried to kill someone that stole a jacket from him by running them down with his car* Is it right that a person who is walking the walk get punished because someone who is not is more sinful? Someone living in sin, unrepentant, and encouraging others in the same, and causing division in the church, should not be allowed to continue. That is the point. Amen Brother It really is that simple and clear! e Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts