Having An Issue With Someone or Their Sin

Recently I have seen a swarm of communication across Facebook in reference to a pastor of Baptist Church and his apparent inappropriate behavior. Who the pastor is and his sin (or alleged sin) is not important enough to the lesson to mention, but the message we can take from the situation is, in my opinion. I would like us to step back away from that current situation, and see how we can apply scripture to our own lives.

Since it was a pastor (elder, bishop, etc.), we will begin with:

1 Timothy 5:1-2

Rebuke not an elder, but intreat him as a father; and the younger men as brethren; The elder women as mothers; the younger as sisters, with all purity.

Now, does this mean that a pastor can never be corrected; even if they are living in sin?

1 Timothy 5:17-20

Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine. For the scripture saith, thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. And, The labourer is worthy of his reward. Against an elder receive not an accusation, but before two or three witnesses. Them that sin rebuke before all, that others also may fear.

We see that if a pastor rules [and by rule, we do not mean as a dictator – Mark 10:42-44] then they are worthy of “double honour”. We are to support them appropriately financially, and not try to tell them what they can and cannot say in their preaching. The Holy Spirit can and will direct their minds and sermons.

We are not to quickly judge and rebuke an elder – BUT if there is undeniable proof by way of multiple witnesses, then they are to be rebuked before all.

Notice it says “rebuke BEFORE all” and not “rebuked BY all”.

Who was this written to? Timothy – another bishop (elder, pastor)

Why should they be rebuked? What is the purpose? “that others also may fear”

Is that so others will fear certain people, the deacons, the accusers, or the church – meaning that those would have power over the pastors to have them fear them? No.

It is for the purpose of bringing to remembrance to everyone their sins may also be brought forth for the whole congregation (or the whole world in our modern day) to see.

1 Timothy 5:24

Some men's sins are open beforehand, going before to judgment; and some men they follow after.

Just because your sin remains secret while another’s is broadcasted does not mean [1] theirs is worse than yours, [2] you are okay with God, [3] or that yours too will not be shown before men likewise.

The fear of seeing ones sin exposed should cause us all to confess and repent of our own sins to God, and ensure our fellowship with Him is right.

We must also notice these verses fall on the heels of Paul telling Timothy:

1 Timothy 4:12-16

Let no man despise thy youth; but be thou an example of the believers, in word, in conversation, in charity, in spirit, in faith, in purity. Till I come, give attendance to reading, to exhortation, to doctrine. Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery. Meditate upon these things; give thyself wholly to them; that thy profiting may appear to all. Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them: for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee.

To those of us who would like to rebuke the elder, do we likewise give “attendance to reading, to exhortation, to doctrine”? Why? So we can spiritually discern a matter BEFORE we talk about it. When we are told or read of something about someone, we need to think before we instantly cast judgment and start spreading it on Facebook and elsewhere.

Proverbs 18:13

He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him.

And “heareth it” doesn’t just mean you have heard ABOUT it.

Do we also “continue” or walk in the doctrine we learn from scripture? If we don’t, then what gives us the right to speak of someone else not living right? We are to live right to be a testimony of Christ to others. Going around telling everyone else they are wrong does not make us right.

When we spread the news of another’s sin, are we doing it “in charity, in spirit, in faith, in purity”?

Paul also tells Timothy:

1 Timothy 5:21

I charge thee before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, and the elect angels, that thou observe these things without preferring one before another, doing nothing by partiality.

We are not supposed to show partiality. So, if you want to spread the sin of a pastor across every avenue available to you, then you should likewise share the sins of your spouse, family, and friends – and even your own. Most of the time our problem is we want some person’s sins exposed, while wishing to hide those of others. That’s hypocrisy.

So, we’ve just glanced at the idea of rebuking an elder – which may not have actually committed any sin directly against us – but what about when we have issues with fellow believers?

What do we do about that?

Do we likewise display our issue with them across the avenues of social media, and through gossip in our church family?

Matthew 18:15

Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.

Scripture says we should go to that person – not to Facebook or other church members. But, before we can go to that person, we need to go to God.

Why? To ensure we go to that person in the right spirit [in charity, in spirit, in faith, in purity], praying the Holy Spirit may have them in the right spirit as well.

If we go in the flesh, we will just have a mess which will lead to more hurt, anger, and bitterness.

So, what if they don’t want to resolve the issue?

Matthew 18:16

But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.

We are to bring witnesses. This could be witnesses to the facts, but these will be witnesses to what all is being said between the two parties: gossip control.

What if they still do not wish to resolve the issue?

Matthew 18:17

And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.

If a person refuses to get right with God and fellow man, the church is supposed to treat them as a lost person.

Why? To hopefully draw them back into humble repentance, to restore their fellowship with God and man.

Just as with elders, although those who live in sin should be rebuked, that does not mean they are to be rebuked by everyone and through every outlet available to shout out their sin.

If you have an issue with someone or they have sinned against you, you are to first try to resolve the issue in private, then with spiritual witnesses, and then the church. If you haven’t gone to them, why are you going to everyone else?

If someone has not personally sinned against you, why are you spreading it around in circles and social media?

Romans 14:12

So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God.

We will be judged by the way we react to one’s sin, just as they will be judged by their sin.

And if you have spread one's sin, will you also spread their repentance and reconciliation to God and man with the same amount of enthusiasm? I pray so.



Can I Divorce

A friend of mind recently asked me two questions, and I figured I would share my responses here. Please do share your thoughts, whether you agree or disagree.

The second question was:

Can I divorce [in reference to fighting or abuse]

Now, concerning divorce, I likewise find the answer both simple and complex. It is simple in the idea that I believe Scripture gives two reasons when divorce [can] occur, but are never spoken of in terms of [reasons to] divorce. [1] reason is because of fornication, as written in Matthew 5:32. The [2] reason seems to be in the unbelieving departs, as recorded in 1 Corinthians 7:15. Although, does “the unbelieving” pertain to them professing they are lost, or they claim to be saved but their actions proclaim they are lost? Now, Scripture clearly teaches [Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. - Matthew 19:6] Scripture also compares marriage to the relationship of Christ and the Church [Ephesians 5] which teaches security of the believer, in that Christ will never forsake the Church. When a man leaves his wife or a woman her husband, they are breaking that picture. Once saved, Christ cannot separate Himself from His sheep, nor can the sheep totally separate themselves from Christ [even if they try, for He will go get them – Matthew 18:12-14] Such is why a saved person is considered to be committing spiritual adultery when they choose to disobey God.

When it comes to questions like “two people fighting all the time” and “physical and/or emotional abuse”, I don’t find anywhere in Scripture that says it is okay to divorce. I know this goes against man’s nature and our initial knee-jerk reaction, but it simply isn’t in the Bible [at least not straight forward] as justifiable means to leave your spouse. Remember Christ said [Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. - Matthew 19:8] Sin is what causes two persons to always fight [or sometimes it could possibly be just one as the “main” cause over time] or to abuse one another [which can sometimes be the woman over the man]. We must remember that two persons choose to get married, and sometimes their choices were not soaked in the knowledge and wisdom of God but in fleshly appeal and desire. Then divorce is merely adding sin to the initial sin of getting married without God in the first place [even if held in a church]. So, a lot of factors play into the actual finalization of seeking divorce, which is why it is a hard question to answer when it comes to what may be permissible and what is not; at least to us, because God clearly knows.

With that said, I think there is wisdom we can glean from Scripture regarding the abuse [at least the physical type]. Scripture is clear to talk about how we are to treat people as we want to be treated, and for those who abuse people [whether physically, or steal from, murder, etc.] we have law enforcement, etc. [1 Timothy 2] So, I believe a person is biblically justified in calling the police and filing charges against their spouse if they are truly being abused. I also believe they would be justified no longer living with that person until there was a guarantee [by whatever means necessary] that it would be safe. Though, the question still remains: where in Scripture does it say they can divorce? Possibly, the Scripture about the unbelieving departing could be used, but I see no other references.

Same holds true with spouse who seems to fight all the time. We would like to say “God doesn’t want us to be alone” or “God doesn’t want us to be unhappy”, but that is not biblical teaching. That is man’s emotions.

Paul said, [Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife. But and if thou marry, thou hast not sinned; and if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned. Nevertheless such shall have trouble in the flesh: but I spare you. - 1 Corinthians 7:27] Once we have chosen to marry [regardless as to why or what transpires due to our sin or that of our spouse] we are commanded to stay married. Even fornication is not a reason [to] divorce, as there are many marriages when have been dealt that blow yet survived through forgiveness and reconciliation to God and each other. Nor is the unbelieving departing a [necessary to divorce], for it also says [Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives; While they behold your chaste conversation coupled with fear. - 1 Peter 3:1-2]

I once had a friend of mine ask if it was okay for them to get a divorce, and I told them they had two options to consider:

[1] They could forget God and the Bible, and do whatever you want to do.

Or,

[2] They could [a] examine their own hearts in light of Scripture and the Holy Spirit, [b] confess and repent of any sin in their own life [regardless of what the other person is or isn’t doing], [c] obey God by submitting to or loving the other person [because God says so in Scripture, not because the other person deserves it], [d] choose to forgive the other person [whether they deserve it or not], [e] and beg God to help change them and that other person to renew their marriage.

They [easy] thing to do in our minds is to just leave, because we think we will be leaving the entire problem behind; but that’s not the case. We will [1] have our own issues of sin [because we are not perfect] even in another relationship, [2] if we have kids we will always have contact with the other person, [3] the kids will suffer and not understand, and [4] surely there will be financial, emotional, possibly other family and friend issues for many years to come [if not for as long as we live].

The first question we need to ask ourselves is: Why do I want a divorce?

That will expose our hearts.

Am I Forgiven

A friend of mind recently asked me two questions, and I figured I would share my responses here. Please do share your thoughts, whether you agree or disagree.

The first question was:

“How do I know that God has truly forgiven me when I ask Him too?”

I agree that Christ does forgive, but I also believe that with sin comes chastisement (especially when not confessed) and consequences (with some sins more than others). I think in man’s mind we have little sins and big sins, but in God’s view every sin leads to the same judgment.

“How do I know that God has truly forgiven me when I ask Him too?” can be both a simple and complex question, in my opinion. It can be simple, because Scripture promises [If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. - 1 John 1:9] However, this is only for the saved person – as one must first acknowledge they are a sinner, repent, and put faith in Christ for salvation. What if someone believes they are saved, but aren’t really saved? God isn’t [nor can] forgive a lost person for a sin, because they have not been covered by the blood of Christ – since [without shedding of blood is no remission. - Hebrews 9:22] Also, this is when one seeks true repentance, and not merely says “I’m sorry” because they have been caught. It is a heart issue, and the [The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it? - Jeremiah 17:9] So, I think they only way to know if you are forgiven, is to daily [1] fellowship with God through prayer, [2] communicate with God through reading and meditating on the Bible, [3] walk with God in our lifestyle, and [4] repent of sin as soon as we are convicted by the Holy Spirit or confronted with it by ourselves or other persons. Because – most often – our “knowing we are forgiven” is to “feel like we have been forgiven”, and if we aren’t in touch with God daily we will surely [1] not confess and repent of sin and [2] will doubt His promise to forgive us when we do.

What’s Marriage to a Chicken?

I guess I am still somewhat naive when it comes to some things, as I had never really considered the possibility of a restaurant being forbidden to come to a city or state based on its view of marriage. I’ve witnessed some establishments being pressed against due to alcohol and those of indecent attire (or lack thereof) – but I figure those things have brought more heartache to the families, cities, and states in our country than marriage between a man and a woman. Perhaps I’ve been wrong.

I honestly don’t know much about Chick-fil-A – but that they are closed on Sundays and do hold to some personal religious convictions – although I do eat there occasionally. From what I have read, Mayor Rahm Emanuel apparently said “Chick-fil-A values are not Chicago values.” He further adds, “If you are discriminating against a segment of the community, I don’t want you in the First Ward.”

It appears the mayor clearly states that the values of Chick-fil-A are not only in opposition to the values of Chicago, but are also discriminating against a segment of persons. So, what exactly are the values of Chick-fil-A brought into question here?

“We are very much supportive of the family – the biblical definition of the family unit. We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that.”

“I think we are inviting God’s judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at him and say, ‘We know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage,’” Cathy said. “I pray God’s mercy on our generation that has such a prideful, arrogant attitude to think that we would have the audacity to try to redefine what marriage is all about.”

Looking at the above, the expressed values of Chick-fil-A are: Marriage is between a man and a woman. And that God would have mercy on those who try to redefine it.

So, the mayor has stated that Chicago neither limits the definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman, nor does he ask for mercy upon those who agree with his (and all of Chicago) values.

As for as, “discriminating” against anyone, I don’t believe I have read where Chick-fil-A has said they would not sell their food to those whose beliefs were in opposition to theirs.

I can’t help but see the hypocrisy in the idea where Boston Mayor Tom Menino claims (proudly, I’m sure), “We’re an open city. We’re a city that’s at the forefront of inclusion.” How interesting, they are ONLY “open” and “inclusive” to those they wish to be; for they are neither being “open” or “inclusive” to Chick-fil-A. And, don’t give me the “well, Chick-fil-A isn’t being open and inclusive either”, because it is the mayor who is claiming they are the proud persons of an “open” and “inclusive” city. Does this mean that they currently agree with ALL the convictions of ALL other businesses (and those within them) currently in Boston? Why do I somehow doubt so?

Furthermore, we have “Alderman Moreno call[ing] Cathy’s comments “bigoted” and “homophobic,”” according to the article. Why do we still have the overuse of the words “bigot” and “homophobic”? The very ones who claim one is bigoted [prejudice, extremist] because they believe the biblical and formal definition of marriage are equally prejudice and extremist against those who do not agree to their trying to redefine marriage. This Chick-fil-A fiasco is case and point. And just because a person does not agree with homosexuality does not mean they are "scared of" or "hate" homosexuals. [i.e. homophobic]

City Councilman Jim Kenney joined in the “intolerance” speech, and promotes a resolution to “condemn this anti-American attitude of trying to deny civil liberties that every American enjoys.” How far have we come where standing firmly on the principle definition of marriage (that being between a man and a woman) is now “anti-American”? Every single American has the liberty to join in marriage. I don’t believe any Christian is standing against persons wishing to get married. The stance is against the REDEFINING of a scared institution (called marriage) by those who would wish to embrace what it was never intended to include (namely homosexuality).

Instead of using the name calling of bigot and homophobe through intolerance and the pressure to withdraw person’s freedom of speech, perhaps the homosexual should consider their ideals and create their own defining terms not already taken. Or, better yet, plead for the “mercy” Chick-fil-A has graciously asked God to grant them on their behalf, and refrain from the hate speech toward those who do not hold to their view.

Regardless of Chick-fil-A’s stance on marriage, I do not find any articles whereby they have denied chicken to a homosexual or even those who choose to work on Sundays.

What is marriage to a chicken?

It’s the only way to get those good sandwiches and nuggets at Chick-fil-A. ;o)

Church League Approves Softball and Denies Bisexaulity

Reading FoxNews.com today, I came across an article entitled: Pastor's sexuality splits Missouri church softball league. James Semmelroth Darnell is apparently the current pastor of St. John United Church of Christ in Saint Clair, and feels that persons having issue with his confession of being bisexual is something that “shouldn’t be happening in this day and age.” I ask the question: Why?

Although I can understand the Baptists churches reasoning, in this post I am concerned less about the apparent issue of whether or not other churches would participate in a softball league with his church and more so about his position of pastor – one who professes they have repented of sin, put faith in Christ, lives by the bible, and preaches the gospel – all the while taking no issue with having a scripturally condemned lifestyle or vocalized ideals.

The article declares, “Darnell, for his part, said his sexuality will not affect his ability to lead his congregation off the field.” Do they not read or study the bible? Perhaps the gender neutral versions pervert the nature of scripture against such perversion, but I have never read them so have no true knowledge of where they stand on such matters as sexual orientation. How can sexuality not affect a pastor’s ability to lead his congregation? Either the sexuality of a pastor (whether in private or public) is in line with scripture, or out of sync with scripture and literally God himself.

I know people who are also Church of Christ and would equally agree that scripture condemns any relationship outside of a man and a woman, and there are numerous examples of where persons are and will be punished (by God) for their rejection of such truth. The only true “alternate lifestyle” is if one so chooses not to marry at all.

I am not advocating the mistreatment of those who refuse to obey scripture (even while they claim to believe and preach it), but do believe we should stand firm on the authority and foundational truths of scripture and not the modern man’s perversion of it – and not merely in secret. I will not recount the many references one can find in scripture – as you may take time to read past posts concerning such a topic here – but would find it interesting how a pastor who actually uses the bible can proclaim our holy God is okay with the joining of a man-man or woman-woman in holy matrimony or relationship.

The issue is clearly less about softball, and more about what is truly a biblical lifestyle.

Being Granted the Right to Marry Gives One the Liberty to Divorce

For some time now, there has been much debate over giving homosexuals the right to marry, but what about the liberty to divorce?

Yes, I am a Christian.
Yes, we believe the Bible.
Yes, the Bible says marriage is between a man and a woman.
Yes, the Bible says divorce is sin.
Yes, Christian people divorce.
** I am fully aware scripture gives some grounds (if you will) for divorce, though it does not state one must divorce or that one should look for reasons to divorce.

Now that we’ve gotten past that argument, let’s proceed with the ideals of those who do not believe what the Bible teaches but demand homosexuals be given equal rights within the already defined term: marriage.

I found this article today which talks about a lesbian couple who were married in 2008. They were apparently “among 14 same-sex couples who originally challenged California's gay marriage ban in 2008.” In 2010 one of them said, "Marriage is so important it's the most important relationship that you can have as an adult when you get older." Presently, they are seeking a divorce.

What happened?

How can two persons having a relationship for 18 years + fight so hard for 7 years for what they claimed to be equal rights + believe God must have wanted it for them = even consider the possibility of ending such a liberty after a mere 3 years on the basis “"We're human and we went through difficult times," Tyler said. The marriage ran its course, she said.”?

Why can’t persons (or rather, why do persons choose not to) fight for their marriage as much as they fight for the right to marry in the first place? If God wanted them to marry, does He now want them to divorce? How scripturally based is this? If one is going to use God’s name, then they need to acknowledge and obey His word. And this goes for the heterosexual marriage just as much as the homosexual unions. How many times is God/rights used to justify both the marriage and the divorce?

My point is this: What purpose did it serve for these persons to fight 7 years for a right they were only committed to for 3 years? Same holds true for those who live together for years, only to divorce shortly after marriage. Why are we so prone to leave, rather than to cleave?

When we see marriage as a right, then we view divorce as a liberty.

Marriage is a privilege: A sacred opportunity instituted by God between a man and a woman, giving the couple the honor of sharing their lives together in a committed relationship.

It’s interesting (and rather sad) how something worth fighting for to obtain as a right can be easily dismissed as worthless by liberty. May God help us!