PDA

View Full Version : Baby shower for an unwed mother


Revmitchell
04-23-2009, 02:23 PM
Should the church allow the use of its facilities for a baby shower of an unwed mother?

thegospelgeek
04-23-2009, 02:40 PM
I voted yes.

Servent
04-23-2009, 03:28 PM
I voted yes, What better place to be a witness to her.

webdog
04-23-2009, 03:36 PM
Yes, and it has happened in our church.

Pastor Larry
04-23-2009, 04:01 PM
Probably not. The church should care for the young lady and minister to her in every way possible. A public shower is probably not necessary to do that and does not seem appropriate.

annsni
04-23-2009, 06:46 PM
I voted other because in our church, not just anyone can use the facilities.

But we've certainly had baby showers in the church for unwed mothers because even though it might not be the best circumstance, a baby is a blessing and deserves atleast a few diapers, a car seat and some clothes - along with the love and guidance of a Godly community. :)

I Am Blessed 24
04-24-2009, 01:54 AM
If the unwed mother is a member of our church, then yes, a baby shower should be thrown for her (provided she is not still living with the father without benefit of marriage).

After all, she could have gotten an abortion.....

Robert Snow
04-24-2009, 02:07 AM
If the unwed mother is a member of our church, then yes, a baby shower should be thrown for her (provided she is not still living with the father without benefit of marriage).

After all, she could have gotten an abortion.....

Good answer.

PeterM
04-24-2009, 03:13 AM
I voted yes... I struggled with this issue about a year ago when a 19 year old girl who had claimed salvation and been baptized got pregnant. I thought it best to not allow the church to shun her and we had the shower on the church campus. We have continued to show love to her (and privately we are grateful that the baby was not aborted).

I am still not convinced of her spiritual condition (goes way beyond the pregnancy), but she will never be able to say that we didn't love her and support her through a difficult time. When in doubt... love.

Great question!

Spinach
04-24-2009, 03:38 AM
I agree with Ann

Gina B
04-24-2009, 05:15 AM
I don't get the question. Don't babies of single moms need clothes and diapers too? :confused:

I'm guessing there's some kind of unwritten rule in some churches that says it's our Christian duty to treat unwed moms bad in order for them to learn how wrong they were or something. Is that correct?

North Carolina Tentmaker
04-24-2009, 05:39 AM
I don't get the question. Don't babies of single moms need clothes and diapers too? :confused:

I'm guessing there's some kind of unwritten rule in some churches that says it's our Christian duty to treat unwed moms bad in order for them to learn how wrong they were or something. Is that correct?That's right Gina, I mean if we don't shun, embarris, ostracize, and separate ourselves from sinners like single mothers then how else will they know how much holier than them we are?

Thank God most of us realize that, "so were some of you."

Beth
04-24-2009, 05:40 AM
I think it depends on the situation.....generally, though, I would say no.

A public shower sponsored by the church body sends the wrong message to the young girls in the congregation. This is a hard call, because of course we must love the new baby and rejoice that the mom didn't get an abortion....yet, the mom did sin. In this postmodern world we live in, we must make it absolutely clear that God does have moral absolutes.

BigBossman
04-24-2009, 07:41 AM
I voted "no". To do such a thing would say that it is okay for what she did.

I think the church ought to help her out in any way that they can to be a witness to her, but not a shower.

I remember one church I attended (I won't mention the name). On Mother's Day, they would recognize who the oldest & youngest mother is. I can understand the oldest, but why the youngest? A few of the church members brought this up & the next year, I think they did away with the recognition of the youngest mother. They also did a similar thing with Father's Day.

rbell
04-24-2009, 08:33 AM
As a church, you teach all along God's prescriptive order...marriage, then children.

IMO you do not negate that teaching by holding a shower.

What I do (and this has happened many times, unfortunately, in my 20+ years of working with kids) is discuss this issue with the parties involved (depending on who's involved at our church). The only way we can "undo what is done" is not an option. We see no problem in having a time that we celebrate the upcoming birth, and provide gifts. We're not celebrating the conception, and they are told that specifically. But we feel it can be said that, "what you did wasn't right...however, now that there's a new life on the way, your church family wants to help you make the best of it."

Pastor Larry
04-24-2009, 08:38 AM
I don't get the question. Don't babies of single moms need clothes and diapers too?

I'm guessing there's some kind of unwritten rule in some churches that says it's our Christian duty to treat unwed moms bad in order for them to learn how wrong they were or something. Is that correct?No, that's not correct. Having a public shower that celebrates a pregnancy is not the only way to get clothes and diapers for a young mom. An unwed pregnancy is not something we celebrate. It is something we serve by helping the mother get the things she needs such as diapers and clothes, as well as discipleship.

I think it is a false dichotomy to say we can either have a shower or not give diapers and clothes. There is a better way than either.

Dale-c
04-24-2009, 09:24 AM
I voted other.
I am pretty sure there was a shower for a girl that was not married with the church ladies a while back.
In the particular case, the girl was unsaved at the time, her boyfriend had no interest in being responsible so the girl had to move back in with her mom and step dad.

One condition was that she now had to go to church. She resisted at first but then got saved.
Later on I do think they had a shower for her later one.

Repentance is the key here.
I do not believe you should have a public baby shower for a girl who is in current rebellion who has no regret for her sin.
However, when someone is truly sorry, they need to be forgiven.

Thinkingstuff
04-24-2009, 10:20 AM
What is always missing in these conversations is the guy. How should we treat the men in our churches who had children out of wed lock. For instance I went to a church where this young woman was black listed for having gotten pregnant out of wedlock. She did something unusual and confessed her sin before the whole church (publically!) Wow. Imgaine that! Yet she had to sign a contract and stayed out of any ministry for a year according to the contract. Once her year was up she wanted to sing again in the choir but was prohibited and the church wanted to write up another contract and she hadn't done anything wrong. Certain people stopped speaking with her etc... Yet in this same church we had a deacon who was living together with his fiancee. I left the church before I found out if he ever actually married his girlfriend. I think the application of church discipline in this case was very lopsided. I voted yes btw.

Pastor David
04-24-2009, 10:37 AM
If a public baby shower would be perceived as condoning behavior that led to the conception of an ill-legitimate child, then the church should distance itself from a public position perceived as condoning sinful behavior.

If the woman and child can be ministered too without the percpetion of condoning the sin (churches do this kind of thing all the time by hosting AA meetings, divorce couseling, etc.) then the church should go out of the way to minister to both the spiritual needs which are obviously there, as well as any phsyical needs, they can help meet.

What has to be foremost in the eyes of the church, even greater than ministering to a single mother, is it's witness and testimony to the moral purity and perfection of Christ. The church's first devotion is to Christ. As long as a church does not have to compromise it's first love - than it should do all it can do to love and to assist to the spiritual and physical needs of a lost and dying world.

HankD
04-24-2009, 10:49 AM
The "shower" need not be held at the church site but the woman and the baby could/should have necessary provision from the Deacon Fund and/or other church members.

Neither should the woman be "shunned" assuming she is walking with the Lord.

And even if she were in the state of unrepentant sin, at very least the other members could help with the needs of mother and child (IMO). Along with the help she should be encouraged to renew her walk with the Lord.

HankD

Revmitchell
04-24-2009, 11:08 AM
Is it possible to not have the baby shower at the church and yet not shun her. Is having it on church grounds required to avoid not shunning her? Is there another way to handle it?

Dale-c
04-24-2009, 11:22 AM
Come to think of it, in the case I mentioned before the baby shower was not at the church but I think at the girls parents house and the ladies of the church were invited.

The girl was not shunned nor was her sin condoned.

But that is why I had to vote "other" in the poll because I do not see it as a one size fits all answer.

Also, I totally agree with the hypocrisy of shunning a girl who sins while ignoring when I man does.

OldRegular
04-24-2009, 11:35 AM
What is always missing in these conversations is the guy. How should we treat the men in our churches who had children out of wed lock. For instance I went to a church where this young woman was black listed for having gotten pregnant out of wedlock. She did something unusual and confessed her sin before the whole church (publically!) Wow. Imgaine that! Yet she had to sign a contract and stayed out of any ministry for a year according to the contract. Once her year was up she wanted to sing again in the choir but was prohibited and the church wanted to write up another contract and she hadn't done anything wrong. Certain people stopped speaking with her etc... Yet in this same church we had a deacon who was living together with his fiancee. I left the church before I found out if he ever actually married his girlfriend. I think the application of church discipline in this case was very lopsided. I voted yes btw.

Once this young woman confessed her sin before the church she should have been accepted into full fellowship. I believe that is what Scripture teaches. This idea of punishing those who have confessed their sin smacks too much of penance which we as Baptists are supposed to reject.

Sadly there is still, and I guess always will be, a double standard when it comes to the sexual activities of male and female. If a young woman gets pregnant she basically has two choices, abortion or bear the child and the stigma with which some self righteous people view her. The male in this instance bears no responsibility and no reproach. He may even be greeted with a little envy!

I am not justifying pre marital sex, it is wrong but it takes two. For example who is getting dumped on in the case of the young Palin girl. The guilty boy is being made a matinee idol by the left wing press.

May I also note that there is a big difference between two unmarried people living together and perhaps an isolated event where a young woman gets pregnant. I would also point out, as others have, that this young woman could have gotten an abortion. I thank God for that.:godisgood: Furthermore, the baby is innocent.:godisgood:

HankD
04-24-2009, 06:43 PM
Sadly there is still, and I guess always will be, a double standard when it comes to the sexual activities of male and female. If a young woman gets pregnant she basically has two choices, abortion or bear the child and the stigma with which some self righteous people view her. The male in this instance bears no responsibility and no reproach. He may even be greeted with a little envy! All you who feel this way are wrong. He will bear the responsibility. Unless there is a turn around, there is one who will not greet him with envy and He has no double standard.

2 Corinthians 5:10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad.


HankD

Magnetic Poles
04-24-2009, 09:42 PM
If a public baby shower would be perceived as condoning behavior that led to the conception of an ill-legitimate child, then the church should distance itself from a public position perceived as condoning sinful behavior.
There are no illegitimate children. They did nothing to deserve a label or scorn.

Jkdbuck76
04-24-2009, 09:49 PM
Yes. Have it. That mother and ESPECIALLY that baby need to know God's love.

It isn't the baby's fault that two teenagers were stupid.

Dale-c
04-24-2009, 10:21 PM
Once this young woman confessed her sin before the church she should have been accepted into full fellowship.
This is the whole point in my opinion.
Once a sin is confessed it is done with.

Either that or every person who gossips should be shunned to I suppose.

StefanM
04-24-2009, 10:26 PM
It seems to me that Jesus tended to care more about people than appearances.

donnA
04-25-2009, 12:42 AM
having a party to celebrate a sinful lifestyle, at church, nope.
nothing saying people can't help with needed items, or witness to her, but a celebration, a party, no, certainly not
a shower would be church approval of her sin.

Pastor Larry
04-25-2009, 07:04 AM
Yes. Have it. That mother and ESPECIALLY that baby need to know God's love.

It isn't the baby's fault that two teenagers were stupid.Perhaps I am reading too much into this, but there seems this idea that God's love can't be shown without a baby shower. Why? Can we not show God's love by actually caring for the young lady and providing things she needs without drawing attention and celebrating the situation?

It seems to me that Jesus tended to care more about people than appearances.Is anyone here suggesting we should not care for this young lady?

rbell
04-25-2009, 08:06 AM
having a party to celebrate a sinful lifestyle, at church, nope.
nothing saying people can't help with needed items, or witness to her, but a celebration, a party, no, certainly not
a shower would be church approval of her sin.

Once again, I say...

It is possible to have the shower but also address the sin.

Our church has had unwed parents to confess their sin before. We have removed people from leadership positions for a season. It doesn't have to be "either-or," IMO. If the sin is ignored, that is a problem. But just because the shower is held, doesn't mean the sin was ignored.

BigBossman
04-25-2009, 08:28 AM
Perhaps I am reading too much into this, but there seems this idea that God's love can't be shown without a baby shower. Why? Can we not show God's love by actually caring for the young lady and providing things she needs without drawing attention and celebrating the situation?

Is anyone here suggesting we should not care for this young lady?

I have to say I completely agree with you. I think its possible to help the single mother out without having a shower. Besides, if I were a single parent who had a child, I would feel weird having a baby shower at church. To celebrate having a child out of wedlock would be saying that its okay to have a sexual relationship outside of marriage. I don't think anyone is saying penalize the child, whose dad ran off.

Thinkingstuff also made a good point too. The father is not in the equation. What really needs to happen is there needs to be accountability, not just on the mother's part, but also on the father's part too.

donnA
04-25-2009, 08:30 AM
Perhaps I am reading too much into this, but there seems this idea that God's love can't be shown without a baby shower. Why? Can we not show God's love by actually caring for the young lady and providing things she needs without drawing attention and celebrating the situation?

Is anyone here suggesting we should not care for this young lady?
very good post.


But just because the shower is held, doesn't mean the sin was ignored.
no it was celebrated, and by being celebrated it was approved to the other teenagers.

Christians today tend to thumb their noses at a sinful lifetsytle, to look the other way, to redifine what sin is.

You can not reward someone for their sin, you can not celebrate sin.

To celebrate having a child out of wedlock would be saying that its okay to have a sexual relationship outside of marriage exactly

StefanM
04-25-2009, 09:17 AM
Is anyone here suggesting we should not care for this young lady?

No. I'm simply saying that the Jesus who dined with sinners wouldn't worry as much about whether or not having a shower had the appearance of condoning sin.

webdog
04-25-2009, 10:15 AM
no it was celebrated, and by being celebrated it was approved to the other teenagers.

Christians today tend to thumb their noses at a sinful lifetsytle, to look the other way, to redifine what sin is.

You can not reward someone for their sin, you can not celebrate sin....yet the double standard exists in just about every church during "fellowship dinners" which should be more aptly named "gluttony dinners". We have no problem pointing out our pet peeve sins while patting our stomachs saying "I can't eat another bite". What message does this send to our youth when this happens on a regular basis? I'll admit, I've been just as guilty of this.

rbell
04-25-2009, 11:46 AM
no it was celebrated, and by being celebrated it was approved to the other teenagers.

Christians today tend to thumb their noses at a sinful lifetsytle, to look the other way, to redifine what sin is.

You can not reward someone for their sin, you can not celebrate sin.



This statement is offensive to my church and ministry. You have no idea how we handle things...do not accuse me, or my church, of redefining sin or looking the other way.

Trust me...we seek to be redemptive, but we do not minimize the sin. And I resent your accusation that we do.

I have attempted to explain that we do confront...we do ask for confession...but for some reason you ignore that explanation.

Priesthood of the believer here: I do not fault your church for not having the shower. But, especially since I've made it plain that we deal with the sin...do not accuse us of ignoring it.

annsni
04-25-2009, 03:23 PM
no it was celebrated, and by being celebrated it was approved to the other teenagers.

Christians today tend to thumb their noses at a sinful lifetsytle, to look the other way, to redifine what sin is.

You can not reward someone for their sin, you can not celebrate sin.


When a teenager gets up in front of the church and confess their sin to the church, they certainly didn't get away with it. The baby is celebrated, not the sin.

Revmitchell
04-25-2009, 03:35 PM
...yet the double standard exists in just about every church during "fellowship dinners" which should be more aptly named "gluttony dinners". We have no problem pointing out our pet peeve sins while patting our stomachs saying "I can't eat another bite". What message does this send to our youth when this happens on a regular basis? I'll admit, I've been just as guilty of this.

Not disagreeing with you here other than to say the impact form one sin is much much greater than the other. And for that reason it stands out in a greater way and is dealt with differently.

Pastor Larry
04-25-2009, 03:48 PM
The father is not in the equation. What really needs to happen is there needs to be accountability, not just on the mother's part, but also on the father's part too. Of course, but we weren't talking about him.

No. I'm simply saying that the Jesus who dined with sinners wouldn't worry as much about whether or not having a shower had the appearance of condoning sin.And you konw this based on what? Jesus eating with sinners is hardly the same as having a baby shower, so far as I can tell, but I will be glad to entertain an argument if you make one.

...yet the double standard exists in just about every church during "fellowship dinners" which should be more aptly named "gluttony dinners".Why?

We have no problem pointing out our pet peeve sins while patting our stomachs saying "I can't eat another bite".Is there some command against eating until we are full?

What message does this send to our youth when this happens on a regular basis?Again, I have to confess I am not sure what the sin is. I eat until I am full at church dinners and I don't think anyone has ever called me a glutton. Perhaps the message we send to our teens is that we should enjoy the good things God gave us to eat.

I'll admit, I've been just as guilty of this.Guilty of what? Of eating until you are full?

BTW, why is it that any time anyone brings up sin or preaching against sin, someone always manages to inject gluttony? (That's hyperbole ... It doesn't happen every time. But if it happens once, it is too often.) Even if we are guilty of gluttony, that doesn't make other sins okay.

StefanM
04-25-2009, 07:26 PM
And you konw this based on what? Jesus eating with sinners is hardly the same as having a baby shower, so far as I can tell, but I will be glad to entertain an argument if you make one.


We come from such a different set of presuppositions that such an argument would be tedious for me and unconvincing for you. Just an observation, however...the casuistry of this discussion doesn't seem to be in accord with the general tenor of Christ's ministry. Just my opinion, at least.

Pastor Larry
04-25-2009, 07:59 PM
We come from such a different set of presuppositions that such an argument would be tedious for me and unconvincing for you.Perhaps since I am not sure where you are coming from. I believe that Jesus reached out to sinners, served them, was not afraid to hang around them. Jesus offered forgiveness and love to sinners. He condemned those who hypocritically judged sinners.

If that's not where you are, then I probably won't be convinced by your argument.

Just an observation, however...the casuistry of this discussion doesn't seem to be in accord with the general tenor of Christ's ministry. Just my opinion, at least.So you don't think Jesus would have served unwed mothers by providing things like diapers, clothes, help with learning how to be a mother, forgiveness for her sin, etc.? I think he would have, and that is what most of us here have suggested. I haven't seen anyone suggest otherwise, though perhaps I missed it somewhere.

StefanM
04-25-2009, 09:27 PM
Perhaps since I am not sure where you are coming from. I believe that Jesus reached out to sinners, served them, was not afraid to hang around them. Jesus offered forgiveness and love to sinners. He condemned those who hypocritically judged sinners.

If that's not where you are, then I probably won't be convinced by your argument.

So you don't think Jesus would have served unwed mothers by providing things like diapers, clothes, help with learning how to be a mother, forgiveness for her sin, etc.? I think he would have, and that is what most of us here have suggested. I haven't seen anyone suggest otherwise, though perhaps I missed it somewhere.

I agree with your statement there.

I most certainly do think that Jesus would have served unwed mothers in that way. What I am suggesting is that Jesus wouldn't worry about whether or not a baby shower was appropriate or not. I think he would be more concerned with needs being met and the mother's (and baby's) well-being (in all aspects). A lot of things Jesus did "sent the wrong message" to some people, yet he still ministered to people just the same.

Pastor Larry
04-25-2009, 10:08 PM
What I am suggesting is that Jesus wouldn't worry about whether or not a baby shower was appropriate or not.I think he would have.

I think he would be more concerned with needs being met and the mother's (and baby's) well-being (in all aspects).I think he would be much more concerned with this than a shower. Many here are too concerned about a shower.

A lot of things Jesus did "sent the wrong message" to some people, yet he still ministered to people just the same.I don't think Jesus ever sent the wrong message. I think some people, becuase of misguided values, misunderstood the message. And I think that is what is going on here.

Beth
04-26-2009, 04:51 AM
Perhaps I am reading too much into this, but there seems this idea that God's love can't be shown without a baby shower. Why? Can we not show God's love by actually caring for the young lady and providing things she needs without drawing attention and celebrating the situation?

Is anyone here suggesting we should not care for this young lady?

Yes, there are so many witnessing and serving opportunities that can be expressed to this young woman. She will need baby stuff, of course, but also help with the baby's daily care.

I was reminded by this thread of a very uplifting story. There once was a family at Calvary Baptist Church in NH who took in an unwed teenaged mother. She lived with them after having the baby (she kept the baby), was discipled by them and grew in her faith. When her son was about ten years old, she married a wonderful Christian man who adopted her son. She had more children, with both she and her husband active in church. Such a lovely ending and a wonderful testimony of what God can do in a Christian's life!

Beth

BaptistLady02
04-26-2009, 05:42 AM
Yes, the church should allow the use of its property for a baby shower to be held for the unwed mother.

EdSutton
04-26-2009, 12:57 PM
What is always missing in these conversations is the guy. How should we treat the men in our churches who had children out of wed lock. For instance I went to a church where this young woman was black listed for having gotten pregnant out of wedlock. She did something unusual and confessed her sin before the whole church (publically!) Wow. Imgaine that! Yet she had to sign a contract and stayed out of any ministry for a year according to the contract. Once her year was up she wanted to sing again in the choir but was prohibited and the church wanted to write up another contract and she hadn't done anything wrong. Certain people stopped speaking with her etc... Yet in this same church we had a deacon who was living together with his fiancee. I left the church before I found out if he ever actually married his girlfriend. I think the application of church discipline in this case was very lopsided. I voted yes btw.Someone has now brought up the obvious.

And just think, it only took 18 posts, to do so! :rolleyes:

It takes two individuals for this situation, the last time I checked.

Let's not place all the responsibility (and effectively the subsequent 'blame') on the mothers alone, please.

Ed

P.S. As per my usual practice, I did not vote in the poll.

Pastor Larry
04-26-2009, 02:37 PM
Someone has now brought up the obvious.

And just think, it only took 18 posts, to do so!Actually I think the obvious thing was the first post, repeated in its entirety here:Should the church allow the use of its facilities for a baby shower of an unwed mother?

As you can see, it wasn't about the male, or the repentance or lack of it. Perhaps you should start a thread on that. This thread was not about that.

Let's not place all the responsibility (and effectively the subsequent 'blame') on the mothers alone, please.I don't think anyone did. That simply wasn't the topic of this thread.

Dr. Timo
04-26-2009, 10:10 PM
Our Church allows this with a ministry effort called, "Showers of Blessing". Some ladies of our Church use our Church building on a schedule (others are used also) and they have a baby shower for a soon to be mom that wouldn't otherwise have a baby shower. Since we minister to folks outside the Church we have no way of knowing if the perspective mother is married or not. It does not matter for them to be ministered to though and I thinks that's a good thing. Our Church members involved are responsible for the setting up and cleaning up after and it has become a great blessing for all involved.:godisgood::applause:

rbell
04-26-2009, 11:54 PM
Our Church allows this with a ministry effort called, "Showers of Blessing". Some ladies of our Church use our Church building on a schedule (others are used also) and they have a baby shower for a soon to be mom that wouldn't otherwise have a baby shower. Since we minister to folks outside the Church we have no way of knowing if the perspective mother is married or not. It does not matter for them to be ministered to though and I thinks that's a good thing. Our Church members involved are responsible for the setting up and cleaning up after and it has become a great blessing for all involved.:godisgood::applause:

Yeah, we had a "showers of blessing" for an expectant mom a few months ago.

Now the baby's tummy and the formula don't agree...

So...

"mercy drops 'round us are falling..."


:D

Thank you, I'll be here all week...

corndogggy
04-27-2009, 02:41 PM
Wonder why the people who voted "no" aren't piping up? :)

I've seen one situation where it would be questionable. A poor underage unmarried couple was somehow living together and had a child. They would come to church but would just sit outside in the hall or would leave and come back to get the child. They were obviously just using church as a babysitter. Then they had the gall to start asking around for advice for conceiving another baby, because they were having trouble.

Otherwise, to refuse a shower is to judge them. Pretty sure you're not supposed to do that. Probably not supposed to do it in the above scenario either but it's kind of hard not to.

MB
04-27-2009, 04:20 PM
I voted yes.
I just love kids. I'd come to the shower an offer a gift for the child. Whether the child is conceived out of wedloc or not. Although I probably wouldn't be invited since it is usually mostly a woman thing. I'd go if I were invited though.
MB

PeterM
04-28-2009, 04:03 AM
For those that take issue with holding the shower on a church campus...

Is it your opinion that the church facilities are in some way holier than another venue that could be used? I still run into some folks that see the church buildings this way and I can certainly see how that might influence a decision.

That said, the building is just a buliding and the dirt it was built on is just dirt. This may sound overly simplistic, but in my view the more "sinners" we have on the grounds gives us a better shot at actually "being" the church... Win, build, send!

Pastor Larry
04-28-2009, 07:32 AM
Otherwise, to refuse a shower is to judge them. Pretty sure you're not supposed to do that.How is not having a shower judging someone? Babies are born all the time that we don't have showers for. Furthermore, the Bible explicitly commands us to judge. So on what basis are you "pretty sure you're not supposed to do that"?

Pastor Larry
04-28-2009, 07:34 AM
For those that take issue with holding the shower on a church campus... My issue has nothing to do with location.

Is it your opinion that the church facilities are in some way holier than another venue that could be used?Nope.

This may sound overly simplistic, but in my view the more "sinners" we have on the grounds gives us a better shot at actually "being" the church... Win, build, send!Yes, I think that is overly simplistic. I think we be the church by being the church, not by the number of baby showers we throw. I know that makes me a bit of a weird duck, but I think we can be the church by doing what Scripture says rather than what modern tradition says.

corndogggy
04-28-2009, 09:20 AM
I had a daughter out of wedlock. Yes, people make mistakes, and you don't know the whole story, nor will you. All I've got to say is that I'd love to see a judgmental holier-than-thou person around here do something to disrespect her, because it wouldn't be pretty.

Pastor Larry
04-28-2009, 11:14 AM
All I've got to say is that I'd love to see a judgmental holier-than-thou person around here do something to disrespect her, because it wouldn't be pretty.Is that a threat of violence?

No one here is disrespecting anyone, especially not the child. Perhaps a more cautious and grace-filled tone would be appropriate for your response.

matt wade
04-28-2009, 11:18 AM
I had a daughter out of wedlock. Yes, people make mistakes, and you don't know the whole story, nor will you. All I've got to say is that I'd love to see a judgmental holier-than-thou person around here do something to disrespect her, because it wouldn't be pretty.

Yes, people make mistakes, but those mistakes should not be celebrated by things like baby showers. If I went out and got drunk and killed someone, I wouldn't expect my church to throw a party for the murder I just committed. Neither should you expect the church to throw you a baby shower for having a child out of wedlock.

corndogggy
04-28-2009, 12:57 PM
Yes, people make mistakes, but those mistakes should not be celebrated by things like baby showers. If I went out and got drunk and killed someone, I wouldn't expect my church to throw a party for the murder I just committed. Neither should you expect the church to throw you a baby shower for having a child out of wedlock.

A shower is about helping a family more than having a party. The initial monetary costs and the time needed to collect the items are so overwhelming that without a shower the family would usually have to do without, especially if it's a single mother, and the person who suffers the most is the innocent child.

It's also ironic that Christians would turn their back on someone in what could be their darkest hour, the most overwhelming time of their life when they need the most help and support. At this time, it's amazing that some of you would say "sorry, you're not good enough for our help and support".

When does it end anyway? If you shun them at shower time, when do you stop shunning them? If you feel that you are right for shunning them, then you don't stop, even if they continue to hang around, leaving that child to grow up in a hostile church that shuns them. How is that being a good Christian?

Also ironic that you would compare birth to murder.

webdog
04-28-2009, 01:08 PM
Yes, people make mistakes, but those mistakes should not be celebrated by things like baby showers. If I went out and got drunk and killed someone, I wouldn't expect my church to throw a party for the murder I just committed. Neither should you expect the church to throw you a baby shower for having a child out of wedlock.The mistake is not being celebrated. If you start with a false presupposition, you end with a false conclusion.

Pastor Larry
04-28-2009, 01:39 PM
A shower is about helping a family more than having a party.No, not typically. It is about helping, but it is more about the celebration of it.

The initial monetary costs and the time needed to collect the items are so overwhelming that without a shower the family would usually have to do without, especially if it's a single mother, and the person who suffers the most is the innocent child. But as we have pointed out, this can all be done without a shower.

It's also ironic that Christians would turn their back on someone in what could be their darkest hour, the most overwhelming time of their life when they need the most help and support. At this time, it's amazing that some of you would say "sorry, you're not good enough for our help and support". Can you point to anyone who has said this?

When does it end anyway? If you shun them at shower time, when do you stop shunning them? If you feel that you are right for shunning them, then you don't stop, even if they continue to hang around, leaving that child to grow up in a hostile church that shuns them. How is that being a good Christian? Has anyone suggested shunning them? Please quote the person you are talking about so we can see what you are referring to.

corndogggy
04-28-2009, 01:40 PM
Furthermore, the Bible explicitly commands us to judge. So on what basis are you "pretty sure you're not supposed to do that"?

That's one of those awesome contradictions, because there's plenty of biblical commands telling us not to.

Matthew 7:1 - "Judge not, that ye be not judged."

Luke 6:37 - "Judge not, and ye shall not be judged. "

Romans 2:1 - "Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things."

Romans 14:10 - "But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ. "

James 4:12 - "Who art thou that judgest another? "



and my favorite:
Matthew 7:3 - "And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?"

or as the NIV says: "Why do you see the speck in your brother's eye but fail to notice the beam in your own eye?"


What part of "thou art inexcusable" don't you understand?

Pastor Larry
04-28-2009, 01:46 PM
That's one of those awesome contradictions, because there's plenty of biblical commands telling us not to. Well, let's look at them.

Matthew 7:1 - "Judge not, that ye be not judged." ... and my favorite:
Matthew 7:3 - "And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?"

or as the NIV says: "Why do you see the speck in your brother's eye but fail to notice the beam in your own eye?"For some reason you separated these. They actually go together (as you can tell by the numbers). And you also skipped v. 2: For in the way you judge, you will be judged; and by your standard of measure, it will be measured to you. And v. 5: You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye.

As you can see, the point here is not about judgement but about hypocrisy.

Luke 6:37 - "Judge not, and ye shall not be judged. "This verse is about loving others.

Romans 2:1 - "Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things."This verse is about hypocrisy.

Romans 14:10 - "But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ. "This verse is about Christian libert.

James 4:12 - "Who art thou that judgest another? "This verse is about hypocrisy ... those who judge by the law but don't do the law.


So what you have shown is that we shouldn't be hypocrites. We shouldn't judge others for things about which we ourselves are not repentant.

The Scripture, on teh other hand, is full of commands to judge, such as Matt 18, 1 Cor 5, Phil 1, James 5, etc. The point is the basis of judgment and the attitude of judgment.

But more to the point: Not having a baby shower is not the same as judging them. To equate those two is misguided. We can provide for the mother without a baby shower and not be in unrighteous judgment.

What part of "thou art inexcusable" don't you understand? I understand it perfectly. What part of "thou that judgest doest the same things" don't you understand? If I am an unwed mother and throw a baby shower for myself, while refusing to throw one for someone else, then I am "inexcusable" perhaps (but even then we would have to look deeper). If I discipline someone out of the church for immorality, but participate in immorality, I am inexcusable. Not having a baby shower for someone is not inexcusable.

Revmitchell
04-28-2009, 01:47 PM
1Co 5:1 It is reported commonly that there is fornication among you, and such fornication as is not so much as named among the Gentiles, that one should have his father's wife.
1Co 5:2 And ye are puffed up, and have not rather mourned, that he that hath done this deed might be taken away from among you.
1Co 5:3 For I verily, as absent in body, but present in spirit, have judged already, as though I were present, concerning him that hath so done this deed,
1Co 5:4 In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ,
1Co 5:5 To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.
1Co 5:6 Your glorying is not good. Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump?
1Co 5:7 Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us:
1Co 5:8 Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.
1Co 5:9 I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators:
1Co 5:10 Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world.
1Co 5:11 But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.
1Co 5:12 For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within?
1Co 5:13 But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person.

corndogggy
04-28-2009, 01:57 PM
We can provide for the mother without a baby shower and not be in unrighteous judgment.

Ah, so it's ok to get them stuff, possibly even talking about it and handing the gift over at church... you just can't get several people together at the same time and do that and call it a shower. Yeah, that's it. :thumbs:

Pastor Larry
04-28-2009, 02:01 PM
Ah, so it's ok to get them stuff, possibly even talking about it and handing the gift over at church... you just can't get several people together at the same time and do that and call it a shower. Yeah, that's it.Have you even read this thread? Please go back and read my comments before making smart aleck responses.

corndogggy
04-28-2009, 02:01 PM
As you can see, the point here is not about judgement but about hypocrisy.

The point is that it's kind of hard to be judgmental without being a hypocrite.

corndogggy
04-28-2009, 02:06 PM
Have you even read this thread? Please go back and read my comments before making smart aleck responses.

Yeah actually, and you seem to make the same argument here:

Perhaps I am reading too much into this, but there seems this idea that God's love can't be shown without a baby shower. Why? Can we not show God's love by actually caring for the young lady and providing things she needs without drawing attention and celebrating the situation?

Pastor Larry
04-28-2009, 02:06 PM
The point is that it's kind of hard to be judgmental without being a hypocrite. That's not the point of that passage.

And it's not hard to be judgmental without being a hypocrite. If we strive to live in repentance, we can practice loving judgment in the context of biblical obedience. In fact, if you don't practice judgment, you can't be obedient Christ. Paul condemns the Corinthians because they did not practice judgment. HE said if he was there he would have already done it.

Pastor Larry
04-28-2009, 02:07 PM
Yeah actually, and you seem to make the same argument here:I think it safe to say that you don't understand what the argument is.

matt wade
04-28-2009, 02:10 PM
A shower is about helping a family more than having a party. The initial monetary costs and the time needed to collect the items are so overwhelming that without a shower the family would usually have to do without, especially if it's a single mother, and the person who suffers the most is the innocent child.

The child does not suffer at all if there is not a shower. The shower is a celebration. All the helping should happen with or without a shower. You seem to think that helping can only happen with a shower. You are wrong.

It's also ironic that Christians would turn their back on someone in what could be their darkest hour, the most overwhelming time of their life when they need the most help and support. At this time, it's amazing that some of you would say "sorry, you're not good enough for our help and support".

No one has said that. What I say is sorry, I will not celebrate your sin. I will however, help you to raise the child properly. That includes helping you with essential items if you can't afford them. That also includes helping to hold you up and instruct you on the ways of righteousness.

When does it end anyway? If you shun them at shower time, when do you stop shunning them? If you feel that you are right for shunning them, then you don't stop, even if they continue to hang around, leaving that child to grow up in a hostile church that shuns them. How is that being a good Christian?

No shunning is taking place. Again I ask, should we celebrate a murderer? If you say no, then in your eyes you would be shunning the murderer. Where does your shunning stop?

Also ironic that you would compare birth to murder.

A sin is a sin and none should be celebrated. I'm not comparing a birth to a murder. I'm comparing a child conceived outside of weblock to murder.

corndogggy
04-28-2009, 02:23 PM
I'm comparing a child conceived outside of weblock to murder.

I know exactly what you're comparing, and without going into what I think of your opinion, let me ask you... so you think everybody who has had sex outside of wedlock is on the same level as a murderer?

corndogggy
04-28-2009, 02:27 PM
I think it safe to say that you don't understand what the argument is.

Your argument is that it's perfectly fine for everybody to give gifts individually, or even have a shower elsewhere. You just can't hold a shower in the church building where everybody gives gifts all at once. Tell me that's not what you're saying.

Pastor Larry
04-28-2009, 02:34 PM
Your argument is that it's perfectly fine for everybody to give gifts individually, or even have a shower elsewhere. You just can't hold a shower in the church building where everybody gives gifts all at once. Tell me that's not what you're saying.That's not what I am saying.

matt wade
04-28-2009, 03:03 PM
I know exactly what you're comparing, and without going into what I think of your opinion, let me ask you... so you think everybody who has had sex outside of wedlock is on the same level as a murderer?

Is one sin greater than another? Both condemn you to hell. Neither should be celebrated.

corndogggy
04-28-2009, 03:17 PM
Is one sin greater than another? Both condemn you to hell. Neither should be celebrated.

That's the problem though, you're not celebrating the sin, you're celebrating and helping the new life. The initial act is the sin, not the child. Just because one person's luck was a little different and a child was produced doesn't mean they're any worse than the next person who did the exact same thing. You should assume that they are forgiven by God and do the same yourself. Keeping grudges and acting like this person is still sinful does no good and is hardly honorable. You usually don't know the whole story and it's pretty horrible to say that a child isn't worth celebrating.

corndogggy
04-28-2009, 03:38 PM
Even if we are guilty of gluttony, that doesn't make other sins okay.

It does make one a hypocrite if they're so willing to speak against these other since without admitting their own.

webdog
04-28-2009, 03:38 PM
The child does not suffer at all if there is not a shower. The shower is a celebration. All the helping should happen with or without a shower. You seem to think that helping can only happen with a shower. You are wrong.You have defined it purely as a celebration regardless if it is one or not.
No one has said that. What I say is sorry, I will not celebrate your sin. I will however, help you to raise the child properly. That includes helping you with essential items if you can't afford them. That also includes helping to hold you up and instruct you on the ways of righteousness.It's not a celebration of a sin, and oddly the very things you would help them with is the purpose of a shower. Go figure.
No shunning is taking place. Again I ask, should we celebrate a murderer? If you say no, then in your eyes you would be shunning the murderer. Where does your shunning stop?The celebrating a sin card is getting quite old. Surely you can do better...
A sin is a sin and none should be celebrated. I'm not comparing a birth to a murder. I'm comparing a child conceived outside of weblock to murder.See above reply.

Who are you to compare a child conceived out of wedlock to murder?

rbell
04-28-2009, 04:14 PM
OK, for those who oppose, here's a question:

This is how our church handles it with members:

Suppose a girl gets pregnant out of wedlock. Her and the boy (if either/both are members) confess publicly, and agree to step down from leadership positions for a season.

Can the shower then be held, with no penalty in the afterlife? :D

I Am Blessed 24
04-28-2009, 04:59 PM
The Bible says that children are a blessing, it does not say that children are a blessing IF the parents are married.

With a shower, I would be celebrating the impending birth of a child and supporting the mother's decision to let her baby live---not the sin of conceiving out of wedlock.

The Blood either covers ALL sins or NO sins... Why squabble over which is the worst sin?

matt wade
04-28-2009, 05:00 PM
OK, for those who oppose, here's a question:

This is how our church handles it with members:

Suppose a girl gets pregnant out of wedlock. Her and the boy (if either/both are members) confess publicly, and agree to step down from leadership positions for a season.

Can the shower then be held, with no penalty in the afterlife? :D

No the shower should not be held.

Now, my hypothetical situation:

Two women in your church come forward and admit they are homosexuals and are going to adopt a child. Is it OK for the church to have a baby shower?

Obivously my answer is no. The baby shower is a celebration for the mother and this situation should not be celebrated.

rbell
04-28-2009, 05:27 PM
No the shower should not be held.

Now, my hypothetical situation:

Two women in your church come forward and admit they are homosexuals and are going to adopt a child. Is it OK for the church to have a baby shower?

Obivously my answer is no. The baby shower is a celebration for the mother and this situation should not be celebrated.

Your comparison is irrelevant. Homosexuality cannot be made right, save ending the relationship. There is a possibility of an unwed pregnancy being made right.

Besides...if confession is made, what of forgiveness? Why continue to hold the sin against them?

matt wade
04-28-2009, 05:39 PM
Your comparison is irrelevant. Homosexuality cannot be made right, save ending the relationship. There is a possibility of an unwed pregnancy being made right.

Besides...if confession is made, what of forgiveness? Why continue to hold the sin against them?

What if the homosexuals confess their sin and stop participating in a homosexual relationship? If you are going to have a shower for the unwed mother, shouldn't also have one for the repentant homosexual with a child? Afterall, according to those that say the shower should be held, it's all about the child.

corndogggy
04-28-2009, 06:03 PM
What if the homosexuals confess their sin and stop participating in a homosexual relationship? If you are going to have a shower for the unwed mother, shouldn't also have one for the repentant homosexual with a child? Afterall, according to those that say the shower should be held, it's all about the child.

What if aliens abducted and impregnated a girl, then told her that the child would be the next antichrist... would it be ok to giver her a shower? :BangHead:

matt wade
04-28-2009, 06:12 PM
What if aliens abducted and impregnated a girl, then told her that the child would be the next antichrist... would it be ok to giver her a shower? :BangHead:

Productive method of debating...you get backed into a corner and don't want to answer so you just come up with some stupid off the wall statement.

Why don't you just answer the question? Should a homosexual couple that adopts a child be given a shower? It's a straightforward question...

corndogggy
04-28-2009, 06:39 PM
Productive method of debating...you get backed into a corner and don't want to answer so you just come up with some stupid off the wall statement.

I was just pointing out how far fetched your last story was.

Why don't you just answer the question? Should a homosexual couple that adopts a child be given a shower? It's a straightforward question...

The crazy story I quoted went beyond this straightforward question and added the clause of the lady repenting, getting out of that relationship, then adopting. At that point she would just be a normal single lady trying to adopt, so if you're worried about being straightforward, why not just ask that? I see no reason why she should not be allowed a shower at that point. Of course, they probably wouldn't be the ones who actually need one, since if they can afford the massive adoption fees, they're not exactly hurting for cash.

As for a gay couple, first you have to consider whether or not an openly gay couple would even be allowed to attend church there and accepted unconditionally without harassment. If a church is wacky enough to allow that, then I'm sure a shower would seem normal to them, but you know good and well that this probably isn't the norm, and would rarely, if ever, get to that point.

Nevertheless, I don't think it would be appropriate because it's a concious choice to continue to live like that. In the same manner, I actually do agree that in some situations where an expecting hetero couple who chooses to live together but not get married it would not be appropriate. However, this is not the norm... most unmarried women who are about to have a child are not in a serious relationship with the father, and those that are usually aren't church-going enough for anybody to actually consider having a shower at the church. I'm not saying its better to not be in a relationship, but everybody knows that lust based relationships rarely work out, so at some point they've got to get a fresh start and do the best they can with the cards that they are dealt, but its kind of hard and counter productive when people are constantly holding it over their head well after the fact.

What some of you don't realize is that if these folks during this time could go back and change things, they would. Do you really think that most of them don't realize they made a mistake? Most are scared to death and are hurting. Doing things to continue to point this out to them really does nothing except turn them away from Christianity.

StefanM
04-28-2009, 07:21 PM
The Bible says that children are a blessing, it does not say that children are a blessing IF the parents are married.

With a shower, I would be celebrating the impending birth of a child and supporting the mother's decision to let her baby live---not the sin of conceiving out of wedlock.

The Blood either covers ALL sins or NO sins... Why squabble over which is the worst sin?


Very well said.

JohnDeereFan
04-28-2009, 07:45 PM
Should the church allow the use of its facilities for a baby shower of an unwed mother?

I would have to say no, lest we give the impression that we are condoning her sin.

We can still meet her needs and give her supplies for the baby without a shower.

((And, yes, I already know that Annsi or whatever her name is, is going to call me a Pharisee.))

StefanM
04-28-2009, 07:50 PM
((And, yes, I already know that Annsi or whatever her name is, is going to call me a Pharisee.))

If the shoe fits...:laugh:

annsni
04-28-2009, 09:26 PM
I would have to say no, lest we give the impression that we are condoning her sin.

We can still meet her needs and give her supplies for the baby without a shower.

I agree that we can give her supplies and help meet her needs without a shower.

But how is a shower condoning sin? Especially if she did what the girls in our church have done (we had 2 cases of unwed mothers) - get up in front of the church and confess her sins (of her own accord - it's not like a requirement or anything) and ask forgiveness. Both also asked the church to step in and help the mother through this time of pregnancy and motherhood by praying for her.

For that girl - who confessed and repented - do we still condemn her for her sin?

((And, yes, I already know that Annsi or whatever her name is, is going to call me a Pharisee.))

Wow - paranoid much? I've never called anyone a Pharisee every. Wrong? Absolutely - but a Pharisee? Never. :D

rbell
04-28-2009, 10:45 PM
What if the homosexuals confess their sin and stop participating in a homosexual relationship? If you are going to have a shower for the unwed mother, shouldn't also have one for the repentant homosexual with a child? Afterall, according to those that say the shower should be held, it's all about the child.

Look, I gave an example of biblical forgiveness and restoration, and you don't like it. Not my problem if your repeated red herrings are just that...

PeterM
04-29-2009, 02:54 AM
In the instance of the shower the church I pastor gave for an unwed mother... it was anything but a celebration. The atmosphere was heavy as every woman in the building was totally aware of the circumstances. I have preached funerals for saved folks and lost folks and that shower was more like the latter. It was however a wonderful opportunity to communicate (actively and passively) our love for the young woman and her unborn baby and our obvious disapproval for the circumstances that got her there.

JohnDeereFan
04-29-2009, 08:01 AM
If the shoe fits...:laugh:

Sorry you feel that way. Welcome to my ignore list.

StefanM
04-29-2009, 08:04 AM
Sorry you feel that way. Welcome to my ignore list.

I'm so distraught. :laugh:

corndogggy
04-29-2009, 09:43 AM
For that girl - who confessed and repented - do we still condemn her for her sin?

That's the problem, it lingers too long. In most cases in the scope of the situation we're talking about, there's the initial sin then it stops. This person shouldn't be treated any different than someone else who got caught having sex out of wedlock. This isn't the case though. Since their luck was different and a baby was produced apparently they deserve extra special condemnation that lingers. Their sin wasn't greater than the other person whom which you have already forgotten about, they just happen to have more proof of the act. This is why I have a problem with some of you acting this way, as you have obviously not forgiven her. If you judge, it's supposed to be for current acts, not previous acts that have stopped and have since been forgiven.

matt wade
04-29-2009, 10:00 AM
That's the problem, it lingers too long. In most cases in the scope of the situation we're talking about, there's the initial sin then it stops. This person shouldn't be treated any different than someone else who got caught having sex out of wedlock. This isn't the case though. Since their luck was different and a baby was produced apparently they deserve extra special condemnation that lingers. Their sin wasn't greater than the other person whom which you have already forgotten about, they just happen to have more proof of the act. This is why I have a problem with some of you acting this way, as you have obviously not forgiven her. If you judge, it's supposed to be for current acts, not previous acts that have stopped and have since been forgiven.

No..the sin of the person who you say "luck was different" (I say God decided for a child to be born) is not any greater or less than the other person. The difference is is that no one even thinks about holding a celebration for the person who doesn't have a child. The problem is with the celebration of the person's sin. We should not celebrate any sin.

annsni
04-29-2009, 10:24 AM
No..the sin of the person who you say "luck was different" (I say God decided for a child to be born) is not any greater or less than the other person. The difference is is that no one even thinks about holding a celebration for the person who doesn't have a child. The problem is with the celebration of the person's sin. We should not celebrate any sin.

But are we celebrating fornication?

Or are we celebrating a new life?

Thinkingstuff
04-29-2009, 10:32 AM
No..the sin of the person who you say "luck was different" (I say God decided for a child to be born) is not any greater or less than the other person. The difference is is that no one even thinks about holding a celebration for the person who doesn't have a child. The problem is with the celebration of the person's sin. We should not celebrate any sin.

In this case God has taken sin and made something wonderful out of it. It's not celebrating sin but celebrating the life that the Lord Most High created. If repentance is there then there should be no question of celebrating a new child that God has made wonderfully in his/her mother's womb. I place those who would not forgive and exclude a repentant woman in this circumstance into the same catagory as the Pharasees. Or the men who gathered the stones to cast at the woman caught in adultery (interestingly enough the man wasn't there either), or those who will not look out for widows and orphans, or those to whom the Lord said "get thee from me. I never Knew you" and further says "When I was hungry you gave me naught to eat, when I was in prison, you didn't visit me...for when you do not do this to the least of these my bretheren you haven't done it to me" (paraphrased). So there.

rbell
04-29-2009, 11:36 AM
But are we celebrating fornication?

Or are we celebrating a new life?

dingdingding

We have a winner!

corndogggy
04-29-2009, 11:52 AM
I say God decided for a child to be born

If you truly believe this, then why would you not want to celebrate it?

JohnDeereFan
04-29-2009, 12:08 PM
If you truly believe this, then why would you not want to celebrate it?

Because not everything God decides to allow is good or worthy of celebration.

For instance, God, in His sovereignty, decided that 3,000 people should die on 9/11. Now, we can acknowledge God's sovereignty over that act and we can even praise Him for His sovereignty, even if we do not understand His purposes, but the deaths of 3,000 people is not something that we celebrate.

Thinkingstuff
04-29-2009, 12:13 PM
Because not everything God decides to allow is good or worthy of celebration.

For instance, God, in His sovereignty, decided that 3,000 people should die on 9/11. Now, we can acknowledge God's sovereignty over that act and we can even praise Him for His sovereignty, even if we do not understand His purposes, but the deaths of 3,000 people is not something that we celebrate.

There is a big difference for celebrating life and celebrating death. You know what catagories I place people in.

matt wade
04-29-2009, 12:19 PM
I place those who would not forgive and exclude a repentant woman in this circumstance into the same catagory as the Pharasees. Or the men who gathered the stones to cast at the woman caught in adultery (interestingly enough the man wasn't there either), or those who will not look out for widows and orphans, or those to whom the Lord said "get thee from me. I never Knew you" and further says "When I was hungry you gave me naught to eat, when I was in prison, you didn't visit me...for when you do not do this to the least of these my bretheren you haven't done it to me" (paraphrased). So there.


First, I never said I wouldn't forgive the woman. Actually, I probably wouldn't forgive the woman, as it isn't my place to forgive her. She wouldn't have sinned against me. It's God that should (and will!) forgive her.

Second, you an an extreme hypocrite. You are angered that I would not have a shower for this woman because you say I wouldn't forgive her, yet you then judge me and claim that I'm not saved! Who are you to say that the Lord will say He never knew me?

Why don't you try to do as your name says and think before you post instead of posting this drivel. I'll forgive you this time for questioning my salvation, but next time I'll report you to the mods :).

matt wade
04-29-2009, 12:20 PM
Because not everything God decides to allow is good or worthy of celebration.

For instance, God, in His sovereignty, decided that 3,000 people should die on 9/11. Now, we can acknowledge God's sovereignty over that act and we can even praise Him for His sovereignty, even if we do not understand His purposes, but the deaths of 3,000 people is not something that we celebrate.

Excellent point! You illustrated this much better than I was going to, so I'll just let you words speak for me :).

JohnDeereFan
04-29-2009, 12:25 PM
There is a big difference for celebrating life and celebrating death. You know what catagories I place people in.

But we can celebrate life without celebrating the conditions by which that life came about.

Thinkingstuff
04-29-2009, 12:42 PM
But we can celebrate life without celebrating the conditions by which that life came about.

you can celebrate life without condoning sin. Sure. It's when you don't celebrate life because of the sin. Man sinned and all (save enoch and elijah) have died because of it. But God did a greater thing the incarnation, ressurection. Do we not celebrate easter because its a direct result of our sin? ie If Adam never sinned we would never have needed redemption. Easter is a glaring identifier of our sin. So lets not celebrate it because it celebrates our sin? Fah! Its the same reasoning I see here against having a shower for this repentant mother.

corndogggy
04-29-2009, 12:55 PM
Slightly off topic, but if the girl doesn't know who the father is, would you even allow that child to come to church? Deuteronomy tells us not to, down to the 10th generation after him. Where does it say that this rule is now null and void?

JohnDeereFan
04-29-2009, 01:02 PM
you can celebrate life without condoning sin. Sure. It's when you don't celebrate life because of the sin.

Then celebrate the life in a way that doesn't appear to condone the sin.

Do we not celebrate easter because its a direct result of our sin?

No, we celebrate Easter because it's the day Christ was resurrected.

Its the same reasoning I see here against having a shower for this repentant mother.

Look, I don't really care what you do in your church. By her a copy of The Shack, while you're at it.

But to hold a shower is not appropriate and we're not doing it.

JohnDeereFan
04-29-2009, 01:03 PM
Slightly off topic, but if the girl doesn't know who the father is, would you even allow that child to come to church? Deuteronomy tells us not to, down to the 10th generation after him. Where does it say that this rule is now null and void?

Hebrews. It's called the New Covenant.

Thinkingstuff
04-29-2009, 01:04 PM
Slightly off topic, but if the girl doesn't know who the father is, would you even allow that child to come to church? Deuteronomy tells us not to, down to the 10th generation after him. Where does it say that this rule is now null and void?

First of all were talking about a repentant girl. 2nd of all following your same logic the Ethiopian Eunuch in Acts never stood a chance of being saved or in the assembly of believers. 1 No one who has been emasculated by crushing or cutting may enter the assembly of the LORD. Yet this is what we get in acts. 36As they traveled along the road, they came to some water and the eunuch said, "Look, here is water. Why shouldn't I be baptized?"[f] 38And he gave orders to stop the chariot. Then both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water and Philip baptized him. 39When they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord suddenly took Philip away, and the eunuch did not see him again, but went on his way rejoicing.

DHK
04-29-2009, 01:04 PM
Slightly off topic, but if the girl doesn't know who the father is, would you even allow that child to come to church? Deuteronomy tells us not to, down to the 10th generation after him. Where does it say that this rule is now null and void?
Christ fulfilled the law at the cross. If you want to be consistent with those laws then:
1. you should be stoned if you pick up sticks (use fuel) on any given Saturday--even in winter.
2. It would be against the law to wear "mixed" clothing. One must wear all linen, all wool, etc. No polyester/cotton mixes; not one type of clothing for the shirt and another for either pant or shirt--but all 100% the same from top to bottom.
3. Your diet would be strictly according to the Jewish diet--no pork products, etc.
4. and so many other restrictions, some of which would be impossible for you to keep.
--These are Jewish laws, which Christ has fulfilled at the cross. Furthermore we are not Jews.

Thinkingstuff
04-29-2009, 01:12 PM
Then celebrate the life in a way that doesn't appear to condone the sin.



No, we celebrate Easter because it's the day Christ was resurrected.



Look, I don't really care what you do in your church. By her a copy of The Shack, while you're at it.

But to hold a shower is not appropriate and we're not doing it.

I could see if we were discussing someone unrepentant but we're not. So no one at your church would drop the stones in this story?

3The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group 4and said to Jesus, "Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. 5In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?" 6They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him.

But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. 7When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her." 8Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.

9At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. 10Jesus straightened up and asked her, "Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?"

11"No one, sir," she said.
"Then neither do I condemn you," Jesus declared. "Go now and leave your life of sin."

corndogggy
04-29-2009, 03:10 PM
As for "celebrating the sin", flip it around... if a normal married couple were about to have a child, if you threw the woman a shower, would you be celebrating the act of her having sex with her husband? If not, then why would you be celebrating the sin of sex out of wedlock if she was unmarried?

matt wade
04-29-2009, 03:17 PM
As for "celebrating the sin", flip it around... if a normal married couple were about to have a child, if you threw the woman a shower, would you be celebrating the act of her having sex with her husband? If not, then why would you be celebrating the sin of sex out of wedlock if she was unmarried?

With a married couple to woman becames with child through God's Grace and through His prescribed methods. That is something to celebrate. Becoming with child out of God's prescribed methods is not something to celebrate.

webdog
04-29-2009, 03:17 PM
As for "celebrating the sin", flip it around... if a normal married couple were about to have a child, if you threw the woman a shower, would you be celebrating the act of her having sex with her husband? If not, then why would you be celebrating the sin of sex out of wedlock if she was unmarried?Stop...common sense is not allowed in this discussion :)

webdog
04-29-2009, 03:18 PM
With a married couple to woman becames with child through God's Grace and through His prescribed methods. That is something to celebrate. Becoming with child out of God's prescribed methods is not something to celebrate.So a shower for a married pregnant woman is the celebration of the sex she and her husband had? :confused:

Amy.G
04-29-2009, 03:22 PM
Here's a novel idea. How about the church not giving showers for anyone? Why not leave the shower giving up to the friends and family of the showeree and leave the church out of it? The church can still give a gift of needed items to an unwed mother if she needs anything. This would be sharing God's love without any chance of it seeming like sin was being celebrated. Just a thought.

matt wade
04-29-2009, 03:25 PM
So a shower for a married pregnant woman is the celebration of the sex she and her husband had? :confused:

I guess you are having a hard time reading today. Let me post it for you again:

With a married couple to woman becames with child through God's Grace and through His prescribed methods. That is something to celebrate.

Celebrating that someone is with child and that they became with way through God's prescribed methods, i.e. sex within marriage.

If you want to say that we should celebrate any person that becomes with child or obtains a child, then certainly you think we should celebrate when a woman is raped or a homosexual couple adopts a child or, heck, even if someone abducts a child. Doesn't the child abductor need essential supplies?!

matt wade
04-29-2009, 03:29 PM
Here's a novel idea. How about the church not giving showers for anyone? Why not leave the shower giving up to the friends and family of the showeree and leave the church out of it? The church can still give a gift of needed items to an unwed mother if she needs anything. This would be sharing God's love without any chance of it seeming like sin was being celebrated. Just a thought.

Actually this is my preference :). I don't think we need to have showers, birthday parties, anniversary parties, or any of that as a church sanctuned event.

corndogggy
04-29-2009, 03:32 PM
With a married couple to woman becames with child through God's Grace and through His prescribed methods. That is something to celebrate.

If that is what we are celebrating, why wait towards the end of the pregnancy? Why not just celebrate it as soon as everybody knows instead of waiting for months? We don't do that because that's not what we're celebrating.

matt wade
04-29-2009, 03:34 PM
If that is what we are celebrating, why wait towards the end of the pregnancy? Why not just celebrate it as soon as everybody knows instead of waiting for months? We don't do that because that's not what we're celebrating.

People have baby showers at all different times throughout the pregnancy. I've seen them happen at 4 months and I've seen them happen at 9 months. I've seen them happen after birth. Maybe you don't do that, but plenty of people do.

webdog
04-29-2009, 03:50 PM
I guess you are having a hard time reading today. Let me post it for you again:

With a married couple to woman becames with child through God's Grace and through His prescribed methods. That is something to celebrate.

Celebrating that someone is with child and that they became with way through God's prescribed methods, i.e. sex within marriage.

If you want to say that we should celebrate any person that becomes with child or obtains a child, then certainly you think we should celebrate when a woman is raped or a homosexual couple adopts a child or, heck, even if someone abducts a child. Doesn't the child abductor need essential supplies?!Fact remains a baby shower is not a celebration of how the child is conceived...so therefore your stance is faulty.

DHK
04-29-2009, 03:52 PM
Here's a novel idea. How about the church not giving showers for anyone? Why not leave the shower giving up to the friends and family of the showeree and leave the church out of it? The church can still give a gift of needed items to an unwed mother if she needs anything. This would be sharing God's love without any chance of it seeming like sin was being celebrated. Just a thought.
I agree Amy. The friends and family are usually from the church anyway. Our church is like a family. Even the newly saved find our church more like a family where the people are friendly to them. It isn't the church, per se, that that throws a party (birthday, anniversary, shower, etc.,); it is the planning of one or two friends of the person involved.

corndogggy
04-29-2009, 04:01 PM
Ok, here you go... artificial insemination. The girl didn't sin, isn't gay, but is unmarried. Does she get a shower? :laugh:

Amy.G
04-29-2009, 04:07 PM
Ok, here you go... artificial insemination. The girl didn't sin, isn't gay, but is unmarried. Does she get a shower? :laugh:

That's just gross.

corndogggy
04-29-2009, 04:15 PM
It happens.

Amy.G
04-29-2009, 04:20 PM
It happens.
It's still gross.

I gave my opinion. No showers for anybody. The church should stay out of it.

I don't think it's the church's job to give parties. It's the church's job to help those in need.

thegospelgeek
04-29-2009, 04:22 PM
Here's a novel idea. How about the church not giving showers for anyone? Why not leave the shower giving up to the friends and family of the showeree and leave the church out of it? The church can still give a gift of needed items to an unwed mother if she needs anything. This would be sharing God's love without any chance of it seeming like sin was being celebrated. Just a thought.


A good idea from Amy (as expected). But I have seen cases where the girl does not have any family in the church and gets little to no support from the family that she does have. In reality this is the case for most of the teens I minister too. I think a little help from the Church and an expression of love from those in the Church is not only correct but required. It is not a celabration of the sin. Nor is it a celebration of any kind. Just showing a little of Christ love to someone who needs it.

Makes me think of the Catsing crowns song "Does anybody see her?" A song inspired by a true story that happens way too often in our churches.

Thinkingstuff
04-29-2009, 04:24 PM
It's still gross.

I gave my opinion. No showers for anybody. The church should stay out of it.

I don't think it's the church's job to give parties. It's the church's job to help those in need.

In the ancient world the churches were very much a part of peoples everyday lives. Christians would go out to the barren places to find discarded babies (because of flaws) and rescue them and feed them. They would support widows and people with out means. They held all sorts of celebrations. They acted like a union and were very involved. It wasn't just a place to go. These people were very interconnected. what happened?

webdog
04-29-2009, 04:25 PM
It's still gross.

I gave my opinion. No showers for anybody. The church should stay out of it.

I don't think it's the church's job to give parties. It's the church's job to help those in need.Istn't that what a shower is?

annsni
04-29-2009, 04:45 PM
Honestly, I don't know of any "church" that throws showers - but they are the location for many of them. Usually it is friends or family who throw the shower. Our church has even thrown a shower for our local crisis pregnancy center so they can build up some supplies for the young moms.

Amy.G
04-29-2009, 05:11 PM
In the ancient world the churches were very much a part of peoples everyday lives. Christians would go out to the barren places to find discarded babies (because of flaws) and rescue them and feed them. They would support widows and people with out means. They held all sorts of celebrations. They acted like a union and were very involved. It wasn't just a place to go. These people were very interconnected. what happened?

That was my point when I said "help those in need", but what does it have to do with baby showers in the tradition that we do them in this country?

thegospelgeek
04-29-2009, 05:13 PM
Honestly, I don't know of any "church" that throws showers - but they are the location for many of them. Usually it is friends or family who throw the shower. Our church has even thrown a shower for our local crisis pregnancy center so they can build up some supplies for the young moms.

Even thow the 'Church" does not hold the shower, if the pastor's wife or someone who works with the teens hold such an event it would be percieved by bystanders as being held by "The Church".

We do throw showers for a home for unwed mothers. However it is a bit different than the typical "Baby Shower" as none of the mothers are in attendance as the home is several states away.

Amy.G
04-29-2009, 05:14 PM
Istn't that what a shower is?

No. A shower is a party held for an expectant mother or a bride in which they receive gifts. I've been to enough showers to know they are parties.

Contributing to the needs of others isn't a party. We have a food pantry at our church and give food to anyone who asks, but we don't buy fresh flowers and cake and sandwiches and play games when we give out food. We don't give them a food shower. Surely you can see the difference.

webdog
04-29-2009, 06:49 PM
No. A shower is a party held for an expectant mother or a bride in which they receive gifts. I've been to enough showers to know they are parties.

Contributing to the needs of others isn't a party. We have a food pantry at our church and give food to anyone who asks, but we don't buy fresh flowers and cake and sandwiches and play games when we give out food. We don't give them a food shower. Surely you can see the difference.The purpose of a shower isn't the party, it is to provide for mom and baby. That is why mom does a baby registry so those who attend know what mom needs. The fact that those who throw the shower make it a fun party event doesn't mean this is the sole purpose of a baby shower.

rbell
04-29-2009, 09:13 PM
Here's a novel idea. How about the church not giving showers for anyone? Why not leave the shower giving up to the friends and family of the showeree and leave the church out of it? The church can still give a gift of needed items to an unwed mother if she needs anything. This would be sharing God's love without any chance of it seeming like sin was being celebrated. Just a thought.

Or another, radical idea: why don't we recognize this is a liberty issue, and as long as the sin is addressed, then it becomes a matter of local church autonomy?

Amy.G
04-29-2009, 09:16 PM
Or another, radical idea: why don't we recognize this is a liberty issue, and as long as the sin is addressed, then it becomes a matter of local church autonomy?

Good point.

rbell
04-29-2009, 09:19 PM
Good point.

Of course...then what would we fight about???

:laugh:

oh...music, versions, Calvinism, Arminianism, End Times, Casseroles, Drinking, Pants-wearing,

Never mind. I have a list.

:D

Amy.G
04-29-2009, 09:28 PM
Of course...then what would we fight about???

:laugh:

oh...music, versions, Calvinism, Arminianism, End Times, Casseroles, Drinking, Pants-wearing,

Never mind. I have a list.

:D

Casseroles! I don't think I've been in casserole fight yet. I like them. Anyone who doesn't is a heretic. How's that for starters?

http://bestsmileys.com/eating1/7.gif

matt wade
04-29-2009, 09:43 PM
Ok, here you go... artificial insemination. The girl didn't sin, isn't gay, but is unmarried. Does she get a shower? :laugh:

No shower. Unmarried woman looking to bring a child into this world without a father. It's sin and shouldn't be celebrated.

Since I answer your questions, why don't you answer mine instead of dodging them? Does the homosexual couple get a shower or not?

corndogggy
04-29-2009, 10:05 PM
No shower. Unmarried woman looking to bring a child into this world without a father. It's sin and shouldn't be celebrated.


If artificial insemination by a single woman is obviously a sin, it should be easily found in the bible. Why not show this to us?


Since I answer your questions, why don't you answer mine instead of dodging them? Does the homosexual couple get a shower or not?

I already made a more than adequate post immediately after you asked, don't feel like repeating just because you're too lazy to read it the first time.

abcgrad94
04-29-2009, 10:08 PM
All babies are special, and are not responsible for the circumstances of their birth. I vote yes, it's ok for a church to give an unwed mother a baby shower. What a great way to show Christian charity and open a door for mentoring the new mother!

matt wade
04-29-2009, 10:13 PM
If artificial insemination by a single woman is obviously a sin, it should be easily found in the bible. Why not show this to us?


According to you the Bible is full of contradictions and so what would be the worth in me showing you anything in it? FYI, not all sins are clearly spelled out in the Bible.

corndogggy
04-29-2009, 10:20 PM
FYI, not all sins are clearly spelled out in the Bible.

Yeah, some you just make up.

rbell
04-30-2009, 03:13 AM
Well, I think we've succeeded in...


http://i484.photobucket.com/albums/rr206/swampbearph/beating-a-dead-horse.gif

:D

saturneptune
04-30-2009, 04:50 AM
Honestly, I don't know of any "church" that throws showers - but they are the location for many of them. Usually it is friends or family who throw the shower. Our church has even thrown a shower for our local crisis pregnancy center so they can build up some supplies for the young moms.

I totally agree with this post. It is up to each local church to establish policy on this. Let me ask the holier than thou crowd something. What kind of mindset are you pursuing to disallow church facilities for someone in need of help with a child who is not married? Is that your idea of God getting even? Also, Mr holier than thou, would it not be better to minister to her about the Scripture, show her the Gospel, and maybe even try to reach out to the father and use the church resources to form a new family instead of making a moral statement with your building?

I wonder how many sitting in church pews looking down their nose at others have a thought life so filthy or are covering up some other sin it would make a sailor blush?

JohnDeereFan
04-30-2009, 07:19 AM
I could see if we were discussing someone unrepentant but we're not. So no one at your church would drop the stones in this story?

It has nothing to do with stones. It has to do with the appropriateness of celebrating something that is the result of sin.

Now, I understand that when you run out of arguments, it's only natural to try to demonize your opponent by calling him a legalist or a Pharisee, or by making snide comments about "not dropping the stones", but I know our church and I think you'd be hard pressed to find a church that would rally around someone who has sinned and repented and try to restore them and love them as our church would.

However, that doesn't mean that we're going to have a party to celebrate their sin.

If you want to, then go for it, but we have a Biblical standard to follow.

JohnDeereFan
04-30-2009, 07:22 AM
Let me ask those who do not believe a baby shower is appropriate in this case something. What kind of mindset are you pursuing to disallow church facilities for someone in need of help with a child who is not married? Is that your idea of God getting even?

No, it's the mindset of not giving the world the impression that we approve of her sin.

I wonder how many sitting in church pews looking down their nose at others have a thought life so filthy or are covering up some other sin it would make a sailor blush?

I wonder how many posting on message boards look down their noses at others who have different opinions than they do.

Thinkingstuff
04-30-2009, 08:19 AM
It has nothing to do with stones. It has to do with the appropriateness of celebrating something that is the result of sin.

Now, I understand that when you run out of arguments, it's only natural to try to demonize your opponent by calling him a legalist or a Pharisee, or by making snide comments about "not dropping the stones", but I know our church and I think you'd be hard pressed to find a church that would rally around someone who has sinned and repented and try to restore them and love them as our church would.

However, that doesn't mean that we're going to have a party to celebrate their sin.

If you want to, then go for it, but we have a Biblical standard to follow.

Oh I haven't run out of arguments. Easter is a direct result of our sin. Do we stop celebrating that as well? Often when the truth hits you hard a common responce is to plead the victim. However, those who were repentant Jesus restored in full including you and I. See, I find a lot of hypocracy with this subject. Because its easy to attack a young woman who has obviously sinned. But would you marry a divorced person? There are many baptist pastors who would. (maybe not you but many) Not only was it the adulterous woman that Jesus restored but the woman at the well, Zachius the tax collector. You may be caught up in the sin and can't get past that point. But forgiveness is total and complete. In Fact, God tells us that he takes our repented sins and puts it in the deepest part of the sea never to surface again. Its a shame that his children who ask for forgiveness must deal with their brothers and sisters who never let it go or fully restore them back.
And my contention is that you aren't following the biblical standard. The pharisees said the same thing about the grain that Jesus' disciples rubbed in their hand during the sabbath. "OH, but the law says this...." And missed the heart of the law altogether.

JohnDeereFan
04-30-2009, 08:35 AM
Oh I haven't run out of arguments.

Then make an argument and stop with the insults.

Easter is a direct result of our sin.

Last time I checked, Easter commemorated the resurrection of Christ, not our sin.

Because its easy to attack a young woman who has obviously sinned.

Nobody is attacking anybody.

But would you marry a divorced person?

No. Would you hold a "divorce party"?

Not only was it the adulterous woman that Jesus restored but the woman at the well, Zachius the tax collector.

This has nothing to do with "restoration". It has to do with the message we send to the world and our attitude toward sin.

Its a shame that his children who ask for forgiveness must deal with their brothers and sisters who never let it go or fully restore them back.
And my contention is that you aren't following the biblical standard.

And you're certainly welcome to your opinion, but until you can make a case from scripture, it's just your opinion.

The pharisees said the same thing about the grain that Jesus' disciples rubbed in their hand during the sabbath. "OH, but the law says this...." And missed the heart of the law altogether.

You must feel good, being so superior to us and all.

Thinkingstuff
04-30-2009, 09:02 AM
You must feel good, being so superior to us and all.

Funny I was going to say the same thing to you. The ressurection was necissary because of our sin other wise we are still dead in our transgretion. So the Need for easter is based on our sin. Just as Paul says. And just as you say: "easter is a celebration of the ressurections (funny you leave out the need for it)" so is a shower a celebration and a support for a pregnant mother. It celebrates life. But you focus on the sin. So using your same motiff you should focus on the sin needed for the ressurection. but you don't you distinguish the two. I suggest you distinguish the two also for the woman. she sinned. Repented. Now she has a life which should be celebrated. No. It seems you want to encumber the child with the sin of his or her mother by negleting her needs. I don't think thats what Jesus would want.

JohnDeereFan
04-30-2009, 09:13 AM
And just as you say: "easter is a celebration of the ressurections (funny you leave out the need for it)"

Actually, I didn't say that. The "need" for Easter is your argument, not mine.

But you focus on the sin.

No, we don't focus on the sin. We recognize that sin has consequences and that we are called to not gloirfy sin.

It seems you want to encumber the child with the sin of his or her mother by negleting her needs. I don't think thats what Jesus would want.

You know, ignorance is one thing but now you're just bearing false witness.

Like I said, I think you'd be hard pressed to find a church that would show such a person more love and support. Likewise, we don't run two rescue missions and a CPC to deprive mothers and their babies of their "needs".


I think it's unfortunate that you've chosen to misrepresent us this way, when you really know nothing about us, but honestly, you're showing yourself to be very foolish and contentious for no reason.

Why can't we just say that we help restore the girl and meet her and the baby's needs, but not in the context of a traditional baby shower and leave it at that?

Are the needs of the mother and baby any less met if a crib and clothing and formula are given to her without a baby shower?

And one more thing before I put you on ignore, just so you know, my wife and I are the parents of a beautiful five month old daughter, whom we adopted. The mother was seventeen years old and unmarried and on the streets. For several months during her pregnancy, she lived in our home and was mentored and counciled by my wife, so I resent [SNIPPED PROFANITY] your judgemental attitude toward us.

Thinkingstuff
04-30-2009, 09:30 AM
Actually, I didn't say that. The "need" for Easter is your argument, not mine.



No, we don't focus on the sin. We recognize that sin has consequences and that we are called to not gloirfy sin.



You know, ignorance is one thing but now you're just bearing false witness.

Like I said, I think you'd be hard pressed to find a church that would show such a person more love and support. Likewise, we don't run two rescue missions and a CPC to deprive mothers and their babies of their "needs".


I think it's unfortunate that you've chosen to misrepresent us this way, when you really know nothing about us, but honestly, you're showing yourself to be very foolish and contentious for no reason.

Why can't we just say that we help restore the girl and meet her and the baby's needs, but not in the context of a traditional baby shower and leave it at that?

Are the needs of the mother and baby any less met if a crib and clothing and formula are given to her without a baby shower?

And one more thing before I put you on ignore, just so you know, my wife and I are the parents of a beautiful five month old daughter, whom we adopted. The mother was seventeen years old and unmarried and on the streets. For several months during her pregnancy, she lived in our home and was mentored and counciled by my wife, so I resent//**Profanity in quote snipped**// your judgemental attitude toward us.

First of all I'm not responding to your church but your argument. How you've presented your case and the method of coming to your conclusion which I disagree with. I have no idea about your particular church I don't even know its name. I go to Country and Town Baptist Church. I have no idea the name of your church. So I'm not responding to it. I'm responding to your argument. Simple and strait foreward. It seems your doing all the same things you do with a baby shower but still leave out the title which seems superfluous to me and unnecissary (IMHO its still throwing it, sin, in her face). I'm glad you're doing a wonderful thing like adopting that baby. Its a wonderful thing. I think the Lord looks with favor on that act and the commitment you've made. I'm sorry you resent my attitude with this delemma. Note If I'm being judgemental its not to you and your wife. If anything its your argument which you can say is you. So your wife is excluded as is your church. When in reality I don't like your premise. Now you may be the most wonderful person in the world and are loving to everyone you meet. I still disagree and dislike your premise with regard to this discussion. I compare it to a Church I attended where this very thing happened as noted in an earlier post. I think that this type of thing falls under Hawthornes book (which was a pointed statement). So forgive me for making you resent my statment and causing you to swear. But I have stong opinions about this because of a miscarriage of justice I've witnessed.

Dr. Bob
04-30-2009, 11:29 AM
Thread has long ago run its course of worthwhile conversation.