Church Discipline

So does the devil.

 

Well then!:laugh:

 

Um, no. A person who is acting as a devil's advocate (a figure of speech) presents an opposing argument to the issue being discussed to present a different side to the issue. It is a method of analysis designed to seperate truth from error.

Seriously? Sounds like you are straining at gnats.

At my church, the devil doesn't make deviled eggs for the socials... I do. I'm known for bringing big plates of deviled eggs.

Since your presumption is faulty, you actions based on your presumption are also faulty. The devil doesn't make deviled eggs. God is glorified when someone uses their talents (and secret recipe) to provide something wholesome and enjoyable to others.

Do you have an issue with the doctrine of the Trinity? If so, I think you have more to worry about than devil's advocates or deviled eggs.

You aren't making much sense to this born-again disciple of Jesus Christ.

 

While I disagree rather strongly with RevMitchell on a number of things, he's hardly one of the devil's "yes" men.

 

Much like "Yeah, hath God said?"

:laugh: Anything that takes the devil's side to prove a point or bring into question an established truth is of the devil and NOT of God.

Besides, I followed some advice from an old friend and cut a hole in the seat of my pants and it keeps the gnats out of my face.

may God convert those into angel-spiced eggs, it might be an angel makes them?

Finding fault is the precise service the devil incorporates to cause divisions amongst the brethren.

I made no presumption, I made an objection to some one "playing" ( go define that word in the context of being the devil's advocate) the devil's advocate.

The only "issue" I have with the Trinity is that others do not understand the Trinity and know who the Lord is.

So? You have made total nonsense in response.

The topic is about church discipline. The scenario calls for church discipline.

I have had the not so wonderful experiences of three actual sessions of church discipline performed against members of the church I attend. It is nothing to "brag" about. It is one of the most heart-breaking times in the Christian's life to see those who rebel against God and the authority of the church.

As sin is condoned in the church due to liberal mindsets that object and argue against the function of church discipline, we see churches dying and going the why of Cain.

When sinners are warned, it's not they are actaully offended, but the way of righteousness is established in their minds and they have reason to turn from sin and turn to the Lord.

 

Sal it is not conjecture, it is called Scripture. That is what I offered you, something you have not offered.

All evidence including past convictions and ALL obtainable police reports need to be gathered. Was his first indecent exposure conviction (the one he admitted to) reduced from a more serious charge? You may be dealing with a rapist or molester even though the second charge sounds bogus, but I don't know all the facts. Usually, these types of convictions imo are false. Too bad so many people are aware of this.

Radical, and discreet steps may need to be taken upon the severity of the evidence to force this person out of church completely. The offender and the offended must BOTH be brothers to fall under Matt 18 church discipline. Deceived godly men miss applying Matt 18, imo, won't produce edifying results.

 

hagee

It needs to come before the church and let them decide what the church body want to do with him .They might want him to come back thru a new experience and baptism . may God add his blessings

 

Hi all,

I believe if a Christian says they are innocent, then we should believe them. So, by going to step 2, it sounds as if they already have judged him. Step 1 should have been far enough.

Some want to jump the gun and discipline members to show the world that they mean business. We need to remember this may be a child of God, and I wouldn't want to wrongly remove fellowship from one of God's children. I don't think it would be pleasing to the Lord.

Unless he confesses or undeniable proof is presented, I think the church should pray with and for him.

 

I understand Joe's desire to play devil's advocate, but as a police officer myself (and a saved one, go figure), I have to say that his suppositions are borderline offensive. At the very least, it's painting my profession with the broadest brush possible.

I know from experience that VERY few people who claim innocence truly are. It's very easy to WANT to believe in entrapment, police corruption, "framing"...but, in reality, it's usually just that people aren't always what you want them to be. In dealing with a crime that is blatantly sexual in nature, a church (and the community in general) is better served to err on the side of caution.

 

Fact is, exposing himself was his action, not the Vice Squad's. He chose to do such.

The Word of God does not say because the devil tempted you and you killed that child, or because the devil tempted you and you robbed that bank you are innocent of any sin. NO, the sin remains.. and it is your sin. You gave into the temptation because of the lust that was already in your heart.

Corrupt police? Possible, but not probable. But police corruption has nothing to do with it. The sin was in the man's heart, police or no police.

Too many times an accusing finger is pointed at the police when the pointer has three guilty fingers pointing back at himself.

There is no way to say the man is innocent. He exposed himself. The Vice Squad would not have arrested him had he been innocent of such charges.

jakers, keep up the good work. I pray often for all your fellow officers. I have ridden with one of my police friends on many occasions and know the danger you face with each traffic stop.

 

exposing oneself

Amen, SFIC, Amen!!

Plus, Berean already stated that the individual admiited guilt and would not come before the church. What else can you do? Step one in Matthew 18 states to go to him, and him alone. If he hears you thou hast gained thy brother. Step two, if step one fails, is to take one or two back with you, so that every word may be established in the witness of two or three. If step twofails, take him before the church, and if he won't hear them, cast him out as a heathen, so that he may see the wrong he has done, and maybe see the need for a change(to me, if someone does this, he didn't make the "change'" to begin with). To me, it looks liike he has caused the church enough trouble. I know if he comes back, and says he has repented of his sins, by all means take him in, but he should come back through the door, and be baptized. Just my $0.02.

Willis

 

For Joe:

You're a cop-hater, aren't ya, Joe?

Let me see if I understand this correctly: Subject was arrested for indecent exposure, and your first inclination, based on your experience with cops in your town, was to side with the suspect?

So naturally, your vast experience with the cops in your town applies everywhere, correct?

Let me ask ya, Joe: What if it hadn't been a vice cop, and the man exposed himself? Who would he have been exposing himself to? Some woman on the street? Some guy over on the other side of town? Maybe your neighbor's kid? Maybe your son and/or daughter?

You willing to take that risk, Joe?

-----

Berean,

Church discipline is the question. Here's what I believe: By resigning his membership, the individual is refusing to face the church. If that's true, then take the appropriate steps.

The church needs to be aware that the man has been charged with a crime (not necessarily tell them which one, unless you think other church members are at risk), and that he refuses to follow scripture in the resolution of the situation. It's not easy, but "sweeping it under the rug" will only bring problems later on.

 

This is a small town, and I was the President of our Local Chamber of Commerce, amongst being involved in other clubs. I used to have an unusual job where I was paid to do public relations which required me to work with the various clubs, organizations, and County Departments. After I quit, they didn't allocate funds for that position.
Grew up in this area. I know ALOT of people.

We had a problem here with the local police arresting people for indecent exposure without warrant. The Newspaper Editor, and OWNER of the newspapers surrounding our town used to ride bikes with me.
This is kindof a "Good Ole Boy town" but there are many folks who moved here from the Bay Area within the last decade.

The Editor obtains information concerning arrests from our local police departments. It's also easy to track the people down anyway. Older people who are arrested usually are folks who are in town and couldn't make it to a restroom, thus went to the bathroom outside in a corner somewhere. One was a Teenager I have spoke of here on the BB, who almost had to register as a sex offender due to relieving himself after a football game in the school parking lot. Luckily, the police told the truth and said NOT ONE SOUL was around, it was dark and very hard to see this boy. This prompted a war between our Sheriff's Dept and the Newspaper, their editorials were bashing them for the false convictions- I mentioned this on the BB a month or so ago. We have more "flashers" here than most small towns because so many are arrested for exposing themselves. The Editor of our paper wrote about this "problem" of bogus convictions and arrests. He printed the stories until it cleaned up. The Police quit going down to the River to frame people. Thank God our newspaper Editor took care of the problem. He is also a Mtn Bike rider, we ride together once in a great while.

I do a "ride along" with different Cop friends once a year. A few I hung out with in high school, miss them sometimes. Usually ride with the grave yard shift, hard to believe how much activity goes on while I sleep.

They are underpaid, and their job is AWFUL. Wouldn't take it if for the world. Right now, in another thread, I mentioned I had an acquaintance friend I called (A Cop, but really he is a Detective).

No, that is why I explained my background. I also used the imo, which is short for, in my opinion.

If I am bike riding on the designated trails,, I'll likely ignore it and assume it was meant for someone else. Depends upon the situation.

Honestly, I don't know if I would call the Cops. Depends.

Telling the truth about what happens in our area doesn't = being a Cop hater. I have many Cop friends/acquaintances.

I think you need to apologize to me for deliberately conjuring up that untruthful label

 

You guys crack me up sometimes. You know... yeah sure he got caught, but I bet you there are several others already doing worse things without getting caught.

Getting arrested doesn't prove guilt, and not getting arrested doesn't prove innocense.

 

I don't read every thread on the BB, and I'm not on here all that much. So your first mistake was assuming that all readers would understand your background and motivations.

You speak about people relieving themselves on street corners and in parking lots, then throw out "the police quit going down to the River to frame people." There's quite a difference from driving by and seeing someone urinating on a wall, to going someplace else to intentionally frame someone.

The hypothetical situation was, someone exposed themselves to you; what about to your son or daughter, or someone else's son or daughter?

Most of us would prefer to err on the side of caution, and protect our children. You obviously have a different mind set.

Go back and read the initial post, then read your first response, putting yourself in everyone else's shoes. You used a specific subset of a group of policemen that no one else on this message board except you has experience with, and you identified all policemen with that subset. Perhaps you already apologized to policemen everywhere for making an overgeneralization fallacy, and I just didn't see it as I was scanning through the thread. If not, you should.