Baby shower for an unwed mother

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?

 

Well, let's look at them.

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.

This verse is about loving others.

This verse is about hypocrisy.

This verse is about Christian libert.

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.

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.

 

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:

 

Have you even read this thread? Please go back and read my comments before making smart aleck responses.

 

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

 

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

 

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.

 

I think it safe to say that you don't understand what the argument is.

 

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.

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.

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?

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.

 

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?

 

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.

 

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.

 

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

 

You have defined it purely as a celebration regardless if it is one or not.

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.

The celebrating a sin card is getting quite old. Surely you can do better...

See above reply.

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

 

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?

 

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?

 

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.