Is anyone familiar with the practice of shunning?

Of course, I would not join a church where I had to sign a covenant, though I am willing to say I agree with the Doctrinal Statement of a church I join. And I would never join a church that had a rule against drinking, even though I don't drink.

However, since this church had that rule and these people agreed to it, then they are accountable. But they didn't drink - they voted, right? I am not so sure they should be disfellowshipped over this.

 

How about human-ship? Or individual-ship? Or people-ship?

 

They never violated the church covenant. I don't drink, but as a Libertarian I don't want the government telling me I can't.

 

Just needed to be resaid...well put! :thumbs:

 

Thanksfully I live in one of those dry counties. Our church covenant also prhibts the use of and sell of alochol, and included drugs. I don't see that these people did anything to violate the covenant at all.

 

They violated the spirit of it.

 

God initially told man, "Neither shalt thou commit adultery." Later Jesus had to clarify to the people that they were violating the spirit of the covenant by telling them, "That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart."

 

If the church covenant prohibits the sale of alcohol and a member supports the sale of it, haven't they broken the covenant?
If the covenant were to prohibit abortions, and a member supports abortion and votes for it in an election, wouldn't that member be breaking the covenant?

 

Rom 16:17 Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.


Yea lets not follow scripture gee someone might actually repent.

 

No. In order for it to be broken, that church member would have to engage in the sale/consumption of alcohol him/herself. Simply supporting the right of another person to consume alcohol does not mean the person supporting that right is engaging in that behavior.

 

How about supporting the right to homos*xual marriage? Abortion? What if these actions were prohibited in the church covenant, yet a member was an active supporter?

 

The only covenant the church needs to act on members is scripture.

 

I would question the moral appropriateness of the church's covenant. Revmitchell is right. The only covenant the church needs to act on members is scripture.

 

People join a church to fellowship with other Christians...not to give busybodies any say whatsoever in their lives. Some folks just want to have power over others, and the church gives them an excuse. I would never join a fellowship where you had to sign some kind of statement like this.

 

Anyone who has been a teenager would be familiar with the practice of shunning.

 

My point in this discussion is the hypocrisy that I am seeing.

To say alcohol consumption is sin, but supporting another's right to do it, is hypocrisy.

As far as the church in the OP, I wasn't there and don't know all the details. My point is simply that it is hypocritical to agree to a covenant that says alcohol consumption is against church doctrine, then go out and publicly support it. Some here are saying that it's ok to support it as long as you don't actually do it, even though you have agreed to a church covenant.


I am not promoting church covenants.

 

No it's not. I vehemently oppose the taking of the Lord's name in vain. But I oppose any law that prohibits a person's right to take the Lord's name in vain in the privacy of his own home.