Baby shower for an unwed mother

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!

 

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.

 

Yeah, some you just make up.

 

Well, I think we've succeeded in...

 

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?

 

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.

 

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

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

 

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.

 

Then make an argument and stop with the insults.

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

Nobody is attacking anybody.

No. Would you hold a "divorce party"?

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

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

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.

 

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 [SNIPPED PROFANITY] 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.