Is anyone familiar with the practice of shunning?

I'm not talking about our constitutional right to freedom of speech. I'm talking about a Christian's responsibility to be the same person both inside and outside the church. It is hypocritical to amen the preacher when he says alcohol consumption is sin and then walk out the door and promote the consumption of alcohol. Maybe I'm just weird, but that is hypocrisy in my mind.

 

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.

 

It's always good to encounter churches so rigid and dogmatic that even Jesus Christ couldn't maintain membership with them.

 

In this case, you're defining hypocrisy to mean abhorring an action in the church, but defending the same action outside the church. So, if it's defending a person's right to free speech, it's okay to be a hypocrite, but if it's defending the right of a person to consume alcohol, it's not okay to be a hypocrite?

 

There are those who believe dogmatically that Jesus changed water into grape juice. That it was the best Juicy Juice at the party. :smilewinkgrin:

 

Hypocrisy is never "ok".

 

Then, you need to acknowlege that opposing a law that prohibits a person's right to take the Lord's name in vain in the privacy of his own home is wrong.

 

What on earth does that have to do with what I've been talking about????

Is it or is it not hypocritical to support your church covenant of not consuming alcohol and then going outside the church doors and promoting it?

Whether or not the church in the OP was right or wrong in their actions, I don't know. I don't have enough information to say one way or the other, but what struck me on this thread is the number of people that defend the man promoting alcohol sales when he had agreed to a covenant with his church that stated the use and sale of alcohol was prohibited. If the man promotes alcohol use outside of the church, he is a hypocrite and so is anyone who defends him, whether or not he actually drank any alcohol or not.

 

Again, I vehemently oppose the taking of the Lord's name in vain. But I will actively oppose any law that prohibits a person's right to take the Lord's name in vain in the privacy of his own home.

By your reckoning, then, a man who opposes the taking of the Lord's name in vain, but who defends another person's right to do so, is a hypocrite?

You don't have the correct definition of "hypocrite". As far as the covenant in the OP goes, the people did nothing to violate it, since they neither consumed alcohol nor pursuaded anyone else to do so.

 

So the man in the OP who voted to bring liquor into the county was defending the rights of others to drink alcohol even though he obviously felt that it was sinful since he had a covenant with his church prohibiting alcohol?

 

Based on the facts at hand, yes.

 

And that is hypocritical. He has one stand on alcohol at church and another outside of church.

If I agree to a covenant with a church that prohibits abortion and I go out every weekend and participate in pro abortion rallies, wouldn't that make me a hypocrite?

 

No vote has taken place. These are people who had merely signed a petition to let the public vote on the issue.

 

Amy, I do see your point, but I don't think voting is the same as promoting something. Promoting would be to advertise, to encourage people to do something, to actively participate, etc.

I also find it disturbing that the pastor would look at the names on the referendum to check up on the congregation. That would bother me, no matter what the purpose was.

 

According to the OP, the covenant is one of abstaining from the use and sale of alcoholic beverages. The person(s) neither consumed nor sold alcoholic beverages. Further, there was no coersion of anyone else to consume or sell alcoholic beverages. Categorically, that does not qualify as the definition of hypocrisy. It's not even a implication of hypocrisy.

Again, I ask the question: Is a man a hypocrite when he opposes the taking of the Lord's name in vain, but defends another person's right to do so in the privacy of his own home? The only answer of objective logic is "no".

 

What??
While I agree there is a technical difference the fact remains they have similar core issues at heart.

If you vote for something, you are proclaiming not only your approval of the issue but you also show your support for others to do just that. That is the whole reason you 'voted for it'.

In the same manner, if one promotes something they are showing their approval of the issue and support for others to do just that.

This is true no matter what the issues are.

Actually this is only an assumption because he could have just as easily been looking to see who and what business (via owners) in the community who would support it so as to know what business to advise his congregation to stay away from. Or he could have been curious as to who was in support of proposition and not necessarily assuming anyone in the congregation was even on the list.

 

Guys, I am not saying what the church did is right. I have said previously that I can't really make a judgment one way or the other without more information. My only point is that if the man signed a covenant with the church stating that alcohol was prohibited (use and sale) and then votes to make it legal to sell it, I think that is hypocritical. Jesus said that to lust was the same as committing the act of adultery. Obviously the man's church believes alcohol consumption or the sale of it is sin. When the man signed the covenant, he was agreeing with the church's stance on alcohol. So to vote yes for the sale of alcohol was a contradiction of his covenant with the church.


That's my feelings on the subject. I doubt I will change my mind. I think a Christian should behave consistently both inside the church walls and out.

 

You can think it, but it does not make it so. Hypocrisy has a very specific definition, and the OP does not fit that definition.

Again, the person(s) neither consumed nor sold alcoholic beverages. Further, there was no coersion of anyone else to consume or sell alcoholic beverages. Categorically, that does not qualify as the definition of hypocrisy. It's not even a implication of hypocrisy.

Again, I abhor using the name of the Lord in vain. But, I would fight any law that would make it illegal to use the name of the Lord in vain in the privacy of that person's own home. By your definition, my defense of such a person would be hyocritical. But by the definition of hypcrisy, it is not.

That's a nonsequitor. The person in the OP was neither lusting after nor coveting an alcoholic beverage. If the man were thnking about taking a swig, you'd have a point, but there's nothing in the OP to remotely suggest it.

Which is a good example of why a person should never use feelings to make moral decisions, but instead make thought-out decisions after applying scripture in an objectivemanner.