This is not about fighting laws that take away our constitutional rights. You are confusing apples with oranges. This is about voting to make something legal, which at the present is NOT legal and violating your covenant with your church.
And btw, I do not support someone's right to take the Lord's name in vain anymore than I support someone's right to have an abortion.
Is anyone familiar with the practice of shunning?
Discussion in 'General Baptist Discussions' started by Zenas, Sep 13, 2009.
Page 4 of 6
-
You're saying that, if you to institute a law that grants new rights to engage in immoral behavior, then it's wrong, but if you fight to uphold a law that preserves a right to engage in immoral behavoir, then it's okay. By that argument, voting to enact Amendment I would be wrong, since it allows a person to use the name of the Lord in vain.
Second, since the Amendment XVIII (Prohobition of alcohol) was repealed, the constitutional right of a person to sell and consume alcohol is guaranteed in similar manner as free speech is. -
Revmitchell Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
Christians should abstain from supporting immoral behavior regardless of the legality of it.
-
-
In Washington State, citizens similarly threatened with retaliation for signing a petition to reconsider state domestic partnerships had their privacy protected last week by a federal judge's ruling:
New York Times Sept. 12, 2009
"In his decision, Judge Settle said that the signing of a petition was essentially an act of anonymous — and protected — political speech, and that the identity of who signed a petition “is irrelevant to the voter.”
...
The case is the latest filed by a conservative lawyer, James Bopp Jr., seeking to stop the publicizing of the names of those who oppose same-sex marriage and other gay rights initiatives.
...
Mr. Bopp said his intention was...to protect petition signers from an effort by “the gay rights lobby” to “harass and intimidate supporters of traditional marriage.”" -
Since I wrote the OP and haven't said anything since, I will add my 2 cents worth. There is nothing in the OP to suggest the people involved did or did not drink. I don't live in that area but my best guess is that they do drink. From what I have read I'm also pretty sure they had no idea what was in their church covenant. The reports of this incident indicated it came as a complete surprise to the members involved. I have belonged to two Baptist churches and have never been asked to sign a covenant. In fact, in the church where I am presently a member, I had to check to see whether we even have a church covenant. We do and it does not prohibit the use of intoxicating beverages. I expect these members were similarly unaware of the covenant.
A church, being a voluntary organization with strong first amendment protections, has an absolute right to control the actions of its members. For example, the Amish aren't allowed to vote. Divorced Catholics aren't allowed to marry. So it should not be viewed as strange that a Baptist church in Trigg County prohibits its members from signing a petition to have a referendum on the sale of alcohol. To be sure the church covenant says nothing about petitions, but the church is free to interpret its own covenant however it wants to.
I do have two problems with what they did. First, it seems the pastor is assuming more power than he should have. We don't know the role of the deacons, or elders if they have them, but if the pastor is acting on his own he is out of line.
Second, they appear to have completely ignored the three step process for church discipline outlined in Matt. 18. Several on the thread have already made this observation and they are 100% correct. Approaching the members quietly in the first instance would have probably got the matter resolved.
One thing is for certain, it does nothing to make people want to join a Baptist church. Reading about things like this makes one wonder if some Baptists have a death wish. -
This is more akin to the incident a several years ago when the idiot pastor in Kansas found out several members incomes, printed them in the church bulletin, then their giving for the year, and another column had the percentage of giving.
I agree with your last paragraph. All these myths about Baptists get started by clowns like this in a leadership position. And we wonder why the pews are empty?
Also, just because someone signed a petition to bring the issue to a vote, does not mean that they drink. My experience with politics being mixed with church on issues like this is that the more a church or churches rant and rave when something like this comes up, the more it draws voters out from the opposite side, and makes certain defeat at the polls. -
-
:eek: -
-
-
Would you oppose a law that would make it illegal for a person to use the name of the Lord in vain in the privacy of theri own home?
-
I am not going to get into a debate about the constitution. -
You're claiming that, if a church says consumption of alcohol is wrong, then its members are not allowed to support a law that allows the sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages, even if that member never sells or consumes alcohol.
Yet, if a church says taking the name of the Lord in vain is wrong, you can't say whether you would support a law that bans a person from taking the Lord's name in vain in the privacy of his own home. -
I am done with this debate with you. -
Yet again, I read a blog with something that pertains to what we're discussing here.
Here's an example of a church that did the church discipline properly - and it ended up in a man restored to fellowship with the Lord and the church, although it took 15 long years to get there.
http://purechurch.blogspot.com/2009/09/long-journey-in-church-discipline.html -
It seems the point at hand is whether the person's actions in the OP violated a church covenant. It did not. -
-
Let's say you signed a covenant where you promise not to take the name of the Lord's name in vain. Then, a law gets passed saying "it is illegal for a person to take the name of the Lord in vain in the privacy of his own home". Would you oppose that law? -
I really don't see the connection between opposing a law and promoting sin. Maybe I'm just dense. I'm obviously alone in my thinking on this because no one else has agreed with me.
I'm not trying to be stubborn. I concede defeat if that makes you feel better. I don't seem to be able to make my argument. But I believe if someone says this or that is sin while sitting in church, they should carry that outside the church doors. I cannot sit in church and say abortion is sin and then join in pro choice rallies. That to me is hypocrisy, but maybe I just don't understand what hypocrisy is.
Page 4 of 6