Re: Sin?

From: Sondra Brasile (sbrasile@hotmail.com)
Date: Mon Jul 21 2003 - 14:16:12 EDT

  • Next message: Josh Bembenek: "Re: Cambrian Explosion"

    Burgy,

    With respect toward what I said, ""Where the church is concerned; I think
    the
    >church should not allow a homosexual couple to become members of the
    >church, but neither do I think
    >they should let an active alcoholic, drug addict, liar or adulterer,
    >etc... "

    I thought I specified "unchecked", maybe I didn't, sorry. I meant
    "unchecked" in fact it was one of my main points (at least it was in my
    head, lol). Sorry, many times I cannot spend the time and give the attention
    to my posts that I ought to. Thank you for giving me a chance to redeem my
    comments ;).

    I believe in accountability, although it may be uncomfortable I think it is
    necessary if the Christian church really wishes to conduct itself the way
    the Bible prescribes. Christianity has become a free-for-all, my
    brother-in-law uses it as a marketing tool, he's an alcoholic, a crack
    addict and he beats my sister regularly when he's not in jail, but he claims
    to be a Christian, other than that "claim" he's the worst of the worst as
    far as actions are concerned. I am normally not one to judge, but if given a
    fruit inspection I'd say he's no Christian. He throws the word Christian
    around as a label, he thinks it gives him instant credibility, but
    unfortunately for the "real" or "committed" Christians he only makes us LESS
    credible.

    The guy that lead the mission trip to Guatemala, who knows what
    improprieties he's done while on his missions and how badly is he
    representing the gospel to unreached peoples? Even reached people? When
    preachers run away with secretaries, get caught with hookers and priests are
    caught molesting children; don't tell me there wasn't a point where people
    knew or suspected what was going on, or saw a related behavior that should
    have been an issue. None of that happens over night, there had to be signs
    that people close to them blew off or ignored. I know that when I catch
    someone lying, no matter who they are, my radar goes up, when I see extreme
    pride and justification for wrongdoing, it especially goes up. These are
    indicators in my book of either an already established "sin" (or deviance?)
    or of one in the making; a person on the wrong path (the path towards
    destruction maybe?), which would be a reason to confront, warn and/or
    correct in love. Just like our children, out of love we correct them and
    bring them into a right standing, if they ignore us, they're on their own we
    can neither condone their actions, nor then accept them as fully partaking
    in God's divine will, therefore they are like the prodigal son. They must be
    "let go"; go out on their own and learn their lesson the hard way. This not
    only puts social pressure on people to "buck up" but would also clean up the
    church itself. It's not "ok" to have the church seen as a bunch of
    hypocrites. The thing that makes us hypocrites is only seeing the
    "nonattenders" as needing to be fixed, if you join the church and pay your
    tithes, you can somehow escape all accountability? No wonder the "world" has
    the opinion they do of the church. My church goes to New York City to do
    "urban ministry" they go to whino's on the street and tell them Jesus can
    help them, blah blah blah, but what about the whino sitting in the pew? Only
    he's worse because he has a home and children and when he gets drunk he
    beats them and calls himself a Christian. Just an example, but that's what
    I'm talking about, the hypocrisy.

    The mission trip leader, he's a liar and possibly an adulterer, I doubt I'm
    the first or the last. He uses his status as leader in any context as a way
    to intimidate and whatever, if he was a non-member; a non-leader, the church
    would be all over that one telling him what a "sinner" he is, etc... But
    because he's already what they consider "saved" he's immune? They ignored
    me, and why, because I have some reason to make the story up? I asked them,
    what might that be? But, I was ingored, his actions were ignored (and in
    that his actions were supported, sanctioned), and he remains in a place
    where he can do a great amount of damage to people and the church.

    My mom and dad were acquainted with Jimmy Swaggart and his wife (forgot her
    name, Barb maybe) in the mid to late 60's, my mother could never stand Mr.
    Swaggart, she said he treated his wife very badly and his attitude toward
    his wife was what made her think he was a "bad person". Could my mom have
    been seeing the precursor of what finally was his undoing? Would some
    confrontation and accountability back then maybe have saved Jimmy from his
    well known fate?

    My mother was also friends with Jack and Rexella Van Impe. The Van Impe's
    used to stay at my mother's home when Jack was a traveling evangelist.
    Whether you enjoy their eschatology or not, they are exemplary Christians;
    always have been, my mother said Jack used to dote on Rexella, just like he
    still does on their show, it's no act.

    I think there are outside indicators to what is going on inside and it's a
    shame that the church is singling out homosexuals for instance, I agree that
    no one sin is greater than another, sin is sin, but it is still sin and we
    cannot condone it, embrace it, excuse it or justify it, we DO all sin, but
    that isn't an excuse it is a charge to those of us that think we are
    "righteous".

    The Bible says we are saved by faith, not by works, but also faith without
    works is dead. It also says God would rather have obedience than sacrifice,
    if we cannot gain control of our self whereas our own sins are concerned
    then we are slaves to our bodies and are not useful vessels for God; we have
    a master, our flesh and we "cannot serve two masters". If God, then uses us
    it is more along the lines that he used Pharoah at the exodus he will use
    our disobedience to shake the obedient out of their stupor, "like the eagle
    stirs her nest". It is the whole concept also of "overcoming" if we are to
    no longer count sin as sin (not referring to you, Burgy, but others on the
    list) what are we to "overcome"? In Revelation Chapters 1-3 (and throughout
    the Bible for that matter) what is it the church is to be overcoming if the
    church is exempt from all rules and regulations?

    You wrote, "Also -- what about a homosexual couple who refrain from sexual
    intimacy?
    >Yes, such do exist."

    Would they be considered homosexual then or just best-friends and roommates?

    Sincerely,
    Sondra

    >From: John W Burgeson <jwburgeson@juno.com>
    >To: sbrasile@hotmail.com
    >CC: asa@calvin.edu
    >Subject: Re: Sin?
    >Date: Sat, 19 Jul 2003 09:28:10 -0600
    >
    >Sondra wrote, in part: "I strongly disagree and am sorry that you cannot
    >see it the way I do, which
    >I feel of course is the "right" way; I know you feel the same way, so we
    >will have to agree to disagree. In my mind it's a shame that somehow
    >you've
    >"missed" what I see, I will pray that you are enlightened and you do the
    >same for me, deal?"
    >
    >Deal. That's part and parcel of what Christianity is all about, IMHO.
    >
    >I assume you are 100% certain on your position. I cannot (ever) claim
    >such certainty. But I must take a position.
    >
    >"I have to add that I do not see homosexuality as a reason to treat a
    >person
    >badly, in fact they need understanding, love and support, but like all
    >sin
    >it should not be accepted as a sanctioned behavior, ... ."
    >
    >Once again, "homosexuality," being a condition, cannot be a sin. But I
    >understand you are speaking of "homosexual acts." I understand (and
    >applaud) your position as you stated it, particularly when you write "...
    >it's not my place to force my morals (or beliefs) onto another person.
    >But then you go on to say: "Where the church is concerned; I think the
    >church should not allow a homosexual couple to become members of the
    >church, but neither do I think
    >they should let an active alcoholic, drug addict, liar or adulterer,
    >etc... "
    >
    >Oh my. Another place we must agree to disagree. I hope you'd allow them
    >to attend services! <G> Where would you draw the line here? I have known
    >church members who were bigots (use the "n" word frequently and with
    >relish. I have known members who were gossips. One (a friend and
    >neighbor) who went to jail for a shady financial dealing. I see the
    >church as a place where imperfect people can gather to find the grace of
    >God even in their imperfections.
    >
    >Also -- what about a homosexual couple who refrain from sexual intimacy?
    >Yes, such do exist.
    >
    >"I know I always break out in a story, but that is the best way I can
    >communicate most of my "meanings",... ."
    >
    >I appreciate your stories. Stories are how we Christians really
    >communicate to one another. (I hope you've read mine (link on my web
    >site). My heart is on my sleeve there.) As far as I can see, you did the
    >right thing and the guy was a real dork. On behalf of males everywhere
    >(of all sexual orientation), I apologize for him. It must have been a
    >real lousy experience.
    >
    >Peace.
    >
    >
    >John Burgeson (Burgy)
    >
    >www.burgy.50megs.com
    >
    >
    >________________________________________________________________
    >The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
    >Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
    >Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!

    _________________________________________________________________
    Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8.
    http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Jul 21 2003 - 14:16:25 EDT