From: ajw@cbnews.cb.att.com (andrew.j.whitman)
Newsgroups: rec.music.christian
Subject: Re: Dancing with commitment & dating & sex
Date: 26 Jan 93 20:54:09 GMT
Organization: AT&T

In article <nestabro.728065938@nova> nestabro@nova.gmi.edu (Noel Estabrook) writes:
>ajw@cbnews.cb.att.com (andrew.j.whitman) writes:
 
>>That tells me that the Church (and no, it's not just this particular
>>denomination) has a big problem.  The Church has historically dealt
>>with sexuality in one of two ways - it either ignores it entirely, or
>>it pronounces condemnation and heaps guilt upon those who deviate
>>from God's standard of sex within marriage.  *Neither* approach 
>>addresses the real issues.  Obviously, ignoring the problem solves
>>nothing.  And I would argue that merely parroting Scripture about
>>what God expects for sexual human beings does little to address
>>the problems that arise when people *fail* to live up to God's
>>expectations - which they apparently do all the time.
>
>The modern church today, as a rule, doesn't have the guts to address
>the issue of living a holy life, either because:
>
>1-  They're afraid of being accused of being "legalistic".
>2-  They don't care about holiness, and are just interested in 
>attracting people so that they can have a big budget to build gyms
>and such.
>3-  They're afraid of appearing "judgmental" and "intolerant" (charges
>which were directed at Jesus Himself, BTW).
>4-  They don't believe the Bible to be the inspired word of God, which
>allows them to have a cafeteria religion, which, of course, our 
>sinful natures prefer.

There's nothing new here, but I just want to emphasize that there's a
difference between legalism and being faithful to God's Word.  I
think legalism *is* a problem in the Church today.  Legalism *adds
to* Scripture by enforcing specific rules and regulations where the
Bible either offers no guidelines at all or offers only general
principles which must be interpreted and applied by individuals.
You may have noticed from previous postings that I don't have a
real soft spot in my heart for such legalistic thinking :-) (aaaaarrgh!  
That's three smilies in one week!  I hate words like "aaaarrgh" too!  
And exclamation points!!  I don't know what's happening to me.)

But that's not the same as obeying God's clear instructions in 
Scripture.  Two of the Ten Commandments prohibit adultery and 
coveting the wife of one's neighbor.  Jesus taught that even to
*look* at a woman with lust in one's heart was the equivalent of
adultery.  I don't see much room for debate there.  I may be a 
bane to legalists and a communistic, hell-raisin', secular-rocknroll-
lovin' guy, but any church that ignores those Scriptural commands
is no church that I'd want to be a part of.

Of course, that also means that I'm guilty of violating the same 
standards that I want to so adamantly defend.  I haven't physically
committed adultery, but that "looking at a woman with lust in the
heart" one gets me every time.  And that's why whatever I have to
say to those struggling with sexual sins had better be said in
repentance and sadness.  In God's eyes I'm just as guilty.
 
>>It should offer encouragement to those who are struggling.  And
>>it should offer forgiveness to those who have fallen.  Jesus
>>told a woman caught in sexual sin, "I don't condemn you.  Go and
>>sin no more."  Somehow those strike me as the *last* words that
>>I would expect to hear in many churches. 
>
>Unfortunately, I think many churches stop at the "I don't condemn
>you" stage.  We feel that that is all that's necessary.  We don't
>want them to feel like we're "judging" them.  The churches 
>responsibility is to do both - make sure the sinner knows that they
>are sinning and then encourage them to get out of the sin.  Then, if
>the person continues in sin, deal with that person in a Scriptural
>manner.

I can't judge anyone in this area.  I fall under the same judgement.  
And I see too many churches that are ready and willing to pronounce
judgement, to exclude sinners from the fellowship, to treat its
unwed mothers as a scourge or its divorcees as second-class citizens.
On the other side I see too many churches that are willing to wink
at sexual sin, to pretend that it's okay because everybody does 
it, and to go on as if none of it matters to God.  

God's forgiveness and unconditional acceptance does not give us a 
license to sin.  But it does give us freedom from condemnation.  
Jesus' words to the woman caught in adultery are also His words to
all of us who struggle with sexual sin or any other kind of 
immorality:  "I don't condemn you.  Go and sin no more."  Neither
statement is sufficient without the other because by the first 
we're empowered and freed to do the second.  

But I'm guilty, and I can't rationalize or debate my way out of that
one.  I suspect that most people are.  I'd rather stand with someone
in his or her guilt than stand over and against them.  And I just 
wish that people in the church had the freedom to discuss these
issues openly and honestly instead of being cowed by fear or 
lulled into a false apathy.  That's all. 

>--
>Noel Estabrook			|	Knowledge without action is like
>nestabro@nova.gmi.edu         --|--     snow on a hot stove.
>Instructional Design & Tech.    |     
>Michigan State University       |               Romans 12:2

Andy Whitman
AT&T Bell Laboratories, Columbus, Ohio
att!cblpn!ajw  or
ajw@cblpn.att.com
Newsgroups: rec.music.christian