Church to ex-congregant: End your affair or we’ll publicly humiliate you
posted at 3:59 pm on December 19, 2008 by Allahpundit
They warned her twice to break it off, once in front of witnesses, but evidently God’s healing love requires a ritual shaming in front of the entire congregation. Which, incidentally, includes her kids — but not her. She quit the church after they violated her confidence the first time.
They’re going ahead with it anyway. To do otherwise might be considered un-Christian.
Hancock learned that her private sessions with her mentor hadn’t been so private after all, when in October her mentor pulled her aside in church and asked her come into another room.
“In the room, there were several women that I never told my business to. And they proceeded to tell me about my business and what I was doing and what a sinner I was — just persecuting me.” Hancock said. “One of the ladies was even saying ‘I was at your house when you didn’t come home all night.’”
It was then that Hancock said she decided to leave Grace Community Church…
Darrell L. Bock, a research professor for the Dallas Theological Seminary, said that public admonishment is not uncommon in churches that focus on discipline but added, “Most churches would handle this much more privately than this particular community is choosing to do.”
This kind of process normally would happen after “much more private interaction” with the person, Block said, and is normally reserved for church leaders as opposed to “a normal member of the church.”
More importantly, he said, the actions are unusual given that Hancock had severed her relationship with the church.
Here’s the actual letter they sent her, two months after she left the congregation. I can’t tell what they’re planning to do, whether it’ll be just a pro forma declaration that she’s sinned — which of course is public knowledge now anyway — or whether they’re going to spill secrets about the particulars of the relationship that were confessed to her pastor. Predictably, at least a few commenters in Headlines are citing chapter and verse to defend the church; my own reading of the relevant passage in Matthew 18 is that she’s already “neglected to hear” the third admonishment by cutting off ties with them, in which case they should skip it and just dismiss her as a heathen. Exit question: Is this actually S.O.P. in Protestant ministries, at least for congregants who are still members? I’ve never heard of anything remotely like it happening in a Catholic parish.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 3 … 8 Next »
This really gets me fired up. If I was Ms. Hancock, I would definitely be present for the services on Jan. 4th, and stand up and defend myself in the face of this innsanity, and warn the other congregants that this could happen to them at any time.
UltimateBob on December 19, 2008 at 4:03 PM
+1
wise_man on December 19, 2008 at 4:03 PM
It wouldn’t. The secrecy of the confessional is sacrosanct for Catholics. A priest that breaks the vow of secrecy is excommunicated. Not long ago, Pope Benedict XVI excommunicated a few priests for doing that. It’s a serious matter.
ramrocks on December 19, 2008 at 4:06 PM
Who cares?
Tacitus_SGL on December 19, 2008 at 4:06 PM
These type of religious zealots give religion a bad name, not as bad a name as AQ and the Taliban give religion but this type of attitude and tactic doesn’t help combat the secularist/progressive agenda.
Liberty or Death on December 19, 2008 at 4:07 PM
She left the church; enough already. If she was engaging in sin and insisted on staying, that would be one thing – adding bad leaven to the loaf, as it were. But since she had already left, the church should pray for her and let God restore her according to His own timing.
Laura on December 19, 2008 at 4:08 PM
She’s publicizing the story to reduce the impact of their actions. I think she did the right thing.
This church is acting like the Taliban, for heaven’s sake.
UltimateBob on December 19, 2008 at 4:08 PM
While I do have serious problems with those who’d repeatedly cheat on their spouses, there is no way Ms. Hancock deserve to be tarred and feathered in the public square. Totally inappropriate.
flyawaybird on December 19, 2008 at 4:08 PM
Wear the Scarlet Letter…
Good enough reason not to go to that church.
Kuffar on December 19, 2008 at 4:12 PM
Sounds like a Jonestown wanna-be type church. Cree-hee-heepy.
Geronimo on December 19, 2008 at 4:12 PM
Is anyone surprised by this. The religious right claims the right to legislate people’s private lives. Why shouldn’t they feel they have the right to intrude into people’s bedrooms/marriages whether they are in their congregation or not? What’s silly is that we have NO clue what kind of marital arrangement these two free individuals may have. That the church would doggedly pursue this should tell us something about the right’s interest in the private sphere. Creepy.
DeathToMediaHacks on December 19, 2008 at 4:14 PM
ALLAHPUNDIT the amoral atheist asked:
As I am sure you are well aware the Catholic Church has castrated itself allowing mostly women and effeminate men to lead their churches. So, of course they don’t do anything to publicly pressure someone to stop practicing immoral behavior because they largely want to appeal to girls and please them above all else.
The good churches that I know of that practice CHURCH DISCIPLINE are all protestant churches and they are successful in the way that they do it. Denver Bible Church in Denver, CO (previously named Damascus Road Bible Church) led by my friend and pastor BOB ENYART is very good at practicing church discipline.
The specific instructions on exposing the unrepentant sexually immoral and disfellowshipping them are found in 1 Corinthians 5. The entire chapter is about church discipline.
1 Corinthians 5:1-11 It is actually reported [that there is] sexual immorality among you, and such sexual immorality as is not even named among the Gentiles — that a man has his father’s wife! 2 And you are puffed up, and have not rather mourned, that he who has done this deed might be taken away from among you. 3 For I indeed, as absent in body but present in spirit, have already judged (as though I were present) him who has so done this deed. 4 In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when you are gathered together, along with my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, 5 deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus. 6 Your glorying [is] not good. Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump? 7 Therefore purge out the old leaven, that you may be a new lump, since you truly are unleavened. For indeed Christ, our Passover, was sacrificed for us. 8 Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, nor with the leaven of malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened [bread] of sincerity and truth. 9 I wrote to you in my epistle not to keep company with sexually immoral people. 10 Yet [I] certainly [did] not [mean] with the sexually immoral people of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world. 11 But now I have written to you not to keep company with anyone named a brother, who is sexually immoral, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or an extortioner — not even to eat with such a person.
If anyone has a problem with this then PLEASE STAY AS FAR AWAY FROM A GOOD CHRISTIAN CHURCH AS POSSIBLE AND GO ON BEING IMMORAL AND NEVER TELL ANYONE THAT YOU CLAIM TO BE PART OF THE BODY OF CHRIST OR MEMBER OF ANY CHURCH.
TheMightyQuinn on December 19, 2008 at 4:14 PM
I just read the whole article. This “church” sounds seriously demented — like a cult almost. What business is it of theirs to “discipline” her if she’s no longer a member? It’s as if they are merely seeking to shame her in front of her own adult (or teenage) children who do still attend the church.
ramrocks on December 19, 2008 at 4:16 PM
It’s wrong, it’s horrible, and they shouldn’t do it. What’s more I think they’re doctrinally incorrect for doing so. Congrats Allah – you’ve found evidence that some people are power-mad jerks. You might hold the smug satisfaction long enough to note that this is not the sole province of Christians and notable at least partialy by virtue of its unusual nature. And the fact that Ms. “I value my privacy” talked to reporters about it, which strikes me as remarkably public.
Or, for a laugh, perhaps you could present to me why this behavior is wrong (assuming a) you think it IS wrong and b) you’ve got some usual definition for “wrong”), from an Atheist perspective? Perhaps it reduces her survival advantage in some fashion (I’ll even grant you that survival is an objective good, just cuz I’m generous that way).
TheUnrepentantGeek on December 19, 2008 at 4:16 PM
Didn’t Jim Jones practice humiliation in the People’s Church?
MadisonConservative on December 19, 2008 at 4:16 PM
Since all sins are supposed to be equally bad (or so I’ve heard), they should be busy shaming many people publicly every week.
Sanctimonious twits.
Candy Slice on December 19, 2008 at 4:17 PM
My wife and I are appalled at the behavior of this church. As Catholics we know that this would NEVER happen in an of our churches for the reasons that Ramrocks cited above. As for what this church plans to do to her — a verbal, public “stoning” if you will — it’s disgusting.
Did she sin? Of course she did. They have already counseled her and admonished her. There isn’t the need for a congregational inquisition. And what’s worse is, if you read the news story, the church apprently has no problem about scolding her before the entire congregation, including both of her kids, who still attend the church.
While I’m not willing to go to the lengths some might by comparing this church to overboard religious zealots, this church, it’s pastor, and the congregation are surely not acting very Christ-like.
Did they forget that Christ challenged those who were about to stone Mary Magdelene. “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.” If Christ can forgive someone for their sinful ways, where is the forgiveness and understaing for Ms. Hancock?
(Sorry, I didn’t mean to mount the soapbox at the pulpit, but Liberty or Death, above, is correct. This doesn’t help religions face down the secular assault they face daily.)
MrAndMrsSmith on December 19, 2008 at 4:17 PM
Really? They’re going to stone her, or take her into a stadium and shoot her right in the head? Whip her for showing a bit of ankle? No kidding? I didn’t get that from the article AT ALL. Guess I’ll have to re-read it.
Laura on December 19, 2008 at 4:18 PM
This all seems fine to me except for two things. First, if she thought her confessions were private they should have been kept private even if she were to be eventually asked to leave the church. Second, they don’t need to do this kind of thing in public, it is simply unneeded. She left the church and that is all that the bible says to do with people who continue in sin and refuse to repent.
Kronos on December 19, 2008 at 4:19 PM
Yep, they are dragging her out in the street and stoning her to death!
awful lot of Judgemental people ‘judging’ this church knowing none of the details and doing so from afar, usually by criticizing the church for being…..Judgemental.
Thus the logic of the postmodern mind.
jp on December 19, 2008 at 4:19 PM
Hmmm…
MadisonConservative on December 19, 2008 at 4:19 PM
People like you are the reason that this social conservative refuses to do religion. Don’t worry, I’ll stay as far away as possible from “GOOD CHRISTIAN CHURCHES” as possible. Now would you people please leave ME the Hell alone?
quikstrike98 on December 19, 2008 at 4:19 PM
“not as bad a name as AQ and the Taliban give religion”
Only relevant if one thinks that Islam is actually a religion rather than the cult it really is.
rayvet on December 19, 2008 at 4:19 PM
Yup. She should be glad that the church didn’t take her out to the nearest soccer stadium and shoot her in the head.
Cause that church is acting exactly like the talli-bon.
wise_man on December 19, 2008 at 4:20 PM
Their tactic here is entirely counterproductive. They have driven the sinner away from the church and lost any chance to have any influence with her short of extortion.
Yes, let’s call a sin a sin. They are engaging in extortion here – if not in a legal sense certainly in a moral sense.
This will be an object lesson to others in the congregation: better not confess your sins and seek guidance and counseling unless you want everyone to know.
BTW: I was raised in a Southern Baptist churches and never heard of such a thing. Most of the folks I remember would have been horrified that someone would betray anyone like that.
DamnCat on December 19, 2008 at 4:20 PM
Ummmm….isn’t there something in the Bible about dealing with this. You go to the person one on one, then with witnesses, and then bring it up in front of the church. I’m sure that’s in the New Testament somewhere.
I don’t see what the big deal is.
It's Vintage, Duh on December 19, 2008 at 4:20 PM
Allah remembers “Let him that is without sin among you first cast the stone”, but forgets what Jesus says to the adulteress, “Go and sin no more”
Little Boomer on December 19, 2008 at 4:20 PM
He sure did. That’s why this church “discipline” thing sounds creepily cultish to me.
ramrocks on December 19, 2008 at 4:21 PM
From Matthew 18:
15″If your brother sins against you, go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. 16But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’17If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.
18″I tell you the truth, whatever you bind on earth will bebound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.
19″Again, I tell you that if two of you on earth agree about anything you ask for, it will be done for you by my Father in heaven. 20For where two or three come together in my name, there am I with them.”
This has to do with how to handle personal offenses, one believer against another, but is in play in this case.
Akzed on December 19, 2008 at 4:22 PM
Dude… Are you just trying to pick a fight or something? Even pre-Vatican II, the Church would excommunicate any priest who broke the bounds of confession. It’s an extremely serious offense because the only way people will confess is if they feel that that confession is private.
While the Protestant churches don’t have something similar, most Protestants churches would likely keep something said in confidence during a private counselling session quiet unless it involved murder or child abuse. It is the job of ministers and priests to help people right their lives and the only way that they can do this is if their congregation trusts them. Frankly, this little stunt that this church is pulling will make people much less likely to seek the help of the ministers there. They wouldn’t know if their dirty laundry would be aired next.
Illinidiva on December 19, 2008 at 4:22 PM
Sick.
Busy bodies. Gossip mongers.
I still think they just want her there to continue take her money and they could give a rat’s behind about her “salvation”.
Demonic church.
bridgetown on December 19, 2008 at 4:22 PM
Candy Sliace blathered:
It is FALSE to say that all sins are equally bad. Jesus Christ even referred to some sins as being GREATER than others and requiring more severe punishment.
John 19:11 Jesus answered, “You could have no power at all against Me unless it had been given you from above. Therefore the one who delivered Me to you has the greater sin.”
Luke 12:47-48 “And that servant who knew his master’s will, and did not prepare [himself] or do according to his will, shall be beaten with many [stripes.] 48 “But he who did not know, yet committed things deserving of stripes, shall be beaten with few. For everyone to whom much is given, from him much will be required; and to whom much has been committed, of him they will ask the more.
TheMightyQuinn on December 19, 2008 at 4:23 PM
I have never heard of this level of church discipline being exercised against someone who had already left the church. That said, I am not aware of this particular churches rules regarding membership and they may by their bylaws be required to have a congregational meeting informing the church as to the conduct of a member that will unless repented of result in excommunication from the church.
Govgirl on December 19, 2008 at 4:25 PM
Now I haven’t defended this church, but some of the comments here are completely stupid.
This is just like the Taliban? WTF? Seriously, people?
Esthier on December 19, 2008 at 4:25 PM
I think in any bible beleiving church, some form of this is what ‘should be’, yet rarely attempted because it tends to piss people off. I’ve heard of, but never seen, that when you sin badly in some way you ‘should’ go before the session(depends on denominations governance) and ask for forgiveance openly.
Americans value their privacy too much for this to fly very well and similar things have got many preachers ran out of churches before.
jp on December 19, 2008 at 4:26 PM
Absolutely NOT. There is NO public shaming in my church, and I’ve been an evangelical Christian for years. Plus, in MY church, what is said to a counselor, STAYS with the counselor.
JustTruth101 on December 19, 2008 at 4:26 PM
Some people would do well to read the article before posting. I’ll summarize for those that that made posts based on false assumptions.
1. The woman is single.
2. Her “boyfriend” is single.
3. Her children are 18 and 20 years old.
Now, have fun.
mwdiver on December 19, 2008 at 4:27 PM
This Catholic is OFFENDED!
Ignorantly Judgemental Much?
PappaMac on December 19, 2008 at 4:27 PM
I’ve been attending church for 30+ years and have never heard about any persons sins. Nor have mine been published. This is Taliban-ish.
hanzblinx on December 19, 2008 at 4:27 PM
Refusing to repent is the sin, also known as contumacy. She isn’t being bothered about adultery per se, but about refusing to repent of adultery. We are all sinners, but not all of us are in open rebellion against the leadership of our local church.
Given the sad state of the Church/churches today, she’ll find a nice antinomian church where she’ll be welcomed with open arms.
Akzed on December 19, 2008 at 4:27 PM
The first meeting was appropriate. The bible says that when you know of someone who is sinning, first confront the person yourself. If that doesn’t work, confront them again in front of two or three witnesses. If that doesn’t work, you are to treat them as if they were a pagan.
The threat to expose the woman is not biblical and gives a black eye to all Christians.
As to Hackneyed claim that the church should have ignored her sins, I would expect that from someone who enjoys flaunting his sins.
MarkTheGreat on December 19, 2008 at 4:28 PM
The only difference is the severity of the response. The logic behind it (or absence thereof) is about equivalent.
UltimateBob on December 19, 2008 at 4:29 PM
I fail to see how she has reduced the impact by bringing it to a much, much, much larger audience.
Religious_Zealot on December 19, 2008 at 4:29 PM
Now don’t be a popinjay.
wise_man on December 19, 2008 at 4:30 PM
not necessarily. It depends on what Jesus meant by “tell it to the church.” The word church can mean one parish, all the believers in a city/episcopate, or all the believers in the world, or all the believers that have ever and will ever live. It’s used in each sense in the NT.
Akzed on December 19, 2008 at 4:30 PM
This isn’t adultery.. It’s fornication. Adultery is much higher in the sin tree than fornication.
Illinidiva on December 19, 2008 at 4:30 PM
Funny, they threaten to reveal her “sin” to the church.
And their SIN is revealed to the entire country.
Ahh, Yahweh works in mysterious ways.
bridgetown on December 19, 2008 at 4:30 PM
quikstrike98 said:
That’s fine with us quikstrike! Stay as far away as possible while you continue to sodomize young boys, er, I mean shack up with your latest girlfriend engaging in pre-marital sex or whatever big time public sinning you are doing ;)
By the way, what have I or any other good church that practices church discipline ever done to you quikstrike? Or I should ask, what sin are you continually committing that makes you a bad influence in a good church that obeys God’s word (as revealed through Paul’s epistles for the Body of Christ to follow)?
TheMightyQuinn on December 19, 2008 at 4:30 PM
they oughtta
MYOBMTOB.it’s between her, her husband, and her conscience.
and she’s not even a congregant there anymore??? get a life, people!
homesickamerican on December 19, 2008 at 4:31 PM
Oh look. Another member of the “I am god, you sinner” club.
MadisonConservative on December 19, 2008 at 4:31 PM
Up and until they continued action against her after she left the church, they were actually following scripture:
“If a brother or sister sins, go and point out the fault, just between the two of you. If they listen to you, you have won them over. But if they will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’ If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector.”
Religious_Zealot on December 19, 2008 at 4:31 PM
This church is afraid that Ms. Hancock’s behavior will reflect poorly on them and are in CYA mode. I will say prayer for all involved and leave the judgment to the only One who can rightfully do so.
thomasaur on December 19, 2008 at 4:31 PM
Esthier on December 19, 2008 at 4:25 PM
JustTruth101 on December 19, 2008 at 4:26 PM
I agree with you both.
The Bible teaches that if someone needs counseling you do it privately one on one. If it persists, then bring a strong Christian with you and talk to the person agin. The third time you bring it to the church leaders. But it is always done in love.
kingsjester on December 19, 2008 at 4:31 PM
And one who implies pedophilia of his opponents as well, I see. Marvelous.
MadisonConservative on December 19, 2008 at 4:32 PM
Is she married or not?
bridgetown on December 19, 2008 at 4:32 PM
Few remember that O.J. Simpson confessed his guilt to Rosie Greer (a former NFL lineman and later minister) while he was in the Los Angeles lockup. It was overheard by a guard but was never used at trial because of confessional privilege. If the privilege can’t be breached for a murder trial it seems like this woman is getting a bad deal.
Mason on December 19, 2008 at 4:32 PM
The church has overreached, though. They should have let things go when she quit.
Again, scripture points again and again to the understanding that once a person rejects the message, they are no longer your responsibility.
When Jesus sent out His disciples to the neighboring towns to preach the Good News, He also told them this: “If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, shake the dust off your feet when you leave that home or town.”
When the rich young man approached Jesus about what was necessary for eternal life, the conversation ended when Jesus told him to sell all his possessions and give the money to the poor. The man’s reaction to this? “When the young man heard this, he went away sad, because he had great wealth.” Note that Jesus did not go after the young man, He let him go.
In Corinth, when Paul found out the church was proud of itself for tolerating a man who was sleeping with his father’s wife, he firmly instructed the congregation to “hand this man over to Satan, so that the sinful nature may be destroyed and his spirit saved on the day of the Lord.”
I see nothing to indicate that a church is responsible for those who have rejected them.
Religious_Zealot on December 19, 2008 at 4:32 PM
Biblically speaking, adultery as any sex outside of marriage, which includes fornication.
Esthier on December 19, 2008 at 4:32 PM
Disapproving of sin makes a church the equivalent of the Taliban?
Strange twist of logic we have going on here.
MarkTheGreat on December 19, 2008 at 4:32 PM
She’s not.
Esthier on December 19, 2008 at 4:33 PM
Not in any that I’ve ever been involved with – and I’ve been involved in many.
Big S on December 19, 2008 at 4:33 PM
Wheee! That should take care of any missionary work unless any potential converts have segregated drinking fountains, lunchrooms, and restrooms?
a capella on December 19, 2008 at 4:34 PM
Agreed. As I heard George Carlin once say “Fighting for peace is like f***ing for virginity.”
Sounds pretty similar to me.
mwdiver on December 19, 2008 at 4:34 PM
Exactly. And I think that’s missing here.
Even if they do love her, she clearly isn’t feeling it.
Esthier on December 19, 2008 at 4:34 PM
This would be thrown out of a theoretical “court of Biblical law” based on Matthew 18:15: “Moreover if they brother shall trespass against thee.” Unless she’s committing adultery with half a a couple in the church, this is not an offense against any of them personally. They are way over the wrong line.
Anwyn on December 19, 2008 at 4:35 PM
I can feel the religious civil war in the GOP…I can taste it
Baphomet on December 19, 2008 at 4:35 PM
No, but I sometimes think churches have lost an important tool by refusing to rebuke it’s members.
Religious_Zealot on December 19, 2008 at 4:36 PM
As I am sure you are well aware the Catholic Church has castrated itself allowing mostly women and effeminate men to lead their churches. So, of course they don’t do anything to publicly pressure someone to stop practicing immoral behavior because they largely want to appeal to girls and please them above all else.
TheMightyQuinn
WTF? Yeah, the Catholic Church is so beholden to women, riiiigghghhtt!!!
Nothing like a little Catholic bashing by a Protestant to get in the Christmas spirit.
JAM on December 19, 2008 at 4:37 PM
This is not a church.
This is a malevolent cult
Kini on December 19, 2008 at 4:37 PM
Obama….?
I’ll get my coat…. ; )
dead-duck on December 19, 2008 at 4:38 PM
Govgirl on December 19, 2008 at 4:38 PM
Is this a joke? I’m not even sure I know what it means. What a dolt.
bridgetown on December 19, 2008 at 4:39 PM
Just so you know, not all ancient manuscripts of Matthew 18 have “against you” in them.
Religious_Zealot on December 19, 2008 at 4:39 PM
A. S.O.P.? No, it rarely happens in churches this way. There is the Biblical injunction that allows for public confrontation, but it isn’t usually practiced.
B. The church should not have made her private confession a public matter. If she had an expectation of privacy, it should be honored. When a confidence must be broken, (e.g., abuse, criminality) it’s best to explain “I know you expected confidentiality but I can’t honor that in this case because a, b, c). Her leaving the church effectively ended their authority over her life- though her kids still going there makes me wonder if there are overlapping relationships with other members.
C. Wait a minute. She’s concerned the church is going to “publicly” disclose her sins and embarrass her in front of the church- So she’s telling it to a reporter?
What?
cs89 on December 19, 2008 at 4:39 PM
As “revealed” by your personal interpretation of St. Paul’s words is what you mean. You’re foisting a modern interpretation on a 2000 year old letter written to an ancient community living in unique circumstances.
ramrocks on December 19, 2008 at 4:39 PM
I’m Christian and have never seen this, not because it doesn’t happen, but because it does and it’s done discreetly. Christians have an obligation to hold each other accountable on standards that are higher than for non-believers. I think it’s totally appropriate for a member to be confronted by something like this, but by the church leadership and very discreetly and in love.
Sounds like in this case they blew it.
I would expect the same from any true friend of mine who loves and cares about my well-being, Christian or not, to tell me what’s on their mind and call me to account for something I’ve done. That’s love. If they do it coldly and publicly then they’re nothing more than self-righteous busy-bodies.
As Christians though, many times we’re our own worst enemies. I’d recommend the book “UnChristian” by David Kinnaman and Gabe Lyons for Christians who feel the need to do some damage control on our public image.
fudgypup on December 19, 2008 at 4:40 PM
If a doctor or a lawyer engaged in similar behavior, they would be out of a job and in a courtroom in no time flat.
It is immoral on the part of the so-called minister to betray a confidence, regardless of the perceived offense.
Church discipline, my ass.
This is a bunch of self-righteous bigots who try to make themselves feel big by belittling others.
hillbillyjim on December 19, 2008 at 4:40 PM
I think that’s a bit over-dramatic.
But it certainly seems as if the church as some control issues.
Religious_Zealot on December 19, 2008 at 4:40 PM
As a fellow believer (in HTML) I think you’ve got some real blockquote issues, and I wanted to come to you private first.
… guess I mess that up. ;)
TheUnrepentantGeek on December 19, 2008 at 4:41 PM
That bowflex add really must go. I CANNOT stand adds that cover content without being able to close them.
PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE get rid of it.
Nihaody on December 19, 2008 at 4:41 PM
I’m sorry, a BS in Biblical Studies… How? I would think that would be a BA.
Esthier on December 19, 2008 at 4:41 PM
Churches should not have ANY authority over anyone’s life.
They are supposed to be a bridge to The Word and the The Way.
Yeesh.
bridgetown on December 19, 2008 at 4:41 PM
Anwyn on December 19, 2008 at 4:35 PM
Govgirl on December 19, 2008 at 4:42 PM
**zzzzz**
My collie says:
**snort** Huh? Oh. Yeah. Okay. Well, why don’t you wake me up for the war against the Church of Progressive Liberalism. If it’s just the Christian sects, the Jews, and the atheists squabbling, I’d rather sleep, okay?
**zzz***
CyberCipher on December 19, 2008 at 4:42 PM
hillbillyjim on December 19, 2008 at 4:40 PM
Yep, and God is setting it straight for the world to see.
Gotta love the irony.
bridgetown on December 19, 2008 at 4:42 PM
Never ascribe to malice what you can explain by stupidity
How much you want to bet that the “discipliners” had not been told that Hancock had left the church?
Marking Time on December 19, 2008 at 4:43 PM
Of course not! It’s Biblical Studies! duh!
; )
dead-duck on December 19, 2008 at 4:43 PM
We don’t know know the whole story here. The Church may have made some mistakes … these things need to be handled with delicate wisdom. Church discipline has been used in my Church and in most cases the individuals are repentent and welcomed back into the Church. In this case she chose to leave the Church, that should have been the end of it as far as Church involvement. However, she has obviously taken it to a new level by talking to the media … strange way of retaining ones anonymity.
ORrighty on December 19, 2008 at 4:43 PM
Oh, please. That’s like saying the only difference between a watermellon and a cherry is the size. Comparing getting humiliated in front of someome and getting your head cut off is more than a different in responses. Both comparisons have nothing in common.
mwdiver on December 19, 2008 at 4:43 PM
Sounds like a cult to me.
Count to 10 on December 19, 2008 at 4:43 PM
This fits your definition of a good Christian church, eh? Thank you for, once again, validating my choice to become a Jew. Not that I really needed it, but hey, anything to brighten my Friday afternoon.
The bigotry, intolerance, and zealotry exhibited in this statement are mind-boggling. But completely consistent, unfortunately.
nukemhill on December 19, 2008 at 4:44 PM
Really? The Catholic catechism treats the two separately. Adultery is an “offense” against marriage and fornication is an “offense” against chastity. I believe that adultery is considered a more serious sin because you are hurting your spouse through your actions.
Illinidiva on December 19, 2008 at 4:45 PM
Scripturally and theologically, churches SHOULD have authority over some parts of member’s lives.
Authority that the people willingly cede in a belief that the community will help them in their spiritual journey.
Religious_Zealot on December 19, 2008 at 4:45 PM
I think most of us could agree, that this is ridiculous, but the Taliban references are quite absurd. Until these people start killing there congregants for minor infractions, and they start preaching violence, and sending there congregants out on suicide missions, then get back to me about how they are like the Taliban.
MDWNJ on December 19, 2008 at 4:45 PM
It is funny, most people assume that it should be Arts because it does not fall into what we normally think of as Science, but Theology is the considered a science so degrees given in Bible are also.
Govgirl on December 19, 2008 at 4:45 PM
Which is why I used the term malevolent cult.
The woman is having an affair with an unmarried man.
Yet, we don’t see the same admonishment to abortion.
Who’s their leader? Fred Phelps.
Kini on December 19, 2008 at 4:46 PM
As shown in this article, “None of your G-D- business” never works with people like you….
quikstrike98 on December 19, 2008 at 4:46 PM
You’re right.
ramrocks on December 19, 2008 at 4:47 PM
Religious_Zealot on December 19, 2008 at 4:45 PM
I disagree. Scripturally only Yashua/Yahweh have any authority.
The church is there to HELP, not hinder. To guide and to teach. NOT to judge and pull this kind of crap.
bridgetown on December 19, 2008 at 4:47 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 3 … 8 Next »