Do we need standards?

[jasd]

(QRWindow)

...and ere the [censored] crowed twice; thrice, didst Peter, fisherman, Saint, and Apostle deny his Lord --yea, moreover, he didst curse. (jasd 12:12 ;-)

And, on this thing called marriage, what is it? a thing of the heart, body, and soul? a confession before others? a prescription of the church? a contract with the State -- a licensed benediction of the State? or is it simply a covenanting matter of singular privacy imploring the blessing of Gd, which afterwards, is celebrated?

One ought pray that it is not of the State…; or, the issue of it is rendered unto the State. It has already been established in precedent and case law.

[Michelle]

Quote:

---

I think you are reading things into my statements that are not there. My point was not to argue whether or not some particular standard ought to be changed. My point was to illustrate that no standard is valid if it is not grounded in reality. Why do we, for example, encourage our children to stay away from drugs or from unprotected, unmarried sex? Because there are REAL WORLD consequences for those behaviors that can affect the person's entire LIFE. Those real world consequences themselves carry the ACTUAL "penalty" for making those kinds of choices. Now, as parents, yes, we impose artificial consequences because we are trying to protect our children from the real DIRE consequences of a poor choice or wrong behavior. But with grown people AFTER the fact, the imposition of an artificial consequence CANNOT add anything to the actual real-world consequence. It cannot protect them from it, it cannot "learn" them any better than the actual one will. If we trust our standards to be rooted in divine reality, in the moral imperative intrinsic to the structure of life and reality itself, why do we think we need to add anything to what God has already built into the fabric of What Is?

THAT was my point.

---

Hmmm. I think I know what you're saying, but not sure.

Let me give a for instance. You mentioned keeping our kids off drugs. Should we have some kind of "penalty" to do this? (for example, should we give them warnings or suspensions in school settings, or whatever our home discipline is?) I mean, every one of my friends from Adventist school who did drugs had parents who warned them against this and attended an Adventist school which had punishments for this activity. So is that okay? Let them experiment? (I know Adventists who say, hey, what's the big deal about marijuana, I did it when I was a kid so why are you (the school) making such a big deal out of this?) Or should we just warn them and then let them suffer whatever consequences they will if they start? I'm not being sarcastic, but trying to figure out where you're coming from (and I hope you don't think I'm beating you up over this--just trying to come to an understanding). I work better with concrete examples than abstractions.

Also about models--I'm personally interested in dialogue over this, though I may not ever agree with you. The other discussion was in FFA--maybe having a moderator on this forum MIGHT help to keep the discussion more sane?

What I'm really interested in is different ways of looking at the policy books and the consequences of actions. You see, I'm married to a school administrator and I hear policy discussions all the time. I'd like to hear outside the box discussions.

Does that make ANY sense?

M

[Nicodema]

Quote:

---

Quick question: WWJD? We don't have to guess, there's a parallel story right there in the Bible.

---

Bravus, I tried bringing that up on the other thread and about got my head bit off with people screaming at me hysterically about the utter chaos and anarchy that would ensue and accusing me of all sorts of ridiculous things that never entered my mind, such as wanting to let violent offenders loose on the streets. I was then insulted by a braying elephant who told me I was essentially a complete and utter idiot who knew nothing about history nor the exegesis of scripture and with whom productive dialogue was not possible -- right before he launched into a vitriolic diatribe about how liberals were the real evil force in the world because of their 'political correctness' and hate speech. This from someone using pathetically over-generalized dualistic labels for everything and virtually foaming at the mouth.

That's what you get when you ask WWJD and mention parallel stories in the Bible. People don't want to hear it. So they trample it underfoot and then turn and devour you. God forgive me, it's enough to make me want to just give up.

[Bravus]

Hang in there ma'am: what matters is what He'd do (and did) not what people need to believe.

[Guest]

Quote:

---

God forgive me, it's enough to make me want to just give up.

---

But, but, but ..but ..then you would miss all of the fun.

[there buster]

The problem is that there is almost no parallel in the two cases.

There is no question of adultery here, Biblically quite a different issue from fornication.

There is no allegation that one or more of the board members were sexually involved with her, and therefore guilty with her.

There are no allegations of "entrapment," precisely what was at issue in the Gospels. I don't even know how you would arrange entrapment with an engaged couple.

No one is trying to "stone her," or anything nearly so drastic. "Administrative leave" is pretty mild stuff.

There is one similarity. They both involve sex outside of marriage. Apparently that obliterates all other distinctions for some.

On that basis, we must ask if Jesus was somehow not involved in the punishment for David and Bathsheba, another case every bit as similar. It has that one ingredient, sex outside of marriage. In fact, it's closer to the NT case. I guess the prophet Nathan didn't get the "cast the first stone" memo.

It may be that "people want to believe" that pineapples and apples are just the same--and May apples and Adam's apples. Having one common element doesn't make them the same.

Instead of impugning people's motives, it would be more persuasive to reason more carefully.

[Nicodema]

Quote:

---

Although I don't automatically grant your notion that I'm using a "punitive model," perhaps you can sketch how your alternative model would work, anchored in your 'real world.'

---

It's not "my" real world; it's THE real world. In THE real world, choices for good or for ill bring with them consequences. This is a Biblical principle -- what a man sows, he shall reap. The Scripture also states that it is the goodness of God that leads us to repentance. In fact, in that selfsame passage the question is asked, "despiseth thou the riches of His mercy and grace?" Punishment -- the imposition of an artificially constructed penalty designed to repay someone for having done something deemed wrong -- does not lead us to genuine repentance. Genuine repentance is the result of having our hearts broken when we realize that Christ has taken our punishment (the full wages of sin) FOR us, and recognize that we DO, in fact, deserve that punishment but have been spared for no other reason than the incredibly gracious Love of the very God whom we have wronged.

In THE real world, in the universe God has created, God has placed a living, breathing, dynamic moral imperative! Real consequences exist, both positive and negative, for our choices and deeds. By "real" I mean naturally occurring as a direct result of those choices and deeds, without the artificial constructs of human beings who have appointed themselves to take such matters into their own hands to invent penalties.

That's basically what I was saying. I have witnessed firsthand the goodness of God leading to repentance. I have witnessed firsthand the consummate failure of human group dynamics and their artificial constructs to do anything but get in the way of that process, and that miserably. What can I say but that I trust the Lord and I trust what He has built into the fabric of reality. It is way too easy for people to be motivated by the wrong things and simultaneously to be blind to what actually motivates them. The impulse to make an example of someone -- so grotesquely animalistic it almost begs credence for the theory of evolution. The fear of losing money, losing support, or conversely the caving in to pressure, real or imagined, by those they might stand to lose money or support from. The desperate, grasping need to be seen as "right" by distancing themselves as far as possible from the remotest hint of sympathy with the one who is "wrong". And so on (there are plenty more...). I do not need anyone to testify to me about what is in man (or woman), because I know. I know these problems are intrinsic to human nature; it therefore does NOT require any projection of specific motives on my part to arrive at these conclusions (contrary to what you said on the other thread). These flaws are intrinsic to human nature and everyone has the potential for carrying and acting upon them.

Now mind you, we are not talking about the criminal justice system, which has its place and is a product of the human world system. We are not talking about just another corporation here. We are talking about the one and only institution, organization, whatever, that is supposed to reflect and represent Jesus Christ in the world. Which means a divine mandate to do things differently from the way the world does them -- to do them the way Jesus Christ did, does, and would do. NOT as in playing God and taking His place, presuming to act in His stead, but rather in terms of emulating His example and living out His teachings. The church is NOT the criminal justice system and should not be compared thereunto. The church is NOT another corporation and should not be compared thereunto. The church is NOT just another human world structure to do things the way all the rest of the human world structures operate. The church has a divine mandate to be different -- to manifest the goodness of God that leadeth to repentance! This is our privilege!

[there buster]

So, when Adam and Eve disobeyed, was their expulsion from the Garden a "natural consequence of THE REAL world," or an artificially punitive action?

How was their place of residence naturally related to the fruit they ate? How is death related to eating the wrong piece of (non-poisonous) fruit?

When a young child steals something of little value, and no one outside the family finds out, should the parents impose a penalty? Or should they wait for THE REAL world to exact its consequences?

[Nicodema]

Adam and Eve's consequence was placed upon them by God, who is not a human being, who cannot be motivated by wrong or improper motives, and who cannot err. This same God is the One who built the moral imperative into the fabric of reality. A consequence of His making is as valid as one built into the sow-reap principle, for it is He with whom we have To Do.

The parent-child relationship is an entirely different matter from dealing with grown persons. A parent's job often involves imposing artificial consequences as a means of seeking to protect or shield a child from having to discover real-world consequences which are much more dire and long-lasting. The parental model does not apply when we are talking about adult human beings dealing with other adult human beings. No peer can feel for another peer the kind of love, nor be as invested in the other, as a parent is by nature toward his child. Having come of age, no adult is subject to another adult in the way a child is to a parent, because no adult must care for and totally bear responsibility for and provide for another adult as a parent must for a child. The parental model is therefore totally irrelevant to this discussion.

[Bravus]

Ed: I don't think I was impugning your motives. You knew very well which case I was talking about, but chose to give a fivolous or non-responsive answer rather than to do as you've done above and indicated why you think the cases are not parallel. I can respect the latter course of action, and then engage in some closer thinking about my own reactions and impressions.

I think you have a point, although my understanding of the parallels are that Jesus was confronted with someone in sexual sin and chose, on this occasion, to show mercy and seek redemption. To me, the non-parallelism is more in Jesus' discernment of what is needed in each case, which we don't have but should be seeking to grow into.

I certainly wasn't using that one text to make a blanket case for treating everyone the same way as Jesus treated the woman caught in adultery: as Michelle has pointed out there are legal and contractual issues in the specific case being discussed as well as spiritual ones.

My sole point was that, in seeking to emulate Jesus, it is helpful to at least look seriously at what He did - him specifically - and said in as many relevant situations as we can, and that we reject trying to emulate Him at our peril.

[LifeHiscost]

Quote:

---

The problem is not 'having standards,' but understanding their purpose and function.

The principle, being a universal truth, does not change. But circumstances change continually.

So having standards poses three major challenges. 1) Understanding the principle being applied, 2) recognizing when it is a mere preference, and 3) recognizing when changing circumstances demand a change in the standard.

---

Hear!! Hear!!

[LifeHiscost]

Quote:

---

Silence is assent,....

---

If this is a principle then we have reason to exclude Jesus from the heavenly courts as He was silent much of the time about many of the prevailing demoralizing customs of the religious body of His day.

[LifeHiscost]

Quote:

---

To question the efficacy of the punitive model is NOT to suggest that standards themselves are unnecessary. It is, rather, to question whether those standards might not be better served by a different model.

---

Hear!! Hear!! And may I add, when love is not the prime motivator by the initiator of the necessary discipline, the affect on the recipient will classify the disciplinarian as equal to those who blow up world trade centers in the name of God.

[LifeHiscost]

Quote:

---

People don't want to hear it. So they trample it underfoot and then turn and devour you. God forgive me, it's enough to make me want to just give up.

---

Well, don't give up just yet, Nico. For you will probably find those in agreement with some of your logic assenting without posting.

One other thing that might be considered is that the 'artificial' punitive measures promoted may very often be for the sake of onlookers as opposed to being only for the instigators of injustice. When God asked Israel to go into a village and kill every man, woman, and child, it wasn't so they (those who were killed) would learn a lesson so as to behave more discreetly, but to allow God's chosen to be safe and secure from the aberrant behavior spilling over into the lives of those choosing to submit to God's government, and yet who would unjustly suffer if no discretionary punishment were performed on the neighboring

lawless.

Which, I might add, would seem to be where the whole world is now, about to experience similar circumstances.

All this would seem important to recognize God being in control, knowing how best to administer, through Spirit led

servants, the necessary 'artificial' punishment until the reality catches up to those who won't listen to the 'artificial', and thus receive the final reward of separation from God because the 'artificial' signs went unheeded until it was too late for remedy.

[Nicodema]

Quote:

---

One other thing that might be considered is that the 'artificial' punitive measures promoted may very often be for the sake of onlookers as opposed to being only for the instigators of injustice. When God asked Israel to go into a village and kill every man, woman, and child, it wasn't so they (those who were killed) would learn a lesson so as to behave more discreetly, but to allow God's chosen to be safe and secure from the aberrant behavior spilling over into the lives of those choosing to submit to God's government, and yet who would unjustly suffer if no discretionary punishment were performed on the neighboring

lawless.

Which, I might add, would seem to be where the whole world is now, about to experience similar circumstances.

All this would seem important to recognize God being in control, knowing how best to administer, through Spirit led

servants, the necessary 'artificial' punishment until the reality catches up to those who won't listen to the 'artificial', and thus receive the final reward of separation from God because the 'artificial' signs went unheeded until it was too late for remedy.

---

LHC, this disturbs me greatly, because it is the logic of the Beast -- clearly defined in Revelation as a power that appears Christian ("churchian") on the surface -- in justifying the persecution of God's remnant people.

By saying this I am not implying that you are "on the side of" the Beast. I do not believe that for one minute. I simply mean to express why this line of reasoning causes me grave concern and why I cannot in good conscience adopt it.

It is simply far too dangerous for any human being or group of human beings to assume they have a divine mandate to break the laws of God ("thou shalt not kill", "thou shalt not bear false witness", etc.) and the laws/ways of Christ ("love one another", "go and sin no more", "turn the other cheek", etc.) all in the name of presumably enforcing God's moral standards of conduct in the world through the world's version of "power" (politics, legislation, gov't, military, police, etc.) It is this type of gross error that leads to acts of fanaticism and terrorism, perpetrating the grossest forms of evil against one's fellow man presumably in the name of upholding God's moral standards.

And the Bible also makes it clear the agenda of the Beast BEGINS with economic sanction and oppression -- "so that no man could buy or sell save he who had the mark, or the name of the Beast, or the number of his name" -- etc. Now please don't get me wrong here, I am NOT saying that the church board was on the side of the Beast when they canned the pregnant lady. But I am saying it would do us well to severely and closely question of what spirit comes the impulse to impose economic hardship upon another as a means of penalizing them for what we deem to be their sins? I think the Bible is quite clear in this regard what spirit instigates that course of conduct. It is NOT a matter of feelings or attributing motives to the persons involved. Just as sin is sin regardless of how one FEELS about it (e.g. one can feel there is nothing wrong with one's actions and it is still a sin), so it is with determining of what spirit a course comes. People may FEEL perfectly within the confines of carrying out "duty", they may FEEL "holy" about it, they may have, in themselves, no personal ill motives in the matter. But whence comes this course itself? It does not come from Heaven, but according to Revelation, has an altogether different source. THAT is my concern here.

[there buster]

This all sounds good, except for two problems.

You have effectively eliminated all examples, since none of us has exactly the same relationship to anyone else that God does to us, or that parents do to childre.

Even WWJD is effectively eliminated, since, as the Savior, He has a relationship to everyone else significantly different than our own.

There are other logical errors, as well, but the biggest one is this: We still don't know what TO do.

So far, you've simply rejected every other alternative, without telling us how to figure out what to do.

[there buster]

Quote:

---

Ed: I don't think I was impugning your motives. You knew very well which case I was talking about, but chose to give a fivolous or non-responsive answe

---

So causing the children to be lost is a frivolous answer? Maybe that's the point. Maybe it should be about the children. Making this about sex is frivolous, if anything is.

Quote:

---

it is helpful to at least look seriously at what He did

---

Which was precisely my point. We need to look at ALL that He said and did, and find which cases are more parallel. Frankly, I didn't think your appraisal was serious. I thought it was shallow and facile. Since we're into describing one another's seriousness.

Quote:

---

I can respect the latter course of action,

---

Thank you for telling me what you "can respect." It's illuminating. Applying that same rule, how should I approach your failing to see the relevancy of the "frivolous" text I posted? Or was that a case of "what some people need to believe?"

[Bravus]

It seems I can't win[1] with you at the moment, though I'm really not sure what I did to end up in that situation, except possibly disagree about US foreign policy. That's unfortunate. because I really do respect you as a thinker and wish we could carry on a conversation here that's not rancorous.

Let me try again with no judgements about motivations or levels of seriousness.

My invoking of the story of the woman caught in adultery was meant to be an extra piece in the puzzle that so many were filling in carefully elsewhere. It certainly wasn't meant to be my whole case and response to say that we should do exactly that. If you read it as the latter, then I actually agree: that would be a shallow and facile response.

I also agree that the 'millstone' quote is responsive to the question, since as you've noted it's not just the case of an individual relationship but of the lessons taught to the students in this situation, which complicates the case. I guess your response to me felt dismissive to me (which is only a judgement of my reactions, not your intentions) because you chose not to address my point but to make a counterpoint instead, but that was likely an over-sensitivity on my part.

For what it's worth, in practical terms I believe the right thing was done: the consequences for breaking the provisions of the teacher's contract were exactly as stated in that contract, and the contract itself is valid. The standard is an appropriate standard.

So what would Jesus do *with the woman* specifically, in addition to what has been done 'under law' (of the land). How can redemption best be sought for this woman and her fiancee? Given that the employment consequences are correct and appropriate, what are the steps that show her she's forgiven and still a member of the Body of Christ?

[1] Where winning is defined only as being able to converse, not as prevailing in an argument.

[Nicodema]

Your assessment is incorrect. I have simply pointed out two realities: (1) God is perfect in all His ways, human beings are not; (2) it is inappropriate for one or more grown adults to treat a peer (another grown adult) as if he were a child and attempt to "parent" him. I do not agree that I have effectively eliminated ALL examples. That is a mere unsubstantiated assertion on your part. It is likewise untrue that I have effectively eliminated "WWJD". On the contrary, I have thrown us back upon WWJD as the question to be asked.

I have not "rejected every other alternative." I have rejected the punitive model (imposition of artificially constructed consequences by erring mortals upon other erring mortals) and rejected your attempt to use two examples -- God in Eden and the parental model -- as a means of validating the punitive model.

One thing you said that is absolutely true 100%: that Jesus, "as the Savior, has a relationship to everyone else significantly different than our own." Not only that, but His relationship to each soul is individual and unique. Therefore I am not certain I could even begin to "tell" you "how to figure out what to do," because clearly there is no one-size-fits-all solution. Every case is different. Every individual is different. The one constant IS Jesus, and the trends established by His interactions with individuals while He walked the earth as a man. Granted, YES, there are particulars in each situation we have on record that will make that situation not quite the same as a similar or parallel situation we face today, but there is still enough general information given to determine whether we are dealing with a Peter situation, or a Woman At the Well situation, or a Woman Caught in Adultery situation, or whatever. These stories are packed with parallels both general and particular. The Woman Caught in Adultery, for example, has several particulars that have been pointed out, but there are also general principles that obtain here and are relevant to other things that Jesus taught as broad principles apart from any specific situation. Jesus taught how to address a situation where brother offends brother. Jesus taught about not judging one another but paying attention to what we should be judging in ourselves, cleaning up our own houses so to speak rather than our neighbor's.

Because there is no single one-size-fits-all solution, I cannot invent one. This is why I am thrown back to the question of WWJD as the only valid starting point. I find plenty of clear examples and pronouncements from Him that unseat the punitive model at its core. I find nothing from Him that erect or substantiate it. Again, it comes down to faith. We either have faith in Him and His methods and ways, or we do not. We either have faith that it is the "riches of His longsuffering, mercy and grace" and "the goodness of God" that leadeth to repentance, or we do not, and imagine then that we must meddle about in our own erring fashion to get the job done. This meddling about includes the logic of the Beast -- that in order to uphold God's standards of moral conduct we must break God's laws, abrogate Christ's way and teaching of how we are to be with one another, and justify the imposition of economic hardship upon our brother, sister, neighbor. That is what really troubles me about this whole thing. The Bible makes it very clear which spirit originates the desire to impose economic sanctions and penalties against someone else for violating what is deemed to be God's standard. And it is not the Spirit of Christ.

[there buster]

Quote:

---

Let me try again with no judgements about motivations or levels of seriousness.

---

Excellent! Then you'll probably get your wish.

Actually, both the WWJD and the woman taken in adultery had been mentioned earlier.

And "WWJD" is a function of what one understands about Jesus. In effect, it's begging the question, because the person saying it starts out with what they think Jesus would do, and then use that as evidence. In practice, it quite often indicates a belief in what I have elsewhere described as "a pasteurized portrait of the peaceable Jesus."

In other words, "WWJD" is often a question of how "nice" something is.

But the same Jesus who said "go and sin no more," described the Pharisees as a "brood of vipers."

You'll notice that although I described positions I disagree with, I did not use value-laden or emotionally loaded language to do so.

I may be relentless in my logic, but I try to keep personal references and other sorts of manipulation out of what I post.

[Nicodema]

Quote:

---

But the same Jesus who said "go and sin no more," described the Pharisees as a "brood of vipers."

---

Precisely. That is how He described the Pharisees -- the religious leaders of His day whose "job" was to presumably "uphold God's standards" by punishing everyone who fell short of those standards. And not just in tithes of anise and cumin, but in broad general things like adultery and blasphemy.

Pharisee is as Pharisee does, and the punitive model is the Pharisee's darling. Now to be perfectly honest, I don't equate this church board who fired the pregnant lady with the Pharisees. I don't know them from Adam to make such an assessment. But I do equate reliance upon and justification of the punitive model with Phariseeism. Maybe that will help you understand where I'm coming from?

[there buster]

Quote:

---

It is likewise untrue that I have effectively eliminated "WWJD". On the contrary, I have thrown us back upon WWJD as the question to be asked.

---

Quote:

---

One thing you said that is absolutely true 100%: that Jesus, "as the Savior, has a relationship to everyone else significantly different than our own." Not only that, but His relationship to each soul is individual and unique. Therefore I am not certain I could even begin to "tell" you "how to figure out what to do," because clearly there is no one-size-fits-all solution.

---

So we must ask WWJD? But we don't have the relationship He did, and every situation is unique, so by your reasoning the answer gives us no practical guidance.

If every situation is unique, it necessarily follows that we cannot apply the action of one situation to a another one, since they are all different.

That means that every situation we face will be different than the ones that Jesus faced, so we cannot apply what He did in those unique situations to our different and unique situations.

We must have faith that we know what He would do. What if different people sincerely believe, have faith, that they know what He would do, and they are very different things? Which, in fact, is the case we are faced with.

We can't rely on His recorded actions, since they were to unique situations different from our own.

It appears that you have, in fact, effectively eliminated WWJD since His unique situations always differ from ours.

It appears to me this leaves us having to cope with differing faith-based claims.

[Neil D]

I knew this subject was going to get out of hand and have all sorts of discussion for standards, and discussion over principles. It is a never ending debat because, IMHO, we adventists over emphasis the need for standards and not enough on mercy and restitution after we fall morally. As a result, we have lost some great thinkers and pioneers in the evangelical areas because we have gone where no adventist has gone before. Moral failing are everywhere because we are subject to them so easily. And as a result, the church looses out.

Michelle said-

Quote:

---

You have an interesting point about restitution, but do you think there are any instances in which restitution is not enough?

---

Sure, there are instances where TRUST is irretreavably violated and can not restored unless a life is given in exchange. And I never said that there were not consequences that did not follow a failing. What I am proposing is a way to restore TRUST between party/individuals. Remember the borrowed lawnmower incident that was broken but repaired AND other equipment given as restoration of trust. That is what is needed, restoration of trust. That is why the OT gave principles for the thief who was caught..To restore trust in that thief who repented, there was the need to not only give back what was stolen, but to give back an additional 1/5 of what was stolen.

Quote:

---

And, more importantly, would you ever hire him/her again in a position with child contact?

---

As I have said, there are consequences to a moral failing. As such, each moral failing needs to be evaluated on a case by case senerio. The teacher child molester, who had truely repented, nevertheless, will never teach children again...but he can be a teacher of adults....? right? This same sinner can enter a church again, but will never be left in a bathroom again ALONE with children coming in and out of the bathroom. [i hope!]

Again, there are instances where restoration priniples can be applied. For each person who repented, a restoration principle can be applied to restore trust between people.

Think of people who you dont trust, but have forgiven them of past sins against you, ie neighbors, aquaintances. Havent you ever said, If so and so would just do this, I would trust him with that? But I can't because of what he has done in the past. Think of the Lawnmower incidence again. You will never trust a neighbor if he brings back your lawnmower broken...right? You will have forgiven him, but never trust him with your equipment. Isn't this correct? Your level of trust has improved if he brings back the lawnmower REPAIRED. But there is this nagging doubt about his care of your equipment. Right? You are hopefull that he doesn't bring it back repaired, because it is worth less after he borrowed it. Right? plus, was the repair job a good repair from a qualified dealer or just a quick thing to get by? Will it start when you NEED it to, or will it be difficult to get started and cause you to wonder about the neighbor's judgment? The doubts about trust are still there.... But when he not only brings it back repaired, but also bring 1/5 the value of a new lawnmower back, ie a hedgetrimmer, is not your trust in this person fully restored?

Our church has it's emphasis on standards, but what about restoration? Does not the principle of restoration also maintain those very standards and restore a fallen person to trust? Can you say that you don't want to be fully restored when you fail? Did not Peter become fully restored when he denied Jesus? Did He restore Peter thru the use of 3 questions? Restoration can have good consequences, as evidenced by Peter...after all, if he had never been restored to an apostle, we would never have had his 2 books of the New Testament....

[there buster]

Michelle, two excellent books on this issue are by David Augsburger. "The New Freedom of Forgiveness," and "Helping People Forgive." The former is for everyone, the latter is a graduate level book. But so rich.

Some have tried to frame the debate as "standards vs. forgiveness." What Augsburger's books do, especially the second one, is demonstrate the fallacy of that dichotomy. Without a recognition of consequences, there will be no reconciliation.

I highly recommend both books. I even referenced Augsburger in my April cover article in SIGNS: "Where Was God When Jesus Died?"

[Neil D]

Again, we have majored in standards and left mercy behind...

The practicalities are we have lost a teacher and a pastor, all over thier mistakes...

The truth is that both are moral failures. They have failed to live morally according to standards of the church, and to each other. They have also violated a trust, in leadership, in individual practices, in thier relationship to the church on an individual level.

The first question that needs to be answered is- Do they repent of thier actions and ask forgiveness?

If there is evidence of true repentance then the church needs to make some decisions...

If the church fires one and not the other, the church fails to maintain the uniformaty of those moral standards, allowing them to be applied to some and not to others. This course of action is unacceptable.

If the church fires both, the church has chosen to forgo the resources it has invested in. It will loose the time, experience, finances and wisdom of these investments. This is a loss to the church .

Plus, while this maintians the standards of the church, there are 'weighter matters' that need to be brought out into the dissussion arena. That of grace, mercy and restoration.

Truely repentant people need the oppertunity of restoration, that is, an oppertunity to earn back the trust of the church. While this allows the church to maintain standards, the time spent in restoring the churches trust in the repentant one can cause more spiritual growth within the church. Allowing the repentant church member to be reassembled into the fold as one who is forgiven fully. This results in the repentant one's spirtual growth directly from the incindent [all things work together for our good], allows the church to avoid the legalistic view that accompanys the 'maintaining the standard' syndrome, and places our church message squarely in the path of justification and sanctification.

If we do not have a restoration model, what good are we as a church, except as a broken vessel?

Therefore, where this situation occured, let the local church in conciltation of the conference, work out thier restoration steps. What would it take for that church pastor and the teacher to restore the trust that was broken with the church?