The Briefing Room
General Category => Science, Technology and Knowledge => Topic started by: EC on October 18, 2013, 11:08:31 am
-
This just irritated me badly.
Via HuffPo: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/17/marvin-winans-unwed-mothers-child-born-out-of-wedlock-bless-_n_4116915.html
The Perfecting Church, home to famed gospel singer and pastor Marvin Winans, is having a special dedication ceremony for the congregation's youngest members on Sunday.
Charity Grace, a Detroiter who recently started attending services at the church on East Nevada Street, wanted her only son, two-year-old Joshua Grace, to share in the blessings.
"I want to instill values and morals in my son based upon the word of God," she told Fox 2 Detroit.
But when she called Perfecting Church on Tuesday to sign up Joshua for the ceremony, Charity said she was told by a woman elected in the church that Pastor Winans has a strict policy -- he won't bless the babies of unwed mothers in front of the congregation, Fox 2 Detroit reported.
According to a New York Times report, 36 percent of mothers who reported giving birth in 2011 weren't married.
Grace said she felt degraded by the pastor's decision. She's hoping he reconsiders, even if it means having her son dedicated during the week by a church elder.
Until then, she told Fox 2 Detroit she has no plans to return to Perfecting Church.
"I absolutely would not set foot back in the church right now because I feel like they look down upon me and my kind, meaning single moms and unwed mothers," Grace said.
Pope Francis recently said in May that the Catholic Church should bless children born out of wedlock, because their mothers chose life over abortion.
“'Look at this girl who had had the courage to carry her pregnancy to term. ... "What does she find? A closed door," he said, according to Vatican newspaper L’Osservatore Romano. "This is not good pastoral zeal, it distances people from the Lord and does not open doors."
Dr. Jacqui Lewis is the Senior Minister of Middle Collegiate Church in Manhattan's East Village. She told The Huffington Post she was surprised that a child "of any kind" would be denied a blessing from a church, and referenced the Gospel of Mark, 10:10-16:
His Holiness is correct. Children are the innocents.
-
Interesting. Pastor Winans does not reject a blessing, but not in public. It would seem, then, that the whole ceremony of blessing is nothing more than a show, the kind of public theatrics Jesus warned his followers not to perform (Matthew 7, I believe)-- in other words, worthless.
Miss Grace would be well advised to find another church.
-
Interesting. Pastor Winans does not reject a blessing, but not in public. It would seem, then, that the whole ceremony of blessing is nothing more than a show, the kind of public theatrics Jesus warned his followers not to perform (Matthew 7, I believe)-- in other words, worthless.
Miss Grace would be well advised to find another church.
Actually, I think it shows exactly the opposite. If Miss Grace was really just interested in the blessing, she would accept the private blessing. She is the one who wants public approval for her choices. The pastor is simply trying to avoid the appearance of giving his approval to her immorality.
Ephesians 5:3 - "But among you there must not be even a hint of sexual immorality, or of any kind of impurity, or of greed, because these are improper for God’s holy people."
Obviously, Miss Grace has more than a 'hint' of immorality about her...
-
Dan - I'll not judge her.
For all we know she got conned by some guy with well broken in running shoes. You know that happens, way too often.
She wants her child to be welcomed into the faith, and to me "Suffer the little children to come to me" is a hell of a lot more important than picking out the splinter in my neighbor's eye.
-
Dan - I'll not judge her.
For all we know she got conned by some guy with well broken in running shoes. You know that happens, way too often.
She wants her child to be welcomed into the faith, and to me "Suffer the little children to come to me" is a hell of a lot more important than picking out the splinter in my neighbor's eye.
But you are more than willing to judge the Pastor who is much closer to the issue than you are?
The Pastor likely has many young girls in his congregation who don't need to see what amounts to public acceptance of her immorality. Sometimes you just have to accept responsibility for your behavior. The boy is 2 years old and will not remember any of it. This is all about the mother.
Not getting public affirmation for the results of your behavior is a long way from 'rejecting her child from the faith'.
-
Yes. I hold a pastor to a much higher standard than us sinners.
-
Yes. I hold a pastor to a much higher standard than us sinners.
Pastors aren't non-sinners and that wasn't the point.
The point was that you are willing to give the benefit of the doubt to an unwed mother but not to the pastor who is much closer to the situation than you are. Do you hold him to a higher standard simply so that you can judge him without feeling guilty?
-
The two need not be mutually exclusive. After all, the first thing this woman did was run to the media. The quote does illustrate that she is more concerned that the church is looking down on her, not her child.
-
Pastors aren't non-sinners and that wasn't the point.
The point was that you are willing to give the benefit of the doubt to an unwed mother but not to the pastor who is much closer to the situation than you are. Do you hold him to a higher standard simply so that you can judge him without feeling guilty?
Nope. I hold him to a higher standard because of his position as spiritual guide to his congregation, much as I hold judges to a higher standard regarding illegal or immoral behavior than I do the average person in the street, or kindergarten teachers to a high standard of child care than a 16 year old baby sitter.
-
Nope. I hold him to a higher standard because of his position as spiritual guide to his congregation, much as I hold judges to a higher standard regarding illegal or immoral behavior than I do the average person in the street, or kindergarten teachers to a high standard of child care than a 16 year old baby sitter.
Exactly. He took on the higher standard for himself when he became a pastor and started ministering to his people.
-
Exactly. He took on the higher standard for himself when he became a pastor and started ministering to his people.
THANK YOU!!!!!! :patriot: :patriot: :patriot: :beer: :beer: :beer:
I was fumbling for this. Dude wasn't born a pastor. He chose to become one.
Not hassling that - I have know a lot of good pastors, nuns, Fathers and preachers. Folk who accepted the call and dealt with it with grace.
But if you take on the job of spiritual guidance you are damned right I am going to hold you to the light.
What does Jesus himself say about children? He is silent on the down sides, maybe because he was smart enough not to have them, but "Suffer the little children" is a pretty clear statement. No provisos, no wiggle room. It doesn't say children of a marriage. It says children. Full bleep stop.
-
THANK YOU!!!!!! :patriot: :patriot: :patriot: :beer: :beer: :beer:
I was fumbling for this. Dude wasn't born a pastor. He chose to become one.
Not hassling that - I have know a lot of good pastors, nuns, Fathers and preachers. Folk who accepted the call and dealt with it with grace.
But if you take on the job of spiritual guidance you are damned right I am going to hold you to the light.
What does Jesus himself say about children? He is silent on the down sides, maybe because he was smart enough not to have them, but "Suffer the little children" is a pretty clear statement. No provisos, no wiggle room. It doesn't say children of a marriage. It says children. Full bleeping stop.
Having a child myself, I must object to being "smart enough" to not have them; one finds one's self in a world of simple wisdom when one has a child. As for Jesus, the whole of the world were His children - He had more than most of us can count.
-
The two need not be mutually exclusive. After all, the first thing this woman did was run to the media. The quote does illustrate that she is more concerned that the church is looking down on her, not her child.
It's always about the children, doncha know...
-
But if you take on the job of spiritual guidance you are damned right I am going to hold you to the light.
What does Jesus himself say about children? He is silent on the down sides, maybe because he was smart enough not to have them, but "Suffer the little children" is a pretty clear statement. No provisos, no wiggle room. It doesn't say children of a marriage. It says children. Full bleeping stop.
Let's see, choosing to be a pastor vs choosing to spread your legs.
Hmmm... race to the bottom anyone?
-
Having a child myself, I must object to being "smart enough" to not have them; one finds one's self in a world of simple wisdom when one has a child. As for Jesus, the whole of the world were His children - He had more than most of us can count.
It is a joy - when they leave home. :whistle:
And yes - I would do it again, given the chance. All of them turned out good, sensible and hardworking - blame their mother for that. All bar one have degrees, do jobs they love (One has a sheep farm in New Zealand with her husband - she always was an odd child) have varying numbers of kids and have NEVER failed to make me proud of them.
The one? Come on, it's her first birthday soon. Let her learn to walk first.
-
What a tragic story. It's churches like that that turn people off from going to church. Churches should be "a Hospital" for the broken, the hurt, the needy, the hopeless - not a place that pushes them away. That is not what Jesus taught. My church reaches out to people like this young lady each year by providing a free oil change to Single Moms in the church and the community. Not only free oil changes but often bald tires are replace, and some minor engine repairs are done. And while they wait the kids are being entertained, and the Moms are pampered. This year we had 180 Single Mom's.
The trappings that some churches put on themselves are destructive. You will be welcomed here but you must [ ] first.
The Gospel Transforms Us. Religion Entraps Us!
-
What a tragic story. It's churches like that that turn people off from going to church. Churches should be "a Hospital" for the broken, the hurt, the needy, the hopeless - not a place that pushes them away. That is not what Jesus taught. My church reaches out to people like this young lady each year by providing a free oil change to Single Moms in the church and the community. Not only free oil changes but often bald tires are replace, and some minor engine repairs are done. And while they wait the kids are being entertained, and the Moms are pampered. This year we had 180 Single Mom's.
The trappings that some churches put on themselves are destructive. You will be welcomed here but you must [ ] first.
The Gospel Transforms Us. Religion Entraps Us!
Pope Francis called a young woman in Rome whose child was refused baptism because she was not married. He offered to baptize the child himself.
You express the proper attitude perfectly: If the Church is not a hospital for sinners, what is it?
-
Pope Francis called a young woman in Rome whose child was refused baptism because she was not married. He offered to baptize the child himself.
You express the proper attitude perfectly: If the Church is not a hospital for sinners, what is it?
It is many things.
Home. A refuge. A community. A place to make a stand. A bar (think Cheers). :laugh:
No child should ever be barred from grace. I am proud of His Holiness for making a proper stand.
-
No child should ever be barred from grace. I am proud of His Holiness for making a proper stand.
No child was ever barred from grace. Just no public affirmation of a mother's sinful lifestyle.
It's so hard to remember that when condemning the pastor is the goal...
-
No child was ever barred from grace. Just no public affirmation of a mother's sinful lifestyle.
It's so hard to remember that when condemning the pastor is the goal...
Come on, mate. Now who is judging?
How do you know she is sinful? OK, apart from the fact she is human and therefore a sinner by definition.
I would point out to you - she kept the child. Went to term instead of went to an abortion clinic. There is no one who thinks being a single parent is easy, yet she chose to keep the life entrusted to her care. It isn't a lot to ask that her church rallies around - is it?
-
Come on, mate. Now who is judging?
How do you know she is sinful? OK, apart from the fact she is human and therefore a sinner by definition.
I would point out to you - she kept the child. Went to term instead of went to an abortion clinic. There is no one who thinks being a single parent is easy, yet she chose to keep the life entrusted to her care. It isn't a lot to ask that her church rallies around - is it?
Not only have you been judging, 'mate'; but you have been misrepresenting the pastor's actions from day one. How do you know she isn't sinful, by any definition, eh?
I already explained to you that the pastor has more souls to shepherd than just her and he cannot appear to validate her lifestyle. As before, you ignore that responsibility and keep right on misrepresenting the facts.
Now you want to shift away from the misrepresentation that the child was 'barred from grace' when that wasn't the case?
-
Yes - I have been judging from day one of posting this story. I shall continue to do so.
He is her pastor. The one person she should be able to trust to aid her and guide her and advise her. He publicly told her to (effectively) F off, she and her child aren't good enough for his flock because she is a single mother.
I hold pastors to high standards, irrespective of denomination or indeed religion. It is a hard job. Usually thankless. But no one made him do it, he was called to do it. I expect him to show the same grace and mercy as our Lord would.
-
Yes - I have been judging from day one of posting this story. I shall continue to do so.
He is her pastor. The one person she should be able to trust to aid her and guide her and advise her. He publicly told her to (effectively) F off, she and her child aren't good enough for his flock because she is a single mother.
Again, he has others that he must think of and he cannot afford to give the appearance of condoning her behavior. He didn't publicly tell her to F off. She is the one who made it a public issue, not him.
I hold pastors to high standards, irrespective of denomination or indeed religion. It is a hard job. Usually thankless. But no one made him do it, he was called to do it. I expect him to show the same grace and mercy as our Lord would.
He did show grace, he didn't tell her to F off and he didn't 'bar the child from grace' as you claim.
-
"he won't bless the babies of unwed mothers in front of the congregation"
If he won't bless the baby of an unwed mother, what about when the baby is now 5, or 10, or 15, or 17, or 25. He would still be the child of an unwed mother, right? So is this human being , which is a child of God banned for life from being blessed in front of others? Damn right I criticize the Pastor’s decision.
-
"he won't bless the babies of unwed mothers in front of the congregation"
If he won't bless the baby of an unwed mother, what about when the baby is now 5, or 10, or 15, or 17, or 25. He would still be the child of an unwed mother, right? So is this human being , which is a child of God banned for life from being blessed in front of others? Damn right I criticize the Pastor’s decision.
Again, the pastor has the responsibility not to give the appearance of condoning the mother's lifestyle because he is responsible for other people.
Your imaginary scenarios notwithstanding...
-
She did indeed make a public issue out of it by running to the newspapers. Not fond of that, at all. I am not saying she is without blame here - far from it.
You are correct - the pastor must consider all his flock as a whole, as well as each individual. Yet what lesson has he taught by doing this? The Scarlet Letter comes to mind. A pastor should lead by example.
-
She did indeed make a public issue out of it by running to the newspapers. Not fond of that, at all. I am not saying she is without blame here - far from it.
You are correct - the pastor must consider all his flock as a whole, as well as each individual. Yet what lesson has he taught by doing this? The Scarlet Letter comes to mind. A pastor should lead by example.
He has taught his flock that he cannot publicly honor immorality. There was a lot less illegitimacy when 'The Scarlet Letter' was in vogue. A lot fewer abortions. A lot fewer fatherless children. A lot fewer predatory males. A lot fewer children abused by 'mommy's boyfriend'.
-
He has taught his flock that he cannot publicly honor immorality. There was a lot less illegitimacy when 'The Scarlet Letter' was in vogue. A lot fewer abortions. A lot fewer fatherless children. A lot fewer predatory males. A lot fewer children abused by 'mommy's boyfriend'.
We are going to disagree on this endlessly. Which is fine. You are a good and godly person - this I am well aware of and would never doubt. Anyone else wants to doubt it - well, I am not a good and godly person, but enjoy using my fists in a good cause.
I think the pastor should have publicly welcomed the child to the church. A child is innocent. A new life is something to be welcomed, cherished and loved.
You hold the view that the pastor is correct in not condoning immorality. Equally valid, since we do not know the circumstances, and yes - a pastor is charged to guide his flock.
We are both right.
-
She did indeed make a public issue out of it by running to the newspapers. Not fond of that, at all. I am not saying she is without blame here - far from it.
You are correct - the pastor must consider all his flock as a whole, as well as each individual. Yet what lesson has he taught by doing this? The Scarlet Letter comes to mind. A pastor should lead by example.
He IS leading by example.
He is blessing the baby in the Sacristy in private...the mom, the baby and God. He is doing his priestly duties and at the same time handling a delicate situation.
If you want to "lead by example", you also don't include this girl in front of the congregation. He is standing on strong Conservative principles.
That's my two cents... :laugh:
-
I think the pastor should have publicly welcomed the child to the church. A child is innocent. A new life is something to be welcomed, cherished and loved.
Again, to 'publicly welcome' the child is to condone the mother's immorality. While we don't know the circumstances, I'll bet the pastor does and made his decision accordingly.
Nobody implied that the child should not be welcomed, cherished or loved. The 'child' is too small to know the difference and is not being punished in any way.
It is the mother's example that cannot be publicly affirmed.
-
"he won't bless the babies of unwed mothers in front of the congregation"
If he won't bless the baby of an unwed mother, what about when the baby is now 5, or 10, or 15, or 17, or 25. He would still be the child of an unwed mother, right? So is this human being , which is a child of God banned for life from being blessed in front of others? Damn right I criticize the Pastor’s decision.
I don't think Jesus would condone this pastors actions........
http://www.truthmagazine.com/archives/volume40/GOT040049.html
Jesus Receives Sinners
Mike Willis
One of the charges frequently made against Jesus was that he received and ate with sinners. The charge was made when he attended a feast at the house of the publican Matthew (Matt. 9:9-12; Mark 2:16-17). Some charged that he was a "friend of publicans and sinners" at the same time they said he was a winebibber and glutton (Matt. 11:19). When he went into the home of Zacchaeus, his enemies charged, "That he was gone to be guest with a man that is a sinner" (Luke 19:7).
The occasion for the three parables in Luke 15 was this: "Then drew near unto him all the publicans and sinners for to hear him. And the Pharisees and scribes murmured, saying, This man receiveth sinners, and eateth with them" (Luke 15:1-2). In response to this charge, Jesus gave the three parables of the lost sheep, the lost coin, and the lost son (the prodigal son) to show how the loving God searches for and seeks the ones who are lost.
The Conduct of the Pharisees
Why were the Pharisees upset by Jesus' association with sinners? What were they charging him with when they criticized him? To answer this, one must know how the Pharisees treated sinners. The Pharisees were the "separated ones" because they refused to associate with sinners.
We get a glimpse of how they treated sinners from several allusions in the Gospels. When Jesus spoke to the Samaritan woman at the well, she was astounded and said, "How is it that thou, being a Jew, askest drink of me, which am a woman of Samaria? For the Jews have no dealings with the Samaritans" (John 4:9).
When Jesus went into the house of Simon the Pharisee, an immoral woman washed Jesus' feet with her tears, dried them with her hair, and put ointment on them. Simon thought, "This man, if he were a prophet, would have known who and what manner of woman this is that toucheth him: for she is a sinner" (Luke 7:39). Again, we see how the Jews treated sinners.
Lenski explains that the Pharisees' practice of washing one's hands before they eat was "for fear that the hands had brushed against a Gen-tile or against something belonging to a Gentile" (Matthew 582).
A Sinful Separation From Sinners
There is a sinful kind of separation from sinners of which the Pharisees were guilty and which saints must avoid. There is a separation from sinners born of self-righteousness, contempt for others, and condescension. This is what the Pharisees had. We must guard our hearts from feeling a similar superiority to the lost. Sometimes, a person feels morally superior to others as if he is what he is through human achievement through works. The temptation to be self-righteous and show con-tempt for others may occur when one sees a homosexual suffering from AIDS, an alcoholic, a homeless person, or other socially contemptible sinners. We should have the same mind as Paul when he said, "By the grace of God I am what I am" (1 Cor. 15:10).
Several years ago, I drove my a homeless person in Nashville, Tennessee. The woman did not look like she had taken a bath in months. Her hair was matted worse than any dog's hair that I have seen. Suddenly, the thought flashed through my mind, "Some mother gave birth to this person. She was her precious little baby. I must remember that her soul is just as precious as mine." Let us guard ourselves from viewing sinners like the Pharisees did.
A Sinful Association With Sinners
There is a sinful kind of association with sinners. The Scriptures command a certain kind of separation in such passages as the following:
Be not deceived: evil communications corrupt good manners (1 Cor. 15:33).
My son, if sinners entice thee, consent thou not.
If they say, Come with us, let us lay wait for blood, let us lurk privily for the innocent without cause:
Let us swallow them up alive as the grave; and whole, as those that go down into the pit:
We shall find all precious substance, we shall fill our houses with spoil:
Cast in thy lot among us; let us all have one purse:
My son, walk not thou in the way with them; refrain thy foot from their path (Prov. 1:10-15).
Enter not into the path of the wicked, and go not in the way of evil men.
Avoid it, pass not by it, turn from it, and pass away (Prov. 4:14-15).
Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? And what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? Or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? For ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you (2 Cor. 6:14-17).
Whenever a man associates with sinners in such a way as to (a) participate with them in that which is sinful or (b) condone their sinful activity, he has been guilty of sin! Jesus never was guilty of doing either of these.
The Charge Against Jesus
When the Pharisees charged Jesus with associating with publicans and sinners, they were charging him with having fellowship with sin and sinners. We have an adage that says, "Birds of a feather flock together." This is basically the Pharisees' charge against Jesus. The Pharisees charged that Jesus associated with publicans and sinners because he was a sinner.
Why Jesus Associated With Sinners
Jesus associated with sinners for the express purpose of saving their souls. He compared his association with sinners to that of a physician associating with the sick saying, "They that are whole have no need of the physician, but they that are sick: I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance" (Mark 2:17). Again he said, "For the Son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost" (Luke 19:10).
What Jesus Did
Jesus ate with sinners. When he was invited into their homes as a guest, he went for the express purpose of trying to save their souls. I wonder how we would view Jesus' actions today.
If one of our faithful members went to a restaurant with one who had a vile reputation, would we think of him like the Pharisees thought of Jesus? If one invited one with a vile reputation into his home or went to their home would someone criticize him or worry that he may be "slipping" because some of his best friends were non-Christians?
Conclusion
We must have enough association with sinners to reach them with the gospel. If we withdraw ourselves from all contact with sinners, we can never save their souls. The monks and nuns have withdrawn their association from sinners to such an extent that they dwell in a convent. We may have acted in a similar way by our lack of association with lost. How can we ever convert someone with whom we do not associate?
Guardian of Truth XL: 5 p. 2
-
I don't think Jesus would condone this pastors actions........
http://www.truthmagazine.com/archives/volume40/GOT040049.html
Jesus Receives Sinners
Mike Willis
One of the charges frequently made against Jesus was that he received and ate with sinners. The charge was made when he attended a feast at the house of the publican Matthew (Matt. 9:9-12; Mark 2:16-17). Some charged that he was a "friend of publicans and sinners" at the same time they said he was a winebibber and glutton (Matt. 11:19). When he went into the home of Zacchaeus, his enemies charged, "That he was gone to be guest with a man that is a sinner" (Luke 19:7).
The occasion for the three parables in Luke 15 was this: "Then drew near unto him all the publicans and sinners for to hear him. And the Pharisees and scribes murmured, saying, This man receiveth sinners, and eateth with them" (Luke 15:1-2). In response to this charge, Jesus gave the three parables of the lost sheep, the lost coin, and the lost son (the prodigal son) to show how the loving God searches for and seeks the ones who are lost.
The Conduct of the Pharisees
Why were the Pharisees upset by Jesus' association with sinners? What were they charging him with when they criticized him? To answer this, one must know how the Pharisees treated sinners. The Pharisees were the "separated ones" because they refused to associate with sinners.
We get a glimpse of how they treated sinners from several allusions in the Gospels. When Jesus spoke to the Samaritan woman at the well, she was astounded and said, "How is it that thou, being a Jew, askest drink of me, which am a woman of Samaria? For the Jews have no dealings with the Samaritans" (John 4:9).
When Jesus went into the house of Simon the Pharisee, an immoral woman washed Jesus' feet with her tears, dried them with her hair, and put ointment on them. Simon thought, "This man, if he were a prophet, would have known who and what manner of woman this is that toucheth him: for she is a sinner" (Luke 7:39). Again, we see how the Jews treated sinners.
Lenski explains that the Pharisees' practice of washing one's hands before they eat was "for fear that the hands had brushed against a Gen-tile or against something belonging to a Gentile" (Matthew 582).
A Sinful Separation From Sinners
There is a sinful kind of separation from sinners of which the Pharisees were guilty and which saints must avoid. There is a separation from sinners born of self-righteousness, contempt for others, and condescension. This is what the Pharisees had. We must guard our hearts from feeling a similar superiority to the lost. Sometimes, a person feels morally superior to others as if he is what he is through human achievement through works. The temptation to be self-righteous and show con-tempt for others may occur when one sees a homosexual suffering from AIDS, an alcoholic, a homeless person, or other socially contemptible sinners. We should have the same mind as Paul when he said, "By the grace of God I am what I am" (1 Cor. 15:10).
Several years ago, I drove my a homeless person in Nashville, Tennessee. The woman did not look like she had taken a bath in months. Her hair was matted worse than any dog's hair that I have seen. Suddenly, the thought flashed through my mind, "Some mother gave birth to this person. She was her precious little baby. I must remember that her soul is just as precious as mine." Let us guard ourselves from viewing sinners like the Pharisees did.
A Sinful Association With Sinners
There is a sinful kind of association with sinners. The Scriptures command a certain kind of separation in such passages as the following:
Be not deceived: evil communications corrupt good manners (1 Cor. 15:33).
My son, if sinners entice thee, consent thou not.
If they say, Come with us, let us lay wait for blood, let us lurk privily for the innocent without cause:
Let us swallow them up alive as the grave; and whole, as those that go down into the pit:
We shall find all precious substance, we shall fill our houses with spoil:
Cast in thy lot among us; let us all have one purse:
My son, walk not thou in the way with them; refrain thy foot from their path (Prov. 1:10-15).
Enter not into the path of the wicked, and go not in the way of evil men.
Avoid it, pass not by it, turn from it, and pass away (Prov. 4:14-15).
Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? And what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? Or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? For ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you (2 Cor. 6:14-17).
Whenever a man associates with sinners in such a way as to (a) participate with them in that which is sinful or (b) condone their sinful activity, he has been guilty of sin! Jesus never was guilty of doing either of these.
The Charge Against Jesus
When the Pharisees charged Jesus with associating with publicans and sinners, they were charging him with having fellowship with sin and sinners. We have an adage that says, "Birds of a feather flock together." This is basically the Pharisees' charge against Jesus. The Pharisees charged that Jesus associated with publicans and sinners because he was a sinner.
Why Jesus Associated With Sinners
Jesus associated with sinners for the express purpose of saving their souls. He compared his association with sinners to that of a physician associating with the sick saying, "They that are whole have no need of the physician, but they that are sick: I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance" (Mark 2:17). Again he said, "For the Son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost" (Luke 19:10).
What Jesus Did
Jesus ate with sinners. When he was invited into their homes as a guest, he went for the express purpose of trying to save their souls. I wonder how we would view Jesus' actions today.
If one of our faithful members went to a restaurant with one who had a vile reputation, would we think of him like the Pharisees thought of Jesus? If one invited one with a vile reputation into his home or went to their home would someone criticize him or worry that he may be "slipping" because some of his best friends were non-Christians?
Conclusion
We must have enough association with sinners to reach them with the gospel. If we withdraw ourselves from all contact with sinners, we can never save their souls. The monks and nuns have withdrawn their association from sinners to such an extent that they dwell in a convent. We may have acted in a similar way by our lack of association with lost. How can we ever convert someone with whom we do not associate?
Guardian of Truth XL: 5 p. 2
Correct. Pastor sounds like a Pharisee.