Dealing with divorce.

[Tarheel Baptist]

The only mistake made was the previously divorced member coming back to your "church" expecting to be welcome.

I would think differently.
This previously divorced member knows first hand about the church (unlike most of us) and chose to return.
Choosing to return seems to make two statements....that they expected to be welcomed AND they found something there worth returning for/to.

 

[FreeToBeMe]

I would think differently.
Choosing to return seems to make two statements....that they expected to be welcomed AND they found something there worth returning for/to.

Yes, but do you believe they expected to be possibly raked across the coals when they returned?  I highly doubt it.  Folks just don't like their past thrown in their face (especially by a so-called "loving" church) when they're trying to move on.

 

[subllibrm]

I would think differently.
Choosing to return seems to make two statements....that they expected to be welcomed AND they found something there worth returning for/to.

Yes, but do you believe they expected to be possibly raked across the coals when they returned?  I highly doubt it.  Folks just don't like their past thrown in their face (especially by a so-called "loving" church) when they're trying to move on.

Apparently they didn't because they returned. Or if they did expect it they are good with that.

BTW I didn't see anyone advocating such a "welcome", did you?

 

[ALAYMAN]

The only mistake made was the previously divorced member coming back to your "church" expecting to be welcome.

Really?  Well, again, you let your personal dislike of me color your ability to objectively discuss the substantial portion of the issue.  The couple was warmly greeted, not confronted, nor given any indication that they were unwelcomed to attend our church.  The fact of the matter is that you fail to discriminate important variables in the discussion.  They aren't asking to become members right now.  No doubt, a part of their decision to return to our church was 1)familiarity with our grace-oriented Christ-centered/Bible-centered atmosphere, and 2) to see if it was still the same.  It is, and it will be.  Discipline doesn't have to be approached if they aren't asking for membership to be granted.  My guess is that like most people, they want to re-acclimate themselves to the church and see if it is still the right fit before they broach the subject of membership.  When that times comes however, it would be reasonable to ascertain if their former spousal/child relationships were/are handled in the manner of Christian love and responsibility.

 

[christundivided]

Live peaceably with all men, leave thy gift at the altar, and a host of other relevant Scriptures might easily be applied.

I believe that was handled with the divorce. Now, if said divorcees are still fighting and arguing endlessly, then there might be some reason to want to help. I certainly would want to help and not necessarily talk of discipline.

In such an instance, I see no reason not to accept them into fellowship, but I certainly wouldn't expect them serve the church in any capacity until they have prove that God is still actively working in their lives. If God is working in their lives, then what does the church have to say about anything?

Well, the church has spiritual responsibility to see that a person is growing, particularly the pastor.  It also has the responsibility to make sure that known sin is not flaunted.  But I agree with you that God certainly may use them, and that divorce is not a reason for a "second-class" status.

I see the concern, and I believe it should stay way. Just a concern. The church doesn't have to get involved in everything. I can tell you, I have made some enemies in my life. ( I know. Its hard to believe ). There is no need for me to "leave my gift" at the altar and try to reconcile myself to said people. God will have to reconcile the issue in eternity. More than likely, I see divorce of former members to fall under that category. AS long as there is no active "malice" toward the former wife or husband..... I say it better off left to God. I certainly wouldn't interject myself into the issue unless I had just grounds to intervene.

 

[ChuckBob]

They could become Methodists. That would solve all the problems.


ChuckBob

 

[Smellin Coffee]

At what point would you kick Gentiles or tax collectors out?

“If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Again I say to you, if two of you agree on earth about anything they ask, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them.”

You didn't answer my question.  Do you believe discipline is EVER appropriate?

And just so we're on the same page, church discipline is not synonymous with merely "kicking them out".  It begins with private confrontation and counseling for the sin among the parties involved, and proceeds from there if necessary.  I'm pretty sure you know how it is supposed to work per the Matt 18 model (Jesus' model).  Kicking them out is not the goal, but rather repentance, restoration, and reconciliation.

According to that paradigm, should church members EVER exercise discipline at ANY level?

Question re-worded. How should the church treat "Gentiles and tax collectors"? That is how we are to treat those who rebuff personal correction in front of witnesses.

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=christundivided]AS long as there is no active "malice" toward the former wife or husband..... I say it better off left to God. I certainly wouldn't interject myself into the issue unless I had just grounds to intervene.[/quote]

In fact, stirring up the issue may bring forth malice that had been previously killed and buried. There you'd have a case of the church doing the work of the enemy.

CU and I agree! 

 

[prophet]

[quote author=prophet]Any resistance to the church, will indicate an attitude of resistance to God...

And if the church just happens to be a legalistic wash of humanity whose is more worried about scrubbing the outside of the cup then cleaning the inside?
[/quote]Off topic.  They showed up at the church. Next.

Anishinabe

 

[graceandtruth]

[quote author=christundivided]AS long as there is no active "malice" toward the former wife or husband..... I say it better off left to God. I certainly wouldn't interject myself into the issue unless I had just grounds to intervene.

In fact, stirring up the issue may bring forth malice that had been previously killed and buried. There you'd have a case of the church doing the work of the enemy.

CU and I agree! 
[/quote]

I would have to agree with CU and rsc2a on this one.  The divorce is over and done with and the parties have remarried so there is no turning back on this one.  Now, if a parent is neglecting to care for the child of their marriage as they should then that is a totally different matter.  I do not think excluding them from membership is the solution because we do not have the ability to determine if all parents in the homes are properly providing for their children in all areas so we would create a double standard.  However, if child support payments are not being made then that would be an opportunity for the church to instruct and even provide assistance with the payments if necessary.  Perfect opportunity to demonstrate grace on many levels.

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=graceandtruth]The divorce is over and done with and the parties have remarried so there is no turning back on this one.  Now, if a parent is neglecting to care for the child of their marriage as they should then that is a totally different matter.  I do not think excluding them from membership is the solution because we do not have the ability to determine if all parents in the homes are properly providing for their children in all areas so we would create a double standard.[/quote]

Yes.

[quote author=graceandtruth]However, if child support payments are not being made then that would be an opportunity for the church to instruct and even provide assistance with the payments if necessary.  Perfect opportunity to demonstrate grace on many levels.[/quote]

While I think this is probably true in the general sense, there could be legitimate reasons why child support isn't being paid. Now if there aren't legitimate reasons for refusal of payment, absolutely yes.

 

[Biker]

"If you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved." Romans 10:9-10

"For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith - and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God - not by works, so that no one can boast." Ephesians 2:8-9.

To oppose Christ's children from becoming a part of his family by inventing pre-requisits that require a person divulge private details of former relationships...clearly opposes the Great Commission.
This is like what former Pharisees attempted to do, but failed.


.

 

[Biker]

1 Corinthians 3:1-10

3 And I, brethren, could not speak to you as to spiritual men, but as to men of flesh, as to infants in Christ. 2 I gave you milk to drink, not solid food; for you were not yet able to receive it. Indeed, even now you are not yet able, 3 for you are still fleshly. For since there is jealousy and strife among you, are you not fleshly, and are you not walking [a]like mere men? 4 For when one says, “I am of Paul,” and another, “I am of Apollos,” are you not mere men?
5 What then is Apollos? And what is Paul? Servants through whom you believed, even as the Lord gave opportunity to each one. 6 I planted, Apollos watered, but God was causing the growth. 7 So then neither the one who plants nor the one who waters is anything, but God who causes the growth. 8 Now he who plants and he who waters are one; but each will receive his own reward according to his own labor. 9 For we are God’s fellow workers; you are God’s [c]field, God’s building.
10 According to the grace of God which was given to me, like a wise master builder I laid a foundation, and another is building on it. But each man must be careful how he builds on it.

 

[Castor Muscular]

To oppose Christ's children from becoming a part of his family by inventing pre-requisits that require a person divulge private details of former relationships...clearly opposes the Great Commission.
This is like what former Pharisees attempted to do, but failed.

We've got all new Pharisees now.

 

[rsc2a]

I once attended an IFB church that would not allow a divorced person to marry again in the sanctuary.  A friend of mine asked me about that since she was engaged to a divorced man but had never been married herself.

I told her that it was odd because I had been engaged to a guy that had lived with another woman prior to our engagement, and I was planning a church wedding.  He later broke off the engagement.

My thought, however, was that Mr. K had the decency to marry his 1st wife, but my former finance just decided to live with his lover.  Church politics are complicated.

At the church I grew up in, they asked one of the pastors to step down because he married a single (divorced) mom. It was his first marriage, but according to their rules, "husband of one wife" also meant "husband of one wife who had never been married before".

 

[JrChurch]

But just to try to flesh out the "repentance and restoration" aspect of your great answer, what if the guilty party claimed that they were repentant but you knew that they hadn't attempted to ask forgiveness for their wrongs done to the former spouse, and/or they weren't trying to provide care/support for their children?

I believe prophet mentioned restitution in an earlier post.  It would be biblical to expect them to bring forth "fruits meet for repentance." 

 

[Biker]

We've got all new Pharisees now.

Yes. Maybe we can roll the dice to see who among us goes first...
1. Invent a sin
2. Link said sin(s) to real or imagined people
3. Ignore scripture provided, ignore requests to provide scripture
4. Mix in additional sinereos
5. Link said sinners to church discipline
6. Convince us how righteous it is to abuse these folks
7. Rinse and Repeat

 

[Agent P]

They could become Methodists. That would solve all the problems.


ChuckBob

Long as it's United Methodists.  If the guy in the marriage ever wants to pastor in the Free Methodists, he'll have to fill out a form giving the details of the divorce and let the bishop figure it out.

American Baptists will take the divorcees without question.

We, of course, are assuming one of the people in this discussion was the one who filed for divorce.  That may be a faulty assumption.

 

[Agent P]

Question re-worded. How should the church treat "Gentiles and tax collectors"?

Not a question you want to ask the day after Tax Day. 

 

[Castor Muscular]

Yes. Maybe we can roll the dice to see who among us goes first...

1. Invent a sin
2. Link said sin(s) to real or imagined people
3. Ignore scripture provided, ignore requests to provide scripture
4. Mix in additional sinereos
5. Link said sinners to church discipline
6. Convince us how righteous it is to abuse these folks
7. Rinse and Repeat

It's also important to start with a general scenario like, "What if a remarried couple wants to join the church", and then when someone doesn't respond the way you wanted them to, you thrown in new information like, "but what if they were crack-addicted devil worshiping homosexual swingers?"