Posted on 12/26/2007 5:32:03 AM PST by day10
We have a bit of controversy at my church and I thought I'd throw it out there for FReepers to discuss.
We had a guest preacher who was trying to make the point that we should not exclude people based on appearance, background, past history, etc., and as an illustration stated that, after all, Joseph and Mary were only living together and were not actually married - would we have excluded them?
He is correct that all are welcomed by Christ as we all are sinners. But they show that they wish to change.
Anyone is encouraged to attend. However, communing is another matter. First Corinthians warns that only the repentant should be taking communion.
I agree with your position based on what I read in my NIV version and after looking into a couple of commentaries. The speaker is stating that since the marriage was not consummated it was not yet an actual marriage. I assume he is claiming this in a spiritual sense.
Agreed, hoever communing was not the issue here, but just our acceptance of people who attend/come to our church regardless of appearance, past history, etc.
Although the scriptures jump ahead after Joseph’s dream. I am certain they are married by the time they get to Bethlehem because the rigid Jewish world would not have allowed cohabitation.
I know. I was only pointing out that everyone should be encouraged to attend church services, afterall churches are full of sinners but when it comes to communing, if someone refuses to give up a known sinful lifestyle they are not worthy to commune.
It seems to me that he’s saying that Joseph and Mary lived in sin. That just displays an astonishing level of ignorance.
Biblical betrothal held the same legal status as marriage.
I don’t know all the details, like were they allowed to sleep together during betrothal, but I do know that he should have known better than to use this example and cast aspersions on the earthly parents of Jesus Christ.
Some people are just too impressed with their own selves. ack!
Agree. I can quickly think of 5 or 6 better illustrations to use than this one to make this point. Well, this speaker is only an interim until we find a new pastor for our church, I am just praying the search goes quickly.
I agree with big ol’ Freeper — all are welcome, but they must want to change. And NO they were not ‘living together.’ What twaddle.
The lesson is to go forth and sin no more. The Church could accept memberships from each of them but not as a “couple living together”.
If a man is an adutlerer who flaunts his latest gal every Sunday and they sit in the front row, are they observing members of the faith?
He can be an adulterer and still be observant but when he flaunts his sin and celebrates it (as in Gay Pride), and denies it is sinful, the Church can look down upon the actions.
Sounds like this “pastor” needs to study the scriptures a little more. Joseph and Mary never lived together. They were betrothed and then Joseph took Mary as his wife but did not “Know her” in the biblical sense before Jesus was born.
Ping for later
This soulds like yet another leftist attempt to hijack Christmas, like how they claim that Mary and Joseph were homeless. Mark Steyn wrote a great column on this recently.
The customs were different.
The bible says both that they were betrothed and that Joseph considered divorcing her.
The homeless claim always makes me laugh out loud.
Does your Church currently exclude people based on these criteria? Must everyone be a white, heterosexual married couple with 2.3 perfect children and a net worth of $500,000, for example?
Where does the Bible say that Joseph and Mary were only living together and were not actually married?
Not at all. Let me supply a little more background. Our church (American Baptist, FWIW) recently made a major change in deciding to have both a “traditional” and a “contemporary” service each Sunday. The message the speaker was attempting to get across (I think, anyway, as this message was disjointed at best in it’s presentation) was that we should not exclude people based on appearance characteristics, background, etc.
The speaker was saying this in the context of this “contemporary” service, which I believe he is somewhat uncomfortable with. To make the claim that Joseph and Mary were not married, however, went over the line for me and I am happy this individual is only being used on an as needed interim basis until our search for a pastor is complete.
I cannot find that anywhere, which is why this claim has caused a bit of a stir... :-)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.