Private property rights? - advice needed to settle a bet

RightFighter

[RightFighter]

I'm just looking for some Freeper advice to help me settle a bet with a friend. Here's the situation:

We go to a church that practices biblical church discipline. The church believes very strongly in this and takes it very seriously, especially in the case of adultery and divorce. Well, recently, we became aware that there is a couple who will soon be getting a divorce. The woman is initiating it, not for infidelity or anything like that, but simply because her husband "doesn't have the same goals" that she does, etc.. Needless to say, she's being asked to leave the church because of this. When a member is expelled like this, church members are told that we are not to fellowship with the expelled member and are simply to pray that they would repent of their sin and return to the body and that we should urge them to do so any time we see them. This is where the argument with my friend comes up.

My friend says that, because the church is regularly open to the public, he doesn't think that it has the right to tell her that she can't come to church there, and that if she wanted to continue to come there, she could do so and the church could do nothing about it.

I say that the church, as a private entity, has every right to tell someone that they are not welcome on the property, and would have the right to have someone arrested for trespassing if they failed to heed such a request.

I would hate for it to ever come to something like that, and I doubt it would, because what church member would WANT to come to a church that doesn't want them there. My friend, however, just doesn't seem to agree with the whole church discipline thing, so he's drawn a line in the sand here with this argument. Who's right??? And can any of you give me any legal case that involved a similar situation that would back it up? Sorry for this whole post, but I tend to a little bit argumentative, and the nature of my relationship with my friend is such that it would be best to clear it up once and for all.

[savedbygrace]

No, you made an incorrect assumption, Hank. I was talking about "church discipline" in general. Draw your own conclusions about the case at the top of this thread.

Your gender legalism is too constrained to be effective in many cases. Today, we have many, if not most, young women going out on their own before marriage. They are then not under either their father or a husband. That renders your intrepretation useless in many cases. You still have to reconcile it with Matthew 18, and there you would have God saying to take the matter to the church, but if he's not talking about women, then you have defined a God who doesn't care for women equally as much as men.

Also, I don't see that treating the sinner as a heathen or a tax-collector is the same thing as shunning. How'd you make that leap?

[Sloth]

I don't see why it's fair to ban a person who is getting a divorce, if there are divorced members (remarried or not) still attending the same church. Seems a little nitpicky to me. If they are banning her for her sin, then they'd better get busy banning other members too.

What makes you think they don't? Mine does.

[Sloth]

These are all male Greek words. There is no Biblical basis for shunning a woman who wants to divorce her husband.

Mark 10:11-12 -- "So He said to them, "Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her. And if a woman divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery."

Romans 7:1-3 -- "Or do you not know, brethren (for I speak to those who know the law), that the law has dominion over a man as long as he lives? For the woman who has a husband is bound by the law to her husband as long as he lives. But if the husband dies, she is released from the law of her husband. So then if, while her husband lives, she marries another man, she will be called an adulteress; but if her husband dies, she is free from that law, so that she is no adulteress, though she has married another man."

I Corinthians 7:10-11, 39 -- "Now to the married I command, yet not I but the Lord: A wife is not to depart from her husband. But even if she does depart, let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband. And a husband is not to divorce his wife... A wife is bound by law as long as her husband lives; but if her husband dies, she is at liberty to be married to whom she wishes, only in the Lord."

[AppyPappy]

And all those cases do not apply to this woman because she has not remarried.

[Sloth]

And all those cases do not apply to this woman because she has not remarried.

A wife is not to depart from her husband.

???

[Rate_Determining_Step]

U.S. Constitution: Sixteenth Amendment

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

Basically, you own the land at the benefit of the gov't, and your personal benefit. As such, you must pay taxes on it, or have it sold; with the proceeds first paying the US Gov't, and the balance against whatever leins are against it. But Uncle Sam is always gonna get his first.

That's a law. I'm pretty much up on that. Hey... thanks though.

That doesn't answer my question; on what moral foundation does it lie?

I ask because you make some declaration that if it's isn't "publicly accessible", then they shouldn't have their tax status. You seem right quick to dash to the 16th amendment to ground your argument in terms general taxation, but not in the latter here.

I doubt there's a nice 30 word bit in the Constitution regarding sticking to a church that kicks someone out and thereby violates "public access" (whatever that means). So, you're left with having to a) come up with a federal or state statue explaining your case (which I explicitly asked you not to do) or b) make a moral argument.

Can you do that?

[Woodman]

"Just for my own non-judgemental edification may I ask which church this post refers to?"

Well since Right Fighter doesn't seem to want to answer your question; I'll take a guess that it is "The Fellowship of God". My old girlfriend/fiancée was a member and they threatened to shun her if I wouldn't join or she didn't stop dating me.

My sin was not being a member (or Christian) in their mind, the reality is I was always and still am a Quaker. The Friends Fellowship used to do the same thing to their own members until the early 1800's when they reunited with the Free Quakers of which my family was one. It's funny that I don't feel the same way about them.

[RightFighter]

Well since Right Fighter doesn't seem to want to answer your question;

The point of my post was not to solicit people to bash my church for taking a stand and taking church discipline seriously. You may agree or disagree on my church's position on discipline and still have an opinion about my question. Notice also that I never stated that the church WOULD have someone arrested, and in fact, I doubt they would, or that it would ever be necessary. My question was simply about their RIGHT to do so.

[Woodman]

Notice that I bashed my own church as well as saying that I consider the Fellowship of God to be Christain. I wasn't bashing them, just taking a guess, which appears to have been correct. Times may change, but God still judges all in the end...

[kkindt]

The church discipline is aimed at preventing the divorce for unbiblical reasons - if she will not listen to the church that is trying to help her avoid sinning against God in this particularly horrific way - a family destroying way - then perhaps the Holy Spirit will convict her if she is excommunicated from the church and realizes the seriousness of the sin. Yes we are all sinners and can all benefit from mutual admonition but when a sinner is stubborn in a particularly community destructive sinful behavior and will not listen to the loving admonition of the church then this last step is to be taken.

The Lord did warn us to take out the log from our own eyes and you have made a good point He makes for the church. But the Lord has also taught us to admonish one another and to do exactly what this congregation is trying to do for this woman. You know that this instruction is in the Scripture just as much as the instruction you quoted from our Lord don't you? I mean why do you wish to ignore one passage in preference to the other when BOTH are equally binding upon Christians?

[Mulder]

Sounds like a big soap opera to me, which is one reason I haven't been to church in about 2 years.

If they don't want someone on their property, they need to call the Sheriff and swear out a tresspass warrant.

They likely know the law, but are more interested in playing control games.

[AppyPappy]

Your statement isn't logical. On the one hand, you say she needs the church to help her see the error of her ways. The solution offered is to throw her out of the church and disassociate with her. It doesn't make sense. It sounds more like a fraternity than a church.

The Bible verse I posted shows the church should send the older women of the church to her to teach her how to be a good wife. That makes more sense than tossing her out on her ear.

[I Luv Bush]

A similar thing happened at a friend of mine's church. A member was expelled for unbiblical divorce and church members were told not to associate with him. My friend saw him some time later--he was working at a Piggly-Wiggly and sleeping in his truck. My friend was a business owner and knew that this person would be a tremendous asset (and that the former churchmember needed Christian love), so he hired him and took him into his home until he could get on his feet. My friend was also expelled from the church. The first one who was expelled? He took the example of Christian love he was offered and became a pastor...
"All things work together for good"

[Hodar]

OK, so you want the moral instead of legal argument.

The church is a tax-free entity, because HISTORICALLY the church has been a service provided to help the homeless, orphans, sick, elderly and infirm. HISTORICALLY, the church has done this with donated goods, from members of the congregation; for the good of the community. I'm not saying this is no longer the case, but I will say that the percentage of charity work done in the 21st century is not at the same level it was when the Constitution was written. As the church was around for the general 'Good' of society, the Founding Fathers saw no reason the church should be penalized by taxation, in their mission to aid the less fortunate.

Now, let's zoom forward 200 years. We are seeing churches who take advantage of the taxfree status, for property specualtion, business dealings and a whole lot more. The gov't has taken the lion's share of responsibility for providing for the elderly, sick, infirm, orphans and unemployable.

Now, we have churches who deny the very service they were ordained by Christ to do (ie. convert, forgive and support) yet, demand they receive the same legal benefits of churches who continue to welcome all who will hear the word of God. We have trailer homes as well as regular family homes, in which the family has a prayer meeting once a week; and then demands that they be recognized as a taxfree entity; for they claim to be a church. That's my moral arguement. If an organization wishes to aid society, and does so by good deeds; I have little problem with the taxfree status (Boy Scouts, VFW, ect). But, for those who profit and exploit others for personal gain, the taxfree status is a sick joke (RAINBOW Coalition, Affirmative Action, Country Club Churches, ect).

[kkindt]

She needs the church to insist that she abide by her promise to not only her husband but to the church itself. She promised when she joined this church to submit to church discipline and that includes a warning to her when she insists on violating the Scripture - a warning to cease and desist doing so and to repent - but when she insists on doing what is contrary to Scripture and not only insists on that but insists that what she is doing is RIGHT - then the church helps her by turning her over to Satan as the Scripture tells the church to do and allowing Satan to do what he will to her until she does feel the pain and repents. Have you not read the Scripture that tells the church to do this???

[AppyPappy]

No I haven't. Perhaps you could post it.

[Rate_Determining_Step]

> As the church was around for the general 'Good' of society, the Founding Fathers saw no reason the church should be penalized by taxation, in their mission to aid the less fortunate.

Interesting. When the founders did their work, the whole notion that the state owned your land and you bought it back each year would have been greeted with open contempt.

> That's my moral arguement. If an organization wishes to aid society, and does so by good deeds; I have little problem with the taxfree status (Boy Scouts, VFW, ect).

But you have already ceeded total government control. Some 'historical moral' thing. Well historically, the lefties have screwed over the Boy Scouts.

Your church is next as it will take very little before people go wobbly. Will you oppose them (how?), join them, or stand by?

Why not allow the church with the widest door for public access be the benchmark to which to measure tax exempt status? Didn't they just make a gay Bishop or something somewhere? Why bother with your primitive interpertations of the Bible. Can't divorce? HA! Can't be gay and help run the church? HA!

You see the hole you've dug here?

[RightFighter]

The church has the right to have someone arrested for trespass, but that's not scriptural behavior. 1 Corinthians 6

1 When one of you has a grievance against a brother, does he dare go to law before the unrighteous instead of the saints?

Actually, we're to treat them as a pagan and tax collector, not as a brother. These are the words of Jesus:

Matt 18:15-17"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. But 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.'If 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.

[kkindt]

http://reformerkev.esmartweb.com/bscor13.html

If you read over the above site it gives both the text and the explanation of why this is to be done and when

[AppyPappy]

The only Scripture that would seem to back your conclusion is this:

18Timothy, my son, I give you this instruction in keeping with the prophecies once made about you, so that by following them you may fight the good fight, 19holding on to faith and a good conscience. Some have rejected these and so have shipwrecked their faith. 20Among them are Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I have handed over to Satan to be taught not to blaspheme.

But I don't see what this has to do with a man and woman getting a divorce.