Conference yukon::christian_v7

>    Will the church ever be honest about the sin that exists within it?
    
    Probably not this side of 'Glory' :(
    
    As for the rest of the note - your opening comments re: 'cult' rather
    than church are backed up by the power syndrome you have described
    through out the rest of your note.
    
    Actually, I would see this a 'abuse of Authority' rather than strict
    abuse of 'power'. Although, I admit that in this case, the two are
    closely intertwined.
    
    The abuse of authority is something Jesus warned the 11 about just after he
    washed their feet.
    
    Paul writes about the abuse of authority and power repeatedly.
    
    What can be done? Well, you have 'brushed the dust off your feet' which
    is a good start.
    
    More, I'm sure, from others.
    				 h :*]

    Good topic, it can also be cross referenced to topic 26 is regarding
    SECRET SIN. :-)
    
    Nancy

    
    Yes, Good topic!
    
      A pastor once had a sermon that I will remember all my life. He said,
    when we receive Jesus as our Personal Saviour the devil does not give
    up on us. He (satan) works on us even harder than before "Matt.
    12:43-45." He spoke about us having two hearts God's (New) heart and the
    devil's heart (old Habits). He Spoke about how we decide to feed one or
    the other daily. If we don't feed our Spiritual heart with the Love,
    Mercy, Peace, and spend time with Him, then the devil will control.
    "As one is fed the other weakens, which one will you feed today."
    
    I see a change in my life when this is applied. It is a personal thing.
    When I feed upon God's word there are things I don't do that I used to
    do etc. And when I talk to others about how Jesus has changed my life
    there is fruit there as well.
    
    Bruce
     

Sigh.  Karen, I keep sitting here thinking of how to reply and respond.  As
you know, I'm struggling with some similar things.  I don't want your cry
here to go unanswered, but I don't even really know what to say.  I would
guess that I'm probably not alone in that.

I guess as human beings, we never really get it right.  We're always
unbalanced to one side or the other.  That's what I was trying to say when I
entered the note a while ago about "Full of Grace and Truth."  That note went
off in several directions other than where I intended, and I didn't have the
energy to stick with it.

But we always screw things up.  Some times, in some places, people get too
eager to expose sin (unbalanced toward Truth), and we wind up getting witch
hunts, where everyone is desperately afraid to get out of line because they
know that they will be drawn and quartered for it.  Or we become too eager to
explain away and accept people's faults, even deep and destructive faults
(unbalanced toward Grace).  And when people are destroying themselves and
everyone around them, we just look the other way.

"Love the sinner, hate the sin" is something we almost never get right.  And
the fact that no one gets it right encourages us to continue in that way. 
For example, if the elder were exposed in his church as a struggling
alcoholic, the reaction of many people would be deep condemnation of him,
lumping in hate of him along with hating the sin.  So the people who are
close to him, hide the sin because they know that others won't be capable of
hating the sin and still loving him.  And of course that makes things worse.

Christ's call is a challenging one.  (I'm entering a competition for
understatement of the week :-)  Love, Love, Love.  Bear anything for the sake
of Love.  But what love requires is sometimes horribly difficult.  In 1Cor 5,
Paul exhorts the people, out of love, to turn an unrepentant sinner in their
midst over to Satan, "that he might be saved in the last day."  That the
sinner needs to be released to wallow in their sin before they will come to
recognize it as sin.

It's such a hard call as to when to do something that extreme.  We're almost
always too willing to make that call, or too afraid of making it at all.

Come, Lord Jesus.  We're never going to get it right until you come back.

Paul

| <<< Note 691.0 by GAVEL::MOSSEY >>>



RE: recovering alcoholic

	I don't believe that something like this has to be broadcast to the
flock, unless the person who is going through it wants it broadcast, or if it
ends up interfering with her/his job. You mentioned that there might be others
who can help who also might have lived through this. Well, his wife is one
person, and how many others there might be that help this man is really
unknown. The man did fall off the wagon, but nothing was listed on how far he
has actually came. I think that is probably one of the most important facts
with all this.

| I am sickened that a married woman in that church had a homosexual affair with
| a single woman 10 years her junior.  

	I'm curious here, which part made you sick? That she had a homosexual
affair, or the woman was 10 years her junior? If it were the former, I could
understand how that might upset you, as it goes against your faith. If it is
the latter, then I guess knowing how young the junior person was would need to
be known. Under 18? If that were the case, I then could understand why you
would view this as being sick. 

| I am angry that was not dealt with properly.  

	How was it delt with?

| Will the church ever be honest about the sin that exists within it?

	That is a very good question. I think it is starting to become a
reality today for those churches where they were hiding the sin. 



Glen

Hi Glen, 

Did you miss also that the older woman was married?

The point about the publication of the alcoholism was that the man is an 
elder in the church.  A person in a place of public responsibility and 
accountability.  If he honestly has a problem which he has not yet been 
able to overcome, he should feel able to step down from office until it is 
dealt with, rather than put himself and the congregation under the added 
strain and guilt.  1 Timothy 5:20 says of elders "Those who sin are to be
rebuked publicly, so that the others may take warning."  Not just a 'harsh'
judgement, but a recognition that public office carries moral responsibility 
not only on an individual basis, but for the corporate fellowship. 

I hope this clarifies ti some!
								Andrew

| <<< Note 691.6 by ICTHUS::YUILLE "Thou God seest me" >>>

| Did you miss also that the older woman was married?

	I knew that Andrew. I was trying to find what would make it sick
though. To have an affair with <insert anyone> is wrong. Maybe in some people's
eyes it is sick. But two things were mentioned when talking about sick, a woman
and a woman, and 10 years her junior. 

| The point about the publication of the alcoholism was that the man is an elder
| in the church. A person in a place of public responsibility and accountability
| If he honestly has a problem which he has not yet been able to overcome, he 
| should feel able to step down from office until it is dealt with, rather than 
| put himself and the congregation under the added strain and guilt.  

	Andrew, I fully agree with what you have said. But the things we don't
have in front of us is how long has he been fighting this, how far has he come
along, and is it the stress of the job that is pushing him to occasionally go
off the wagon or is it something else? If something else, then work on
correcting that. The job itself may be what is helping him be as good as he is.
There just aren't a lot of facts in that story for us to make any kind of
conclusion to what should or should not happen to him. I was looking for more
facts.

| I hope this clarifies ti some!

	It helped clarify what might have to happen, but without the facts of
all this, we really don't know.


Glen

Hi Glen,

�               <<< Note 691.7 by BIGQ::SILVA "Squirrels R Me" >>>

�| Did you miss also that the older woman was married?

�	I knew that Andrew. 

But you omitted it in your list of potential offensive criteria.  It is a 
significant omission.  Three things were mentioned; not two.


� Andrew, I fully agree with what you have said. 

Glen, are you trying to seriously frighten me ???? ;-)

� But the things we don't have in front of us is how long has he been fighting
� this, how far has he come along, and is it the stress of the job that is
� pushing him to occasionally go off the wagon or is it something else? 

No.  The information we do have in front of us is that he remains as an 
elder, and in this instance, someone under his eldership, who might be 
expected to look up to him as an example, sees a significant fall, with no 
explanation or correction.  A weak person in the congregation who saw this 
might think it was an excuse for them to fall into sin.  This is why he 
should step down as an elder, and/or receive a public correction.  
Regardless of other circumstances, it is a Biblical principle.  The facts 
are sufficient concerning the elsership aspect.  How he should receive help 
beyond that we are not qualified to determine, and neither does it enter
into the topic.

							Andrew

Sin and sinners will always be in the church.  And you know, that's exactly
what we should expect if the church's mission is to reach the lost.

(Perhaps how we "do" church is a problem.  If "church" is to be a 
 celebration of God's goodness and presenting God a spotless sacrifice,
 then we need to be concerned about sinfulness in the church.  Then 
 again, we must acknowledge that we are all sinners, too.  Anyway, if
 "church" is to be a "hospital for the sin-sick" then we will expect
 to have "sick" people among us.)

Now, I want to clearly delineate between the sinner who is seeking God
but requires much help and the sinner who is defining his own (and defying)
God.  There are scriptural measured to take to restore a sinning member
of the church.  There are also scriptural injunctions to throw out the
bums who have exhausted the scriptural measures.

Both of these measures (or rather all of these measures) can be done from
the attitude of love (as Paul indicates in his note).  It is a matter of 
love to throw someone out under certain circumstances, and by doing so
perhaps causing some reflection with the Holy Spirit at some point, and
in the meantime, protecting the weaker members of the flock from the harm
of these heretics.  Even secular psychology has found this to be true with
issues such as "tough love" for your rebellious teenager, for example.  It's
not secret to dealing with recalcitrance.  In some cases, the *most* loving
thing to do is to kick them out.  In other cases, you may be carrying a
"paralytic" to Jesus and even have to tear up a roof to get this person 
the help he needs.  It will take work, determination, and patience...
they are dependent upon you for everything.  Only Jesus can make them 
whole and you must do what you can to bring that person to Jesus; perhaps
to the point of wanting to come to Jesus.

I am cautioning for clear judgment in handling sin in the church body.
If it is a matter of recalcitrance (stubborn resistence to authority),
then it is a different matter than someone who is shackled by the sin
that has hold of them. 

Mark

	Mark, nicely put.

To add to my note: sin MUST be dealt with, never swept under the rug.
Sin is unacceptable in the church.

1John 2:1 My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin
    not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ
    the righteous:

But we should be aware of the both parts of this verse.  First: sin not!
Second: if you do, we have an advocate...

You can't go on sinning!  The stumbling sinner versus the recalcitrant
sinner must BOTH be dealt with... differently, but they MUST be dealt with.
Part of it may be programs for alcoholics or other similarly addicted persons.

*How* to deal with sinners is the issue we have to face as God's church.

What I have found so far is that you deal with sinner uniquely.  God
made those people unique and they have a unique set of issues and problems
brought to bear.  In every case, Jesus can be applied to their lack, but Jesus
himself responded to people on their level.  The woman at the well, Nicodemus,
the disciples, the lepers, the Pharisees, the woman caught in adultery,
Pilate... think of how he addressed each of these people for a fascinating
study of the tact, diplomacy, and unparalleled communication skills our
Lord had.  When we begin to see people as Jesus saw them, we will begin to
see which one deserve the castigation the Pharisees got or the encouragement
Zaccheus got, or ...  (But we must make sure that the beams are out of our
eyes, of course, or we will get deserved blame from the non-christians for
being unchristian.)

MM

    re: .10
    
    Thank you for your clarification and explanation re: alcholic elder,
    Andrew.  That was my point in relating the story, not to examine the
    nitty-gritty and/or the situational ethics of the details.  To make
    my point in the story clearer, the friend that helped John (elder)
    into his home when he was drunk was the PASTOR of the church.  :-(
    
    I would also like to clarify (in case it wasn't clear in the base note)
    that I am *not* judging/condemning the people involved in these
    situations!  We all sin and God says one sin isn't greater than
    another!  You can lie to somone or you can murder them, but in God's
    eyes it's equally wrong.  What I was trying to bring out was what both
    Paul and Mark have said about struggling with sin - those that are
    truly trying to do what is right and pleasing to God, and those that
    are just playing church, or are intentionally being rebellious.  It's
    what you do with it and how you deal with it.
    
    I've heard it said that the things/ideas/actions we see in another that 
    bother us so much are because we have the same problem or they are a 
    reflection of ourselves.
    
    Karen

I taught a class not long ago about sin so forgive my verbosity.
I told the class that I was going to be teaching about a subject
that I was very familiar with.

We distinguished the differences between sin and sins.

Sin is an attitude of rebellion.
Sins are the expressions of this attitude.

Remember that God sees the heart and this means that it is not so much
what you do but what you think and feel.  Uh-oh.  I'm not so very "holy"
in my feelings and thought life.  And to be sure, there are sometimes
no way of knowing what will pop into your head.  But when you begin to
think about this, you're again thinking of instances rather than themes.

The Love of God working in you will change you.  It won't be an instantaneous
change of behavior.  It is an instantaneous change in nature, from carnal to
spiritual.  People do not beget adult people.  The spirit begets spiritual
babies who must grow through process and experience every bit as do physical
babies.  Those who are spiritually quickened will continue to struggle with
thoughts and attitudes that are displeasing to God, but it is the spiritual
nature that causes us to want to remove those thoughts and attitudes and
replace them with thoughts and attitudes that are pleasing to God.  And to be
sure, the Bible knows that what we feed our mind is going to be expressed in
our actions.  Sin is not the only thing that is expressed in actions.
Righteousness is also an attitude that is expressed in acts of love.
The good tree bears good fruit; the bad tree bears bad fruit.  But it
isn't the fruit that makes the tree good or bad!!!  It is the tree that 
makes the fruit good or bad.  Too often, we get it backwards by judging
the outside; God sees the heart.

So what do we do with these instances and how do I deal in the realm of
the proper theme?  You have heard the greatest commandment to love God.
This is the way to deal in the realm of the theme.  What can I do to 
please God and to do away with things to displease God?  "Think on these 
things."  By considering how you can please your soul's lover, you will
begin to change your attitudes about some things in your life.  (Marriage
is a picture of our relationship to God.  We want to please our mates,
don't we?  that's how to have a fulfilling relatiopnship.)

Secondly, remember that life (physical and spiritual) is a process and that
you have a forgiving and patient relationship with God who wants you to 
succeed and not fail.  It doesn't mean taking for granted God's grace.
You know how you feel when your love is taken advantage of, yet you 
also know how you feel when someone you love fails but is sorry.  The
attitude when you fail makes a big difference doesn't it?  God is in the
forgiving business and wants to restore relationships, not negate them.
So, if you fail, Christian, don't quit.  Ask for His forgiveness for 
displeasing Him and restore your relationship; He won't reject you.
Endeavor to have your heart cleansed by the Holy Spirit from displeasing
attitudes and rebellious attitudes.  Open yourself to His correction as
the Psalmist did when he said "Search me, O God, and know my heart!"

"God is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him."

Mark

 Thank you, brother...I needed to hear (read) that.





 Jim

                       <<< Note 691.8 by GAVEL::MOSSEY >>>
                                  -< more... >-

    Well, thankfully I am not in quite as pessimestic a mood as I was 
    yesterday afternoon when I wrote the base note :-).  However, that
    said, there were really many issues I touched on yesterday - my mind
    was on overload and putting the thoughts in writing helped me to take a
    break from it and come back to it and have a clearer focus (I think) on
    the various issues.  I thank those of you (especially hazza and Paul
    W.) who took time to respond.  It confirmed that I'm not the only one
    who sees these things and that it happens in "healthy" churches as well
    as dysfunctional ones.

    RE: Glen (.5) 

    No, I don't advocate that the church start handling it's problems in a
    Phil Donahue fashion.  I believe I said in my note (paraphrasing here) 
    that there is an appropriate time and place for things to be
    shared/dealt with.  Not all things need to be heard by all people, but
    SOME things need to be heard by some people.

    Example:  My husband has started attending a Men's Bible study at church 
    on Wednesday mornings.  The pastor attends, but does not run/take
    charge of the service, a layman does.  He participates like everyone
    else.  This past week, I guess the topic turned to issues that men 
    struggle with.  The topic of lust came up, and the pastor shared how he 
    used to have a big problem with this and how only recently the Lord had 
    freed him from this.  It took him (the pastor) to stand in front of 75 
    people (not sure if it was a mixed group or men only, if that matters 
    to you) and admit to this problem.  It had to be brought out of the 
    darkness and into the light for complete healing/freedom to happen.  
    Going public with our deepest, darkest secrets is a scary thing.  We are 
    vulnerable - we stand there for all to see "our real selves".  The only 
    reason we can do this is because we desire to be free from the guilt and 
    bondage of our sin.  The Truth will set you (& me) free.  If the Son sets 
    you free, you are free indeed!  And when I say "going public" it doesn't 
    necessarily mean a group of 20, 75 or the whole church.  Going public can 
    mean telling one person.  The pastor didn't stand in front of the whole 
    congregation on a Sunday morning and share this.  He shared it with 12 men 
    on a Wednesday morning.  He didn't do it in the role of pastor teaching his
    flock.  He shared it as a falliable man, as a peer of those he was talking
    *with*, not *at*.  I suspect that will earn him the respect and 
    understanding of the men in his church, not condemnation.  I know my
    husband was impressed with his honesty. 

    all I have time for now.....

    Karen      

	Karen, what a wonderful note. Thanks for posting it. I'm sure that the
priest had felt comfortable enough with the men that were there to admit what
he did. That, I believe, is something that I really think helps people. But
your story seems to confirm the churches actions in .0. Seeing the person was
being helped, he obviously did tell people about his problem. He probably told
those who he felt most comfortable with. Like the priest, he could not (at this
time anyway) tell the world. I guess I see the two cases really being along the
same lines. 

	And as far as him stepping down for a while goes, it would be up to the
church board, wouldn't it? Some of the very people who are helping him, the
ones who probably know him best. Maybe at some point they will suggest he step
down until he can get back on his feet. But until then, it would seem they have
the things in control.


Glen

    re .17
    
    Glen -  
    
    the "priest" you refer to from my note .8 (i assume) was not a catholic
    priest, but a married pastor of a protestant church.
    
    The story in .8 is not similar, but opposite, to the story about the
    alcholic in .0 .  The only reason I know about the story in .0 is
    because I am friends with a person who personally witnessed what happened. 
    The truth of the situation was not shared with him, but was actually lied
    about and an attempt was made to cover it up.
    
    IF the situation would have been dealt with properly, the elder with
    the problem with alcohol would have been asked by the pastor to "step
    down" from his responsibilities in the church until he could bring his
    problem to resolution.  This did not happen, which isn't even the issue
    I was focusing on, but rather the issue of unresolved sin within the
    church.  This story was an example of that.  Also, as I said in the 
    base note, this was a dysfunctional church and the incident happened 
    several years ago.  The church is no longer in existance and the elder
    does not currently serve in a position of authority in another church.
    
    Karen

 re .18



 So, Karen, do you think that the church's inability to deal with this
 situation scripturally could have led to the downfall of the church?  I've
 seen similar things happen.




Jim

| <<< Note 691.18 by GAVEL::MOSSEY >>>


| the "priest" you refer to from my note .8 (i assume) was not a catholic
| priest, but a married pastor of a protestant church.

	Agreed.

| The story in .8 is not similar, but opposite, to the story about the alcholic 
| in .0. The only reason I know about the story in .0 is because I am friends 
| with a person who personally witnessed what happened. The truth of the 
| situation was not shared with him, but was actually lied about and an attempt 
| was made to cover it up.

	IF the person involved did not want the thing told to anyone but those
he trusted, why would these people betray that trust? At the time, it was none
of your friends business, as he was not someone the guy was ready to share with
yet. Not actually walking in his shoes, your friend could not know what was
really happening, who actually knew, why they did not include him in on it.
From the 2 stories you gave, I saw the following things that were very close to
each other:

	2 people high up had a problem
	2 people told those who they felt comfortable with about it
	2 people were not ready to tell the world


	You also mentioned in one of your notes that confessing it could happen
with just one person, and did not need a group. Yet I get the impression,
anyway, that because your friend was not included in the loop, that this was
bad.

| IF the situation would have been dealt with properly, the elder with the 
| problem with alcohol would have been asked by the pastor to "step down" from 
| his responsibilities in the church until he could bring his problem to 
| resolution.  

	Do you feel the priest with the problem with lust should have stepped
down then? He said he struggled with it for so long. But it does seem he was
able to deal with it while still holding his position.



Glen

    RE: .19
    
    I believe that many incidents similiar to the one I relayed here
    (secret sin) contributed to the downfall of this church, in addition to
    other problems i.e., 'controlling' pastor/leadership, the church having
    an 'inward' focus as opposed to an outward focus (i.e. evangelism).  It
    became more like a club, where you had to do and be like so-and-so
    thought you should.  They were very content to stay the same small
    group of people, struggling with the same problems year in and year out.
    
    re: .20
    
    > IF the person involved did not want the thing told to anyone but
    > those he trusted, why would these people betray that trust?  At the
    > time, it was none of your friends business, as he was not someone the
    > guy was ready to share with yet.  Not actually walking in his shoes,
    > your friend could not know what was really happening, who actually
    > knew, why they did not include him in on it.
    
    I don't know how much more clearly I can say this.  My friend *lived* at
    this (drunk) person's house.  He was an adult.  He didn't need anyone
    to TELL him what was going on; he could SEE it for himself.  When he
    confronted the man's wife about it, she lied - she said he was sick,
    but he was really drunk (yes, I know you can be sick when you are drunk
    - technically, she probably told a half-truth.)  My friend already KNEW 
    this man was drunk.  He obviously knew there was a problem, and living 
    in the household brings him into contact with that problem.  He was trying 
    to help, but if the people with the problem couldn't admit they had one 
    (denial), how could he help?
    
    Also, if you GO BACK (as I've intimated before) and re-read the base
    note, you will find we (friend & I) were discussing the problems that
    existed within this church and he related this story to me.  This
    incident happened several years ago.  At the time it happened, he did
    not go running around telling people about it.  We were both a part of
    this church for several years; we have shared history and experiences.  
    I don't feel it was inappropriate for us to discuss events that positively 
    or negatively impacted us while we were there.  If he were discussing
    things of this nature with someone who had not been part of that
    church, I think it would not be useful.
    
    > You also mentioned in one of your notes that confessing it could
    > happen with just one person, and did not need a group.  Yet I get the
    > impression, anyway, that because your friend was not included in the
    > loop, that this was bad.
    
    When sin is obvious, or the light of truth has illuminated it, it is not 
    a betrayal.  That's exactly what satan would like to do...keep all
    our dirty little secrets to ourselves so we remain in bondage and no one 
    can help us.  My friend WAS included in the loop for the simple reason he
    was a witness in all that took place.  Even if the (drunk) man had 
    literally and deliberately told my friend "I sinned" or "I was drunk" 
    he would have been stating the obvious, it would have been after-the-fact.
    Friend was already aware of it.
    
    As I said in a previous note, I didn't feel all the minute details of
    who-said-what-and-when were that important.  The point of relating the
    story was the issue of sin in the church and how it is (or is not) dealt 
    with.  
    
    I believe I've elaborated as much as I can or will on the matter.
    
    Karen
      

 Amen, Karen...

| <<< Note 691.21 by GAVEL::MOSSEY >>>

| I don't know how much more clearly I can say this. My friend *lived* at this 
| (drunk) person's house. He was an adult.  

	But it did not mean that he was trusted to the point that they wanted
to discuss this with him. It sometimes never ceases to amaze me how on one hand
people can say they can confess to just one person, and it's ok, but that is
until they are left out of the loop. It is obvious that even though your friend
lived there, they (wife & husband) did NOT want to include him in with what was
going on. If the priest who admitted he had trouble with lust can tell just
those who he felt comfortable with, or as your note that stated you don't need 
to tell a large group but just one person is true, then obviously the guy did 
tell someone as he was being helped, and just because your friend did not get
"included" in on it does not mean the guy was hiding anything, period. He told
someone, didn't he? But you say it was a secret as he should have told others.
I'm sorry, but I do not buy that. Either he can tell one person like you stated
(which he did), or he has to tell the world. Which is it? You can't have both.

| He didn't need anyone to TELL him what was going on; he could SEE it for 
| himself.  

	Then where is the problem? Because he wasn't included in the loop? It
is none of his business until they make it.

| When he confronted the man's wife about it, she lied - she said he was sick,
| but he was really drunk (yes, I know you can be sick when you are drunk 
| technically, she probably told a half-truth.)  

	She told no � truth Karen. Alcoholism is a sickness. When she said he
was sick, he was just that. She did not lie, she told the truth. You might
think differently, but that does not alter the reality of the situation.

| He was trying to help, but if the people with the problem couldn't admit they 
| had one (denial), how could he help?

	Karen, there is a difference between admitting they do or don't have a
problem, and them admitting it to your friend. The person could very well know
he has a problem, admitted it to those he thought he could trust, but did not 
wish to share it with your friend. Is that so bad? No. As you stated a person 
could admit things to just ONE person. Also, if they needed your friends help, 
they probably would have included him in on the loop. Obviously at THAT time, 
they weren't ready to include him.

| At the time it happened, he did not go running around telling people about it.

	Where you thought I said he did is a mystery to me.

| I don't feel it was inappropriate for us to discuss events that positively
| or negatively impacted us while we were there.  

	Agreed, to a point. If you talk about things without knowing the facts,
but talk like you have them, then doesn't it become mere gossip?

| When sin is obvious, or the light of truth has illuminated it, it is not a 
| betrayal. That's exactly what satan would like to do...keep all our dirty 
| little secrets to ourselves so we remain in bondage and no one can help us.  

	But that was NOT the case here. Two people brought him in, which means
at least two people knew of his problem. The only one who was there that wasn't
included in on the details was your friend. Again, it seems like while you
stated one can tell just one person, you seem to be going against that now. 

| My friend WAS included in the loop for the simple reason he was a witness in 
| all that took place.  

	By, "in the loop", I meant the guy sat down and told your friend
everything that was going on. He was not part of THAT loop. And I still get the
impression that you think this was bad. I don't view it that way as if they
wanted him to know the details, they would have told him.

| Friend was already aware of it.

	Yeah, he was aware of it, but he had no details on the situation at
hand. So while the drunkeness was obvious, that was the only thing he could say
about it, as it was the only thing he knew about.

| As I said in a previous note, I didn't feel all the minute details of
| who-said-what-and-when were that important.  The point of relating the
| story was the issue of sin in the church and how it is (or is not) dealt with.

	But it was being delt with. Your friend just wasn't included. Big
difference there Karen.


Glen

Glen,

You missed the point here.  One person was living in a sin situation, and
trying to pretend that nothing was wrong.  It related to his public office.
Hence it needed to be dealt with publicly. 

The other person was describing the pain of temptation, as a help to others 
who experience it, as well as for personal refreshing.  He was not in a 
sins situation; just struggling against one!

Note that temptation is not sin.  Sometimes the devil tries to make us 
think it is.  It only becomes so when it is welcomed and encouraged; no 
longer resisted.

Oh - and there weren't *any* priests involved at all in these cases!!!! ;-)

							Andrew

| <<< Note 691.24 by ICTHUS::YUILLE "Thou God seest me" >>>


| You missed the point here. One person was living in a sin situation, and 
| trying to pretend that nothing was wrong.  

	Andrew, this is not true though. He told people about it as they were
helping him. They just did not tell Karen's friend. 

| It related to his public office. Hence it needed to be dealt with publicly.

	Well, then do you disagree with Karen think that the priest who said he
had a problem with lust should have told everyone it could have affected?

| The other person was describing the pain of temptation, as a help to others
| who experience it, as well as for personal refreshing.  

	But he was struggling with it for years and did not tell the masses. He
has told some now, but what about all those other years?

| Note that temptation is not sin. Sometimes the devil tries to make us think it
| is. 

	Andrew, doesn't the Bible state to think about it is a sin in itself?
If you thought some woman was really hot, and thought about sexual things, that
you did commit the sin just cuz ya thought about it?



Glen

>| Note that temptation is not sin. Sometimes the devil tries to make us think it
>| is. 

>	Andrew, doesn't the Bible state to think about it is a sin in itself?
>If you thought some woman was really hot, and thought about sexual things, that
>you did commit the sin just cuz ya thought about it?


 I hesitate to get involved here, but what you describe above is not temptation.
 We all face temptations daily.  As I click across the wasteland that is TV,
 and come across an ad for the latest sin of the week movie, and I click
 past it, I have avoided temptation.  If I click on the same ad, and spend
 some time watching it, and let the thoughts that such an ad inspires dwell 
 in my mind, that is sin.


 Jim

Hi Glen,

I don't think you understood .24.  Ponder over it and pray.  In particular 
over the difference between temptation and sin.  You can't stop the devil 
poking the thought of temptation at you.  When you encourage and pursue it 
in your own will power, it becomes sin.

							Andrew