Kenny Baldwin

Bruh said:
In my opinion, this has been the best response from a man on here on this subject. If I go through the post on here not one man said anything remotely to what you’re saying.
Click to expand...
If this vigilante scenario you seem to advocate for and align with were to actually play out, would that be the Christlike response?
 
illinoisguy said:
I do not have a "one size fits all" answer to the question of whether or not to allow sex offenders, or those with kinky predilections, to join and/or attend a local church. Such decisions are to be made within the congregation of each local church. However, I would suggest that when such decisions are made, they should take two factors into account.

(1) How do the current members of the church feel about it, and is there a possibility of losing current or prospective members of the church, if a questionable individual is allowed to join/attend. Is it worth it to lose a bunch of long-time faithful members, in order to take in one person who is controversial or possibly disruptive?

(2) How will sister churches, of the same denomination, association or unaffiliated fellowship, react to the decision. Is it worth it to damage our reputation with sister churches, and to endanger their reputation, over such a controversial decision?

For a discussion of a somewhat similar controversial situation within the Presbyterian Church in America, with regard to the ordination of an individual who admits to same-sex attraction, see this article:

"You could have used your rights to prevent this whole controversy by withholding ordination for the sake of the larger church’s peace and purity. People have already left over this and are likely to continue to do so. A few days ago I had a missive from someone who did so after 40 plus years of membership. Does that not bother you? . . . Should you not much more care for the opinions of those who are believers already? . . .

"I hear much talk of the church being a place of welcome, nurture, and inclusion for those who experience the temptations in view. I’ll not dispute that notion as such, for our Lord said 'come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest' (Matt. 11:28). But one can be welcomed and nurtured without being given leadership – as all novices, sinners, and children should – and there is something terribly awry when people talk about welcoming unbelieving outsiders while at the same time making brothers feel unwelcome. Driving out the existing sheep for the sake of attracting outsiders is a dubious measure, and I somehow doubt that is what our Lord desires.

"Whatever your intentions, the actual effect of your position and deeds has been such repulsion in the name of welcome and driving out in the name of inclusion. How is that loving? In this do you 'pay careful attention to yourselves and to ALL the flock' (Acts 20:28, emphasis mine)? Because it sure looks as though you are more concerned with prospective believers than actual ones, or with reaching one group (university students) that you forget the other sheep which you already have, not only there but throughout the denomination."

theaquilareport.com

Enter Round Two: Some Remarks Concerning Missouri Presbytery’s Ordination of a Man Tempted to Break Leviticus 18:22

theaquilareport.com theaquilareport.com
Click to expand...
Apples to football bat comparison in my opinion. There is a significant difference in considering a person for ordination or leadership who has subscribed to doctrinal heresy or abused their high office for carnal gain and that of a situation where a person is being restored to basic fellowship in the church. Otherwise I agree with allowing the church body the respect to participate in the consideration of the matter.
 
ALAYMAN said:
So should the former (presumably repentant) molester have to wear some external identification so everyone is aware of their former crime? Should we keep them from Walmart and public places where children might be present?
Click to expand...
I definitely wouldn’t be against them wearing something to identify themselves to allow people to know who they are.

I wouldn’t be against keeping them away from where any child is.

Like I said, if I err, I err on the side of caution. If that makes me in your eyes or others eyes unchristian, that’s fine by me.

If the average church member or average person has to choose my view or yours I’d suspect they’d err on the side of caution.
 
ALAYMAN said:
If this vigilante scenario you seem to advocate for and align with were to actually play out, would that be the Christlike response?
Click to expand...
I honestly don’t know. Because I don’t know if the Bible specifically talks about how to physically handle a child predator.
 
Bruh said:
I honestly don’t know. Because I don’t know if the Bible specifically talks about how to physically handle a child predator.
Click to expand...
Well, it talks about stoning for the adulterer, and several other sins. Either way it's death, yet Jesus said "Go and sin no more."Thank God for grace, which of course, you seem to have none.
 
AverageJoe said:
Think he needs to read "The Scarlet Letter."
Click to expand...
She wore the letter because she committed adultery. She didn’t sexually assault a child.

How can you compare a woman that committed adultery to a man that sexually assaulted a child? I do not comprehend this thought process!
 
AverageJoe said:
Well, it talks about stoning for the adulterer, and several other sins. Either way it's death, yet Jesus said "Go and sin no more."Thank God for grace, which of course, you seem to have none.
Click to expand...
The woman at the well was living in sin with a man.

All sexual sin is not equal. When someone commits adultery they are not physically hurting someone, mentally and emotionally they are both willing parties.

Sexually assaulting a child and committing adultery are not the same. You do understand that, right? Sexually assaulting a child is cruel and vicious.

That child was not a willing person. They were forced. They are a victim. Adultery there is no victim.
 
ALAYMAN said:
So should the former (presumably repentant) molester have to wear some external identification so everyone is aware of their former crime? Should we keep them from Walmart and public places where children might be present?
Click to expand...
If a sexual predator becomes a member of your church you have spoken to the members and will have a staff member or a man stay with him at all times. I believe this was basically what you’ve said?

That being so, you have put a sign on him for all church members to know of his former crime.
 
AverageJoe said:
Think he needs to read "The Scarlet Letter."
Click to expand...
Do you wanna hear something really ironic? I just got back from running around all day in Cincinnati and turned on my local news broadcast. Literally at the same time I read your response about the Scarlet letter, I mean literally the same time, I heard a lady on the news talking about Flock cameras and she said “they have a scarlet letter on them”, lol.
 
Bruh said:
If a sexual predator becomes a member of your church you have spoken to the members and will have a staff member or a man stay with him at all times. I believe this was basically what you’ve said?

That being so, you have put a sign on him for all church members to know of his former crime.
Click to expand...
We are providing a balance of security, accountability, and restoration. That’s not even remotely close to the contemptuous attitude you’re advocating.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top