Testimony, judgmentalism, and designated drivers.

[Izdaari]

The Greek word I couldn't remember: adelphoi. Non-sexist alternative to "brethren".

I-502 (legalizing marijuana) will probably pass here in WA. But, yeah, there will be some disputes with the Feds over it I'm sure.

 

[Torrent v.2]

The Greek word I couldn't remember: adelphoi. Non-sexist alternative to "brethren".

I-502 (legalizing marijuana) will probably pass here in WA. But, yeah, there will be some disputes with the Feds over it I'm sure.

\
Brethren and sistren is the correct term, I think.

 

[rsc2a]

The Greek word I couldn't remember: adelphoi. Non-sexist alternative to "brethren".

I-502 (legalizing marijuana) will probably pass here in WA. But, yeah, there will be some disputes with the Feds over it I'm sure.

\
Brethren and sistren is the correct term, I think.

cistern?

 

[Biker]

ivannette

i usually do not talk about it because most people do not know how to handle it

it makes them uncomfortable

Oh well.. it won't kill them to hear it. Discomfort never hurt anyone

see what i mean

I asked my wife to read this for me. So...I am an example of those who are uncomfortable with you talking about it? sorry for my reply. I have/had plenty of struggles but not familiar with that one. Anyhow, if i can ask, why did you do it? again, good for you for overcoming that 

 

[ALAYMAN]

Regarding the OP

Waiting for my "friends" to get hammered so I can feel good about taking them home?  Um nope. This pre-meditated, repeated criminal behavior is VERY serious.

Getting wasted then taking a FURTHER step to deliberately risk innocent lives needs to be stopped immediately, not enabled. The Authorities need to be notified to protect innocent lives. And to protect this person from themselves.

Excellent perspective.

 

[Biker]

Thanks Alayman

 

[Biker]

do not worry about it    you missed a few chapters    lol

I frequently miss much more than a few chapters *swoosh*
I just didn't want you left with the impression I didn't care.
Gotta jam. Time for Pawn Shop 

 

[BandGuy]

A couple months back I came across a young lady while soulwinning who was no longer attending  church.  She gave a credible profession of faith, but was soured on ANY church-goin'.  It seems she had a bad experience with what she perceived to be judgmental pharisees.  She had volunteered to be the designtated driver for her friends who were going out to get smashed at a local bar.  They weren't Christians, but were her friends, and she thought it was the responsible Christ-like thing to do in order to make sure they got home in one piece, and didn't kill anybody else either.  Her church got wind of her "runnin' the bars" and told her that she needed to stop such activities.  She claimed they conveyed such info in a judgmental way, and so she left the church and now just doesn't go at all because most Christians seem to jump to conclusions before hearing the matter.

What would you do if an impressionable new/young Christian member of your church were to go out regularly to the bars in order to be the designated driver for their friends?

This is not a simple yes or no answer.  But why stop with what she is doing?  Why not give clean needles to junkies?  Or condoms to high schoolers?

Or another BBQ rib to a gluttonous Baptist.  Or, perhaps, we could hire some pedophile to another Church as a youth pastor.  It's not as much fun when we start judging the sins of the self righteous among us who are not young, impressionable, and who really ought to know better.

 

[BandGuy]

Same thing I'd do if an "old in the faith" member of my church did such a thing; pat him/her on the back and thank them for thinking of the safety of their friend(s) and those who are out on the road.

Questionable testimony aside, do you think that such actions would be any enabling and/or approving your friends behavior?

If saving the life of some innocent bystander is enabling, I guess I will just have to be an enabler.  Never been to a liquor store or bar, but went to plenty of parties in college where my sole reason for being there was to save people's lives.  I am not sorry for doing so and believe that God is probably happy with that decision.  Interesting thing to think about:  Would Jesus have ever gone to where the sinners were?  But yes, I do agree that if never share the Gospel with them (which I did and still do on a regular basis), then you probably have no basis to compare yourself to Jesus and what He did.

 

[Izdaari]

The Greek word I couldn't remember: adelphoi. Non-sexist alternative to "brethren".

I-502 (legalizing marijuana) will probably pass here in WA. But, yeah, there will be some disputes with the Feds over it I'm sure.

\
Brethren and sistren is the correct term, I think.

I think I'll stick with adelphoi now that I've remembered it. It's gender-inclusive without sounding too PC, and without having to use two words. It does carry the risk of sounding nerdy, but I'm not afraid to let my geek flag fly. 

 

[ALAYMAN]

If saving the life of some innocent bystander is enabling, I guess I will just have to be an enabler.  Never been to a liquor store or bar, but went to plenty of parties in college where my sole reason for being there was to save people's lives.  I am not sorry for doing so and believe that God is probably happy with that decision.  Interesting thing to think about:  Would Jesus have ever gone to where the sinners were?  But yes, I do agree that if never share the Gospel with them (which I did and still do on a regular basis), then you probably have no basis to compare yourself to Jesus and what He did.

If the person merely wanted to "associate with sinners" so as not to isolate themselves from "the world", couldn't they do this by other means that were less questionable?  And as others said, if their care was for the safety of the individuals and people on the road who might encounter drunk drivers then couldn't they just call <them> a cab (of give them money for one)?

 

[Castor Muscular]

If saving the life of some innocent bystander is enabling, I guess I will just have to be an enabler.  Never been to a liquor store or bar, but went to plenty of parties in college where my sole reason for being there was to save people's lives.  I am not sorry for doing so and believe that God is probably happy with that decision.  Interesting thing to think about:  Would Jesus have ever gone to where the sinners were?  But yes, I do agree that if never share the Gospel with them (which I did and still do on a regular basis), then you probably have no basis to compare yourself to Jesus and what He did.

If the person merely wanted to "associate with sinners" so as not to isolate themselves from "the world", couldn't they do this by other means that were less questionable?  And as others said, if their care was for the safety of the individuals and people on the road who might encounter drunk drivers then couldn't they just call <them> a cab (of give them money for one)?

Giving them money for a cab is just as enabling as volunteering to be a designated driver. 

But here's the most important question, IMO:  Specifically, what sin or overt act of defiance against God is the designated driver committing that would affect his or her testimony? 

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=Castor Muscular]Giving them money for a cab is just as enabling as volunteering to be a designated driver. 

But here's the most important question, IMO:  Specifically, what sin or overt act of defiance against God is the designated driver committing that would affect his or her testimony? [/quote]

"Abstain from all appearance of evil."

But as I choose to interpret the verse and define evil.

 

[Castor Muscular]

[quote author=Castor Muscular]Giving them money for a cab is just as enabling as volunteering to be a designated driver. 

But here's the most important question, IMO:  Specifically, what sin or overt act of defiance against God is the designated driver committing that would affect his or her testimony?

"Abstain from all appearance of evil."

But as I choose to interpret the verse and define evil.
[/quote]

Yeah, well, I'm sure you know the verse doesn't mean "avoid appearing evil in the eyes of others".  It means we should avoid evil, wherever it appears. 

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=Castor Muscular]Giving them money for a cab is just as enabling as volunteering to be a designated driver. 

But here's the most important question, IMO:  Specifically, what sin or overt act of defiance against God is the designated driver committing that would affect his or her testimony?

"Abstain from all appearance of evil."

But as I choose to interpret the verse and define evil.

Yeah, well, I'm sure you know the verse doesn't mean "avoid appearing evil in the eyes of others".  It means we should avoid evil, wherever it appears. [/quote]

But...but...but if it means that, I can't hold my own personal standards over peoples' heads and tell them they are sinning against God when they go against them!

 

[ALAYMAN]

Giving them money for a cab is just as enabling as volunteering to be a designated driver.

I agree.  I wouldn't do it, but I was presenting the option from the perspective of those advocating the bar-hopping.

But here's the most important question, IMO:  Specifically, what sin or overt act of defiance against God is the designated driver committing that would affect his or her testimony?

Did I define this situation as someone engaging in sin?  I think some situations fall into the category of wisdom and foolishness, but not necessarily sin.  This being one of them.

What I do find a bit amusing is that the argument for being a designated driver was pitched as some form of altruism, when what is actually behind the motive often times is a desire to be around the party scene and not feel left out.  Young people are extremely succeptible to peer pressure.

 

[Castor Muscular]

Did I define this situation as someone engaging in sin?  I think some situations fall into the category of wisdom and foolishness, but not necessarily sin.  This being one of them.

But if there's no sin involved, then why would it affect his or her testimony?  Who are you to judge whether or not his/her actions are foolish or wise? 

Jesus spent time with sinners and the Pharisees were outraged.  Jesus healed on the Sabbath.  In one case, Jesus went out of His way to offend the Pharisees by spitting on dirt and making mud (which the Pharisees considered to be "work") in order to cure a man's blindness.  The Pharisees were outraged because he LOOKED like he was doing something evil even though what he was doing was actually good. 

Given Jesus' example, annoying Pharisees is a very wise thing to do.  So much more a reason to volunteer to be a designated driver. 

 

[ALAYMAN]

But if there's no sin involved, then why would it affect his or her testimony?

This can be answered in a couple of ways, but one of them is that we are to actually consider what other people think, within reason.  The weaker brother argument does have *some* relevance.

  Who are you to judge whether or not his/her actions are foolish or wise? 

I'll assume you are invoking the Romans 14 (v4 et al) passage here, and if so, I think it relevant that in the same way that you'd make application of not being judgmental, you'd also have to concede that the spite which you seem to demonstrate is forbidden ("do not despise him that eateth"...v3), because not all realms of judgment which result in differences of opinion come from phraisees/legalists nor do the opposing side's viewpoint necessarily constitute antinomian ideals. 

If a young person thinks that it is inappropriate to consider the implications of their behavior, and the risks that might arise from said risky behavior, then I'd leave them to their own conscience and consequent outcomes.  You can lead a horse to water, and all that.

 

[Castor Muscular]

I'll assume you are invoking the Romans 14 (v4 et al) passage here, and if so, I think it relevant that in the same way that you'd make application of not being judgmental, you'd also have to concede that the spite which you seem to demonstrate is forbidden ("do not despise him that eateth"...v3), because not all realms of judgment which result in differences of opinion come from phraisees/legalists nor do the opposing side's viewpoint necessarily constitute antinomian ideals. 

If a young person thinks that it is inappropriate to consider the implications of their behavior, and the risks that might arise from said risky behavior, then I'd leave them to their own conscience and consequent outcomes.  You can lead a horse to water, and all that.

Implications of what risky behavior?  What's risky about being a designated driver?  And the designated driver isn't "eating" or "drinking" or doing anything that would cause a brother to stumble.  Indeed, the whole point of being a designated driver is to abstain.  Nor is it necessarily true that a designated driver approves of drunkenness.  To assume so says more about the person who judges than the person who volunteers to be a designated driver. 

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=Castor Muscular]To assume so says more about the person who judges than the person who volunteers to be a designated driver. [/quote]

QFT.