Shooting Your Wounded

[Copperman]

I know someone (not me) who cheated on his wife once and is now getting a divorce because his wife refuses to forgive him. Fine. I understand that.

They are evangelicals and his church friends are shunning him. He is remorseful and contrite.

How can people who teach Bible studies for years and preach numerous sermons turn around and refuse to “come along side” a person who has sinned, lost everything and is in need of support?

Christians tend to shoot their wounded. It misses the entire point of the Gospel.

 

[Derwin_James]

Ain’t that the truth.

 

[Della]

First off, I wouldn’t use the term “Christian” to describe Protestants only. Catholics are Christians–the first Christians. Yes?

Some Evangelical bodies believe in OSAS. If a person sins in a scandalous way, they feel the person was never saved in the first place. Forgiveness is for those coming into the fold not for those already in it. They are expected to act like saints at all times because they are now free from sin. It doesn’t match reality nor is it consistent with either the Gospels or the rest of the Bible, but never mind. Shunning is used in many fundamentalist Protestant groups to keep themselves from being tainted with the sins of those they feel betrayed them, and as a warning to others to tow the line.

 

[Joe_Kelley]

Father Groeschel once oted that the Mormons are The Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints. Catholics are The Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Sinners.

 

[RobHom]

I know someone (not me) who cheated on his wife once and is now getting a divorce because his wife refuses to forgive him. Fine. I understand that.

They are evangelicals and his church friends are shunning him. He is remorseful and contrite.

How can people who teach Bible studies for years and preach numerous sermons turn around and refuse to “come along side” a person who has sinned, lost everything and is in need of support?

Christians tend to shoot their wounded. It misses the entire point of the Gospel.

I think its sad… And its sad that some of us can set ourselves apart in a “holier-than-thou” frame of mind…and look down on others for their errors or faults.

Brings to mind the thought: What would Christ do? Personally, I think He would handle it very differently…

 

[jesusluv]

I know someone (not me) who cheated on his wife once and is now getting a divorce because his wife refuses to forgive him. Fine. I understand that.

They are evangelicals and his church friends are shunning him. He is remorseful and contrite.

How can people who teach Bible studies for years and preach numerous sermons turn around and refuse to “come along side” a person who has sinned, lost everything and is in need of support?

Christians tend to shoot their wounded. It misses the entire point of the Gospel.

I actually had a similar experience while I was Protestant, except in reverse order. My ex-wife cheated on me with someone from our church. It was a fairly big scandal and they ended up siding with my ex-wife and this guy because his family was one of the founding families of the church. I was on the receiving end of the sin that was commited and got shunned, lol.

Luckily, years later, I was easily able to receive an anullment from the RCC when I decided to join it.

So, I think in a lot of cases, it comes down to favorites truthfully. If you are very well known and a big part of the congregation, you probably won’t get the shunning that you would if you had only been there a short time.

 

[kalt]

Self preservaton? I can understand being stand-offish with someone I know who cheated on his wife. If he did that to his own wife, what would he be willing to do to a friend or aquaintance? What is his pledge of fidelity worth to anyone at this point? Can you really trust this person’s word?

He obvioulsy has serious problems, and the divorce is only a symptom.

Time and good behavior will help people accept him again.

I could understand and forgive the awful way he treated his wife, knowing that people aren’t perfect and that people do terrible things because they have problems. But only time would make me comfortable enough with that person to feel comfortable and friendly toward that person again.

When you do terrible things to other people, you have to accept the lumps that are deservedly coming your way–the divorce and the way other people feel about the horrible way you treated your wife.

My sympathies go to his wife.

 

[Della]

Self preservaton? I can understand being stand-offish with someone I know who cheated on his wife. If he did that to his own wife, what would he be willing to do to a friend or aquaintance? What is his pledge of fidelity worth to anyone at this point? Can you really trust this person’s word?

He obvioulsy has serious problems, and the divorce is only a symptom.

Time and good behavior will help people accept him again.

I could understand and forgive the awful way he treated his wife, knowing that people aren’t perfect and that people do terrible things because they have problems. But only time would make me comfortable enough with that person to feel comfortable and friendly toward that person again.

When you do terrible things to other people, you have to accept the lumps that are deservedly coming your way–the divorce and the way other people feel about the horrible way you treated your wife.

My sympathies go to his wife.

Of course, we don’t have all the facts, only his word for it, and I understand what you’re saying. Still, there’s a difference between being cautious around someone who has lost the faith and love of his family and treating him like a pariah. I remember the downfall of Jim Bakker–how all the top Evangelicals turned on him. And Jimmy Swaggert was tossed out of his denomination for his transgressions. In the Catholic Church they’d have been counseled and sent on retreats or sabbaticals, not excluded from the Church. If someone is repentant and willing to work at regaining the love and trust of his family and community, he should be given it. After all, Jesus came to save the lost not toss us aside if we mess up.

 

[JRKH]

I know someone (not me) who cheated on his wife once and is now getting a divorce because his wife refuses to forgive him. Fine. I understand that.

They are evangelicals and his church friends are shunning him. He is remorseful and contrite.

How can people who teach Bible studies for years and preach numerous sermons turn around and refuse to “come along side” a person who has sinned, lost everything and is in need of support?

Christians tend to shoot their wounded. It misses the entire point of the Gospel.

It is a prideful, human, sinful thing that we are all prone to.
I have often used the analogy of Dickens - A Christmas Carol.
A story of the redemption of a soul from the very edge of Hell to the Model of Christian Love. Yet, If I say someone is a Scrooge, what do we think of?

Scrooge gets no credit for changing.

Peace
James

 

[Publisher]

I visited a Mennonite congregation with a friend of mine many years ago. One of their members had been disfellowshipped due to a charge of adultery. That particular First Day, he had returned to the fellowship, very repentant and asking the congregation for forgiveness.

The pastor had him come forward and each male member was to come forward and offer their hand in welcoming him back into the fold. There was a stern warning to all present, that this acceptance back was unconditional…anyone…anyone who chose to “backbite” and speak against this brother because of his past transgressions would similarly face disiplinary action from the congregation as the body of believers had welcomed him back…so had Christ.

It was very moving to watch each man offer this gentleman his hand…some of them pulled him to them and hugged him…some of them kissed him on the cheek…there wasn’t a dry eye in the church…it was very moving. The end of the service was a foot washing ceremony.

 

[khutcheson]

I visited a Mennonite congregation with a friend of mine many years ago. One of their members had been disfellowshipped due to a charge of adultery. That particular First Day, he had returned to the fellowship, very repentant and asking the congregation for forgiveness.

The pastor had him come forward and each male member was to come forward and offer their hand in welcoming him back into the fold. There was a stern warning to all present, that this acceptance back was unconditional…anyone…anyone who chose to “backbite” and speak against this brother because of his past transgressions would similarly face disiplinary action from the congregation as the body of believers had welcomed him back…so had Christ.

It was very moving to watch each man offer this gentleman his hand…some of them pulled him to them and hugged him…some of them kissed him on the cheek…there wasn’t a dry eye in the church…it was very moving. The end of the service was a foot washing ceremony.

That is a touching example of how we are supposed to treat each other.

 

[ralphinal]

It happens but it is a sad precident when you start kicking sinners out of a church. I guess that the last one turns off the lights and locks the doors.

The family needs support and prayers. To cut someone off from both the social and spiritual aspects of church may be to force them deeper into sin. This is not the same as an excommunication, which says that you may not participate UNTIL you repent. This is saying no matter if you repent, you are out.

 

[1ke]

They are evangelicals and his church friends are shunning him. He is remorseful and contrite.

Christians tend to shoot their wounded. It misses the entire point of the Gospel.

I don’t think it is a valid premise to go from one instance of someone is being “shunned” by a group of people to the gross generalization that Christians “shoot their wounded.”

I don’t think you can substantiate such a statement globally.

 

[Copperman]

If someone is repentant and willing to work at regaining the love and trust of his family and community, he should be given it. After all, Jesus came to save the lost not toss us aside if we mess up.

This is exactly the point.

 

[kalt]

Of course, we don’t have all the facts, only his word for it, and I understand what you’re saying. Still, there’s a difference between being cautious around someone who has lost the faith and love of his family and treating him like a pariah. I remember the downfall of Jim Bakker–how all the top Evangelicals turned on him. And Jimmy Swaggert was tossed out of his denomination for his transgressions. In the Catholic Church they’d have been counseled and sent on retreats or sabbaticals, not excluded from the Church. If someone is repentant and willing to work at regaining the love and trust of his family and community, he should be given it. After all, Jesus came to save the lost not toss us aside if we mess up.

I don’t agree with shunning or tossing someone out of the Church, but I wouldn’t become buddies w/ the cheater, either. If I didn’t know him well to start with, I would figure that I really didn’t know him well, and I wouldn’t try to know him better. If I knew him well, I would give him an earful, and then keep my distance–this isn’t someone I would choose to be friends with, until I knew exactly what his problem was and how sorry he truly is. His future behavior, which you can only know with time, will tell me how sincere his professed contrition is.

He’s saying he’s very sorry. He’s saying all the right things, apparently. But he said all the right things to his wife when he professed his wedding vows, too.

It’s obvious that we can’t trust what he says, so only his future actions will tell us the truth.

 

[Peter_J]

Copperman,

Just to clarify, when you said “Christians tend to shoot their wounded” did you actually mean to say “Evangelical Christians tend to shoot their wounded”? (As Della pointed out, you only gave an example involving Evangelical Protestants.) Just wondering.

 

[Copperman]

Copperman,

Just to clarify, when you said “Christians tend to shoot their wounded” did you actually mean to say “Evangelical Christians tend to shoot their wounded”? (As Della pointed out, you only gave an example involving Evangelical Protestants.) Just wondering.

Having spent considerable time in most of the general categories of American Christendom, my experience has been that there is a general “tendency” toward shooting wounded. This tendency, of course, varies across the spectrum. Evangelicals shoot more than liberal protestants with Catholics landing somewhere in the middle.

Oddly enough, it seems that the more stringent and dogmatic a church is, the quicker they are to pull the trigger.

The operative word here is “tend”. The case at hand involves a sincere well-meaning person I’ve known for decades who himself feels devastated by what he has done and the hurt he has caused. If he could cut off a leg to undo it he would. The response to him has been, IMO, pharisaical.

I’m pleased to stipulate that the observations I’ve made are mine alone and are subjective. Your mileage may vary. My experience in over half a century navigating Christendom is what it is and I “call 'em as I see 'em”. If one disagrees, fine.

He did not kill anyone and he is not radioactive. Christ never shunned people who were sincere in their repentance.

Perhaps many will make the case that Christ knew the heart and could be certain of their sincerity. In any case, he’s not contagious and no one will suffer adverse side effects by being civil to him.

 

[Della]

I don’t agree with shunning or tossing someone out of the Church, but I wouldn’t become buddies w/ the cheater, either. If I didn’t know him well to start with, I would figure that I really didn’t know him well, and I wouldn’t try to know him better. If I knew him well, I would give him an earful, and then keep my distance–this isn’t someone I would choose to be friends with, until I knew exactly what his problem was and how sorry he truly is. His future behavior, which you can only know with time, will tell me how sincere his professed contrition is.

He’s saying he’s very sorry. He’s saying all the right things, apparently. But he said all the right things to his wife when he professed his wedding vows, too.

It’s obvious that we can’t trust what he says, so only his future actions will tell us the truth.

This isn’t about trusting someone who has erred, it’s about giving him another chance. If someone stole money from the church’s collection plate, I wouldn’t put him in charge of the church’s treasury out of simply prudence, but to shun people because their sins have come home to roost isn’t what Christ intended.

He told us to forgive our brother who sins against us seven times seven, IOW, continually, be his fault great or small. People shunning those who have been exposed in their sin wouldn’t care to be treated the same way if they were also exposed for their failings. It’s simply a matter of putting the Golden Rule into practice. For, a virtue that is only talked about but not practiced is no virtue at all.

 

[kalt]

As I said, I don’t agree with shunning. Still I wouldn’t pal around with the guy.

You said you wouldn’t let the guy who already stole money take care or the collection plate. What could you trust him with? If he stole the money, would he also steal valuable church objects? Could he collect the mail with checks or credit cards in the envelopes? Would you allow the man who stole money from the collection plate be the Sunday morning babysitter? You might let him cut the grass, but could you trust him to take the cash to fill the gas can?

My opinion isn’t opposed to yours. Not shunning someone and allowing future behavior to prove the guy’s sincerity is
the second chance.

This isn’t about trusting someone who has erred, it’s about giving him another chance. If someone stole money from the church’s collection plate, I wouldn’t put him in charge of the church’s treasury out of simply prudence, but to shun people because their sins have come home to roost isn’t what Christ intended.

He told us to forgive our brother who sins against us seven times seven, IOW, continually, be his fault great or small. People shunning those who have been exposed in their sin wouldn’t care to be treated the same way if they were also exposed for their failings. It’s simply a matter of putting the Golden Rule into practice. For, a virtue that is only talked about but not practiced is no virtue at all.

 

[Della]

As I said, I don’t agree with shunning. Still I wouldn’t pal around with the guy.

You said you wouldn’t let the guy who already stole money take care or the collection plate. What could you trust him with? If he stole the money, would he also steal valuable church objects? Could he collect the mail with checks or credit cards in the envelopes? Would you allow the man who stole money from the collection plate be the Sunday morning babysitter? You might let him cut the grass, but could you trust him to take the cash to fill the gas can?

My opinion isn’t opposed to yours. Not shunning someone and allowing future behavior to prove the guy’s sincerity is
the second chance.

I wish we were in agreement here, but I don’t think we are. I hate to belabor the point, but I don’t think I’ve explained what I mean for you to say we are in agreement–not that you have to agree with me.

Prudence in matters that pertain to the safety of all and the reliability of a person who has been caught doing something wrong is one thing, but refusing to make him a friend until he “proves” himself is quite another. A true friend is a friend who sticks with you through thick and thin. (And I’m not talking about con artists who feign repentance in order to bilk people.)

Not making friends of someone based on their sinful actions that have been repented is shunning–it’s the very definition of the word. When a man’s family and church community will not forgive him although he is repentant, and no one will make him a friend based on that, how is the poor man to make any friends? He’d have to move far away in the hopes his “reputation” doesn’t follow him. What does that say about those who refuse to befriend him? That is the scenario we are discussing here.