quote:

ORIGINAL: DaveW

Depending on the jurisdiction, if they have been living together and presenting themselves as husband and wife for a number of years, they are married per common law. It would appear (at least from your brief description) that they have made some kind of covenant agreement together.

But what concerns me is the reason you state for them not getting the licence to give the paper trail: taxes and credit report numbers. That constitutes fraud in every jurisdiction.

Matt 18 lays out the proceedure:

Mat 18:15 "If your brother sins, go and show him his fault in private; if he listens to you, you have won your brother.
Mat 18:16 "But if he does not listen to you, take one or two more with you, so that BY THE MOUTH OF TWO OR THREE WITNESSES EVERY FACT MAY BE CONFIRMED.
Mat 18:17 "If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.

quote:

ORIGINAL: bolt.

You do need to speak to any Christian friend who is living in ongoing unrepentant sin.

First, you would tell her that you understand, based on what your husband said came from <the man> that she is not married to the man she is living with. Ask her if this is true, or if there has been some misunderstanding.

Second, you would tell her that sharing a household is not a sin, but fornication is. Ask her if she is in a relationship with <the man> that includes fornication. If she says no, ask her how long ago her and <the man> stopped fornicating, and what they do to avoid temptation. If she says, 'Yes, but...' listen sympathetically to all the 'buts'. Say, and show that you understand what she is saying and you really feel for her. If she says it's not really fornication becasue they have made personal promises etc, listen sympathetically and proceed.

Third, ask her what she has found to be the effects of her ongoing choice to engage in fornication. Ask her if she has moments of regret, shame or guilt. Respond sympathetcally to these difficult feelings.

Fouth, tell her that now that you understand everything, you need to do some straight talking with her. Tell her (if applicable) that marriage is something that God has given to the government to officiate, and that He does not consider any personal promises to be relevant when a couple avoids the legal statue of marriage. This means that you consider her relationship fornication, even if she has mixed feelings about it.

Fifth, remind her that getting married and being married often has a cost. Many 'romantic' stories are about the cost to people of marrying the one they love. You understand that it would be a big sacrifice to take on someone else's tax debt, but that if she wants to be married, that seems to be the real cost in her case. There are only two options for a Christ follower: 1. get married no matter what financial impact it has, or 2. stop fornicating and take steps to avoid temptation. You will support her whatever she chooses, and you admire her willingness to choose -- becasue both choices are hard. Tell her that if she and <the man> choose, you would fully support a non-public marriage, where people would not have to be aware that they were ever in the wrong. Remind her that a person's integrety and righteousness have no cost, they are pricesless, bought with the blood of Jesus: and that she should not be 'selling' hers for so-many-thousand dollars.

Sixth, if she refuses to consider the two choices above, you must be clear and tell her that you are willing to talk to her about it again, or to let her think for a month or so, but if she makes not changes to her lifstyle of fornication, you have plans to make your congregation of believers is aware of their non-married status and her opinion regarding it.

quote:

Bottom line is that they are living together and I'm not concerned whether or not they are fornicating (they almost have to be if they are living together) but I am concerned about the witness of their testimony.

This person has an obligation to tell the pastor of the church that some lay leaders are living in sin and they need to step down until they get this right. I'm all about being a friend and addressing this in private and what not but to sugar coat it any other way is just wrong.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SteelCurtain

So, you are saying it is ok for them to live together and not be married just because it is "common law"?? Or are you simply pointing out the law and what it states. They should NOT be ministering if they are simply living together.

quote:

ORIGINAL: bolt.

quote:

Bottom line is that they are living together and I'm not concerned whether or not they are fornicating (they almost have to be if they are living together) but I am concerned about the witness of their testimony.

This person has an obligation to tell the pastor of the church that some lay leaders are living in sin and they need to step down until they get this right. I'm all about being a friend and addressing this in private and what not but to sugar coat it any other way is just wrong.

I don't see any sugar coating going on in step 5.

Living together without sexual contact may be a poor witness, but it is not a sin, and it ought to be dealt with differently. There is a lot more flexibility in dealing with poor witness than there is in dealing with outright sin. There are specific and clear commands as to what to do if a person is in outright sin.

Right now, the OP has no idea whether or not these leaders are 'living in sin'. She needs to address herself to the situation first, and discern the presence or absence of sin.

The OP has no obligation to 'tell the pastor' -- she has an obligation to bring it before the gathered community of believers, if it comes to that point. She may or may not do that through a pastor or with the help of one.

If the people involved need to step down, it's them that need to be told that, directly, by the person who is aware of the sin (though a pastor might have some role in it, one is not required).

Addressing this in private is not about 'being a friend' it's about being Church and following the directives of Jesus. If the sin is concluded in a reasonable time, there is no Biblical basis for bringing others into the conversation. Now, perhaps a month is too long. That's a critique I'd consider... but not the rest of it.

quote:

If I found out our young adult lay leaders were NOT married, yet living together then I would address that immediately and in private.

quote:

I would kindly ask them to tell the pastor what they are doing and then I would state that I would follow up with the pastor in a week to see if they did it.

quote:

Why? because I care for this couple.

quote:

They have all the chances in the world to either stop living together, get married, or break up, it's their choice.

quote:

But to allow them to continue in leadership doesn't do them or those around them any good.

quote:

I agree that the whole church does NOT need to know that they were living together. It can be handled quietly by the pastor and the board if necessary.

quote:

It is setting a bad example for others to follow. Other people within the church will begin to believe that it is okay to live together and NOT be married.

quote:

And please, don't tell me that temptation does NOT abound in that home. Fornication is around every corner in that home!! ...But, I am sooo sorry that you feel this way about living together. I just don't understand how a fellow Christian can believe that it is acceptable for those who are teaching God's Word to live together. Educate me.

quote:

The only acceptable "marriage" to Christians is if a government sanctions it?

quote:

ORIGINAL: bolt.

quote:

If I found out our young adult lay leaders were NOT married, yet living together then I would address that immediately and in private.

Good. That's the Biblical thing to do.

Thank you.

quote:

I would kindly ask them to tell the pastor what they are doing and then I would state that I would follow up with the pastor in a week to see if they did it.

Why would you place any requirement on them other than stopping the sin? I don't see a Biblical precedent for that. I see in the Bible that if a sinner repents at this stage, nothing goes any further.

Stopping the sin means that they have stopped fornicating and to do that is simply to move out (however, that only lessens the temptation and doesn't actually stop the sin). A sinner repents, and they are forgiven. I did the same thing but there are consequences. This couple has been living in deceit and being in ministry. They need to step down, go through some counseling and then they can then revisit the issue with the pastor at his own discretion.

quote:

Why? because I care for this couple.

Yes, it is very loving to admonish them to quit sinning. But why do you not think your loving act is enough?

Not sure I follow.

quote:

They have all the chances in the world to either stop living together, get married, or break up, it's their choice.

I can't imagine why you would go to the trouble of lovingly admonishing them if you thought your words would have no effect. And if you think your words would have no effect, why would you consider the pastor's follow-up to be any more effective?

My words may or may not have any affect on them, it's their choice. But, if a lay leader was choosing to live this way then don't you think the pastor should know about it??

quote:

But to allow them to continue in leadership doesn't do them or those around them any good.

Of course it doesn't, but it can take some time to come 'round to making a hard choice, and to arranging a wedding if necessary. Things do not need to be fixed all in an instant. Perhaps a month is too much. Maybe 2 weeks?

So, we say, "okay, you have been living together and that is not okay to us, so you have 2 weeks to make a decision; either get married or move out?" It still doesn't deal with the principle of the situation in that "Godly" Christian people are living together and possibly fornicating and yet are teaching God's word. There should be a consequence to that by removal from leadership for a season. I, personally, would want to see how their marriage is doing (if they go that route) before placing them back in leadership.

quote:

I agree that the whole church does NOT need to know that they were living together. It can be handled quietly by the pastor and the board if necessary.

Now that's just flagrantly unbiblical. If they choose an upright life from now on, nobody needs to know. Neither a pastor nor a 'board' has the right or the calling to be adding unbiblical steps to a perfect plan designed by Jesus. however, if the couple choose continued fornication, it absolutely can not be 'handled quitely'. The Bible says bring it before the Church. (If the couple chooses bad witness even without sin, a leader might choose to involve themself with the situation, as reputation and reproach are key issues for leadership.)

No, it's not unbilical. Go to the person first, if they don't listen then take another, if they don't listen after that then go before the church. That is biblical. You don't seem to be concerned about holding your leaders to higher standard.

quote:

It is setting a bad example for others to follow. Other people within the church will begin to believe that it is okay to live together and NOT be married.

In this situation the sin is undisclosed. In other situations, the choice to step back would be wise. However, it is okay for many people to live together and not be married. It is okay to live with one's natural brothers and sisters. It is okay to live with one's aunts and uncles. It is okay to have roommates of the same gender. It is okay to live in a rooming house that rents distinct spaces to either gender. It is okay to live with a nice married couple, and it is okay to live with the single and elderly. It is okay to live with cousins and foster-siblings. In fact there are only a very few limited cases where it is not okay to 'live together' -- when you are fornicating, being tempted to fornicate, or when your choice compromises your witness in your culture. (All of which apply in this case, very likely).

It is still setting a bad witness because are you telling me that there is NO ONE else who knows that they are living together and not married?? C'mon. And are you seriously comparing living with relatives the same as living together with someone of the opposite sex???? I don't see your logic here.

quote:

And please, don't tell me that temptation does NOT abound in that home. Fornication is around every corner in that home!! ...But, I am sooo sorry that you feel this way about living together. I just don't understand how a fellow Christian can believe that it is acceptable for those who are teaching God's Word to live together. Educate me.

I don't think I being clear:

Fornication = clearly defined Biblical sin, with a process to follow. Process does not expressly involve a pastor, and does involve telling the whole Church, if they choose not to repent.

Wrong! If you are a lay leader in that church then you are accountable to your pastor. He is the spiritual leader of that church.

Temptation = something with a Biblical process to follow... to "flee" interpreted to mean taking concrete steps to avoid exposure to it. I agree that it would be nearly impossible to do any kind of good job of limiting temptation while sharing a home with someone whom you have already slept with, but in this place, I advise, not make demands. In this situation, I doubt they would choose lifelong co-habitiating celebacy even if they could. They seem marriage minded. If they wanted ongoing celebacy, I would provide personal accountability as to whether their precautions were effective (by asking pointed questions) and I might eventually have to confront them with the charge of refusing to do all it takes to flee their temptation.

Very simple. Move out and wait to get married, or move out and break up. IF they are truly followers of Christ then they would make one of those choices. Moving out being the FIRST option.

Poor Witness = a stupid and unfaithful thing to do, when one is aware of it. Should be avoided when possible, and should be addressed with wisdom. Unacceptable in leaders. To remain leaders and be above reproach in the congregation, I think they would have to go to extreme lengths, like stand up every Sunday and say, "I have not slept with my roommate this week." Maybe dating and engaged couples should have to do that too (in order to be leaders, above reproach).

quote:

ORIGINAL: bolt.

quote:

The only acceptable "marriage" to Christians is if a government sanctions it?

Yes, unless government sanction is impossible to obtain within reasonable effort, or unless the government is manifestly unjust, denying human rights etc.

quote:

ORIGINAL: bolt.

Straightforward accountability is confronting people who are in sin, leading/calling them out of it, and helping them through continuing relationship. You can involve a pastor or board member as your one or two others, if it comes to that... but there is no Biblical obligation to do so within the sin confrontation process. All Christians are accountable to one another, not just to pastors. It would be unbiblical to not tell the Church at-large if the couple continued in unrepentant sin. It would also be unbiblical to involve a pastor or board members in the confrontation process if the situation was resolved and repentance accomplished before the need of 'two or three people'. Afterwards, there are lots of options for dealing with post-sin in congreagitonal leaders. I have no objection at that point.

I agree with your first sentence. A pastor should be involved because He/She is the spiritual leader of that church. I don't see how you can get around that. Just because the word "pastor" is not mentioned in the way that some on this board interpret it does not mean that the office does not exist. If I'm at work and a co-worker breaks a policy at work that could be harmful to himself or others then I'm obligate to involve my supervisor at some point. Where is it unbiblical to involve a pastor in this process? Show me.

If a couple of people were formerly fornicating, but now are not, I fail to see what 'higher standard' ought to apply.

They were living in sin during their time of ministry and therefore ANY leader should be held accountable for that and there are consequences to that.

The reason this couple "need" to keep living together if they can do it without sin, temptation and bad witness is because they have a four year old daughter who needs her parents.

Very, very, very poor excuse for them to continue to live in "sin". What example does that set for their 4 year old when he/she grows up and finds out that mommy and daddy stayed and slept together for the sake of her. You are asking for major issues in that child's life later on down the road. I see it all the time in my line of work. There is no "need" for them to continue living together other than a desire to not stop living together.

They can keep living together without sin, temptation and bad witness by choosing marriage. If they can be encouraged to do so in short order, there is no further sin, and my PRIMARY OBJECTIVE has been accomplished. After that, I would feel free to move on to the other areas of the situation. There is also a slight chance that they can choose, perhaps for a short term, to continue sharing a home without sexual contact. It's theologically possible, and on that basis I wouldn't stand in the way of their trying it. I only stand in the way of people sinning, not in the way of them being stupid. I also wouldn't be surprised if it didn't work, and I would be prepared to confront that if it should arise.

Agree with your first sentence. In the meantime, they DON'T live together until they get married. The Bible says to FLEE from temptation NOT to it. You cannot tell me that the temptation to have sexual contact is not there.

You are seeing the situation holistically: what's going to work given all the factors and probabilities.

I am seeing theologically: stop the sin by Biblical confrontation of the sin alone... then deal with the salad. I'm not suggesting not dealing with the 'salad' at all, I just have an order of importance to the tasks.

I'm seeing it theologically as well, just not how you are seeing. Your order is different than mine.

It is life and death issue that this couple stop fornicating and repent of it, by any means and in any setting. In the pursuit of that lifesaving agenda, I do not become distracted by peripheral issues unless they impact my strategy to end the sin. It's not that I don't care if they set a bad example, and I think a lot of what you are suggesting may be wise AFTER the completion of the primary task -- repentance of the sin itself (or the clarity that repentance is not forthcoming). I can see the wisdom of involving the pastor and re-thinking continuing leadership, rebuilding of trust and all sorts of things, but there's not much point in doing any of them until the sin is abandoned (or not).

Agreed, abandon the sin and then address the rest of the issues.

As far as the variety of people (relatives or not) who are free to live together, I simply wanted to make sure we had a clear definition of what exactly makes two people incapable of living together... because it's a very specific problem between persons in a particular relationship... a problem that has to do with their orientation towards one another, and really no other factor.

quote:

Where is it unbiblical to involve a pastor in this process? Show me.

quote:

ANY leader should be held accountable for that and there are consequences to that.

quote:

Very, very, very poor excuse for them to continue to live in "sin".

quote:

The Bible says to FLEE from temptation NOT to it. You cannot tell me that the temptation to have sexual contact is not there.

quote:

They have to make that choice themselves but until they do, I personally would remove them from leadership

quote:

ORIGINAL: bolt.

quote:

Where is it unbiblical to involve a pastor in this process? Show me.

It's unbiblical becasue in the Bible, where the process is discribed, the role of a pastor is neither mentioned nor alluded to. A pastor could easily be one of the 'one or two others' though.

Some of you get stuck on the word "pastor" not being mentioned in Scripture but to say it's unbiblical is a real stretch. Again, we must come from different church/leadership structures and that debate is for another time.

quote:

ANY leader should be held accountable for that and there are consequences to that.

Of course any body and any structure of leadership is free to enact Biblical consiquences for breaches like this... if/when the repentance process is finished. The repentance process does not include any of these supplimental activities.

quote:

Very, very, very poor excuse for them to continue to live in "sin".

Did you not clearly read that I typed: "The reason this couple "need" to keep living together if they can do it without sin, temptation and bad witness is..." I believe exactly as you do about the situation of continuing in sin. I was not addressing that situation. In fact I clearly gave two precise examples of circumstances that involved no sin (granted that only one of them is likely to be successful, but the other is still an attemptable option).

Yes, I read what you said and that's the way it came across to me.

quote:

The Bible says to FLEE from temptation NOT to it. You cannot tell me that the temptation to have sexual contact is not there.

It's my job to help my brothers and sisters flee from sin. If I think they might be idiots for thinking they will not be tempted in the same home, I will say so -- as advice. I will, in all practical terms, tend to set this issue aside until after I have confirmed with them their repentance from the sin itself. Then I will tell them that while it may be technically possible to avoid temptation in their setting, that it would be far wiser to separate if they intend to try to stick to it for more than a week or so. If they insist that they can manage, I will help them formulate strategies, and form an accountability structure. "Flee" does not mean that one must always physically leave the presence of the temptation (that's why this is advice not a 'must' that I will stand on), although in the case of an existing sexual relationship, tangible "fleeing" is probably best. I'm only trying to distingush between 'best' and 'manditory' -- quitting the sin is manditory. Changing the housing support work, which might not even be nessiary, depending on the timings.

Yes, all any of us can do is offer advice and offer Scripture to back it up. I will have to disagree with you that fleeing doesn't always mean to physically leave. Joseph "fled" Potiphar's wife when she attempted to seduce him. This man and woman would be wise to do the same.

quote:

They have to make that choice themselves but until they do, I personally would remove them from leadership

If they showed they needed more than a reasonable amount of time to make such a life change, I think your suggestion would be for the best. However, if everyone is of good intent, there should be some space and time for a smooth transition if possible, so as to provide stability in the home and congregation. Depending on the depth and intensity of their leadership role, and on their personal responsiveness, I would not say that a haitus from ministry is manditory in every case. (Some yes, some no.)

I see your point but am hesitant to not remove them from leadership for a time, if only because they were knowingly living together and showing a bad witness, even if they had "good intentions".

quote:

ORIGINAL: bolt.

I'm not stuck on the word "pastor". I'm stuck on there only being two people involved in the first step. Their names are "you" and "your brother". Neither of these people is a pastor. (Unless the pastor is the brother who is in sin, or unless you are the pastor, of course!)

Therefore it is unbiblical to involve a pastor at that time in that process. The process might conclude with repentance at that point, in which case one might proceed with wise consiquences, which might involve a pastor. If it does not conclude with repentance at that point, the "you" is to bring in one or two others, which might or might not include a pastor or other leader. The Bible does not require that one of them be so, but it might make sense, particularly if "your brother" is in a leadership position under the supervision of a leader or pastor.

How did my clear assertion that they must live without sin come across to you as a "Very, very, very poor excuse for them to continue to live in 'sin'"? Do you not believe that I am typing what I really mean? I assure you I am trying very hard to type exactly what I really mean.

I think we are getting each other's points better now, though.