Baby shower for an unwed mother

[rbell]

No the shower should not be held.

Now, my hypothetical situation:

Two women in your church come forward and admit they are homosexuals and are going to adopt a child. Is it OK for the church to have a baby shower?

Obivously my answer is no. The baby shower is a celebration for the mother and this situation should not be celebrated.

Your comparison is irrelevant. Homosexuality cannot be made right, save ending the relationship. There is a possibility of an unwed pregnancy being made right.

Besides...if confession is made, what of forgiveness? Why continue to hold the sin against them?

 

[matt wade]

Your comparison is irrelevant. Homosexuality cannot be made right, save ending the relationship. There is a possibility of an unwed pregnancy being made right.

Besides...if confession is made, what of forgiveness? Why continue to hold the sin against them?

What if the homosexuals confess their sin and stop participating in a homosexual relationship? If you are going to have a shower for the unwed mother, shouldn't also have one for the repentant homosexual with a child? Afterall, according to those that say the shower should be held, it's all about the child.

 

[corndogggy]

What if the homosexuals confess their sin and stop participating in a homosexual relationship? If you are going to have a shower for the unwed mother, shouldn't also have one for the repentant homosexual with a child? Afterall, according to those that say the shower should be held, it's all about the child.

What if aliens abducted and impregnated a girl, then told her that the child would be the next antichrist... would it be ok to giver her a shower? :BangHead:

 

[matt wade]

What if aliens abducted and impregnated a girl, then told her that the child would be the next antichrist... would it be ok to giver her a shower? :BangHead:

Productive method of debating...you get backed into a corner and don't want to answer so you just come up with some stupid off the wall statement.

Why don't you just answer the question? Should a homosexual couple that adopts a child be given a shower? It's a straightforward question...

 

[corndogggy]

Productive method of debating...you get backed into a corner and don't want to answer so you just come up with some stupid off the wall statement.

I was just pointing out how far fetched your last story was.

Why don't you just answer the question? Should a homosexual couple that adopts a child be given a shower? It's a straightforward question...

The crazy story I quoted went beyond this straightforward question and added the clause of the lady repenting, getting out of that relationship, then adopting. At that point she would just be a normal single lady trying to adopt, so if you're worried about being straightforward, why not just ask that? I see no reason why she should not be allowed a shower at that point. Of course, they probably wouldn't be the ones who actually need one, since if they can afford the massive adoption fees, they're not exactly hurting for cash.

As for a gay couple, first you have to consider whether or not an openly gay couple would even be allowed to attend church there and accepted unconditionally without harassment. If a church is wacky enough to allow that, then I'm sure a shower would seem normal to them, but you know good and well that this probably isn't the norm, and would rarely, if ever, get to that point.

Nevertheless, I don't think it would be appropriate because it's a concious choice to continue to live like that. In the same manner, I actually do agree that in some situations where an expecting hetero couple who chooses to live together but not get married it would not be appropriate. However, this is not the norm... most unmarried women who are about to have a child are not in a serious relationship with the father, and those that are usually aren't church-going enough for anybody to actually consider having a shower at the church. I'm not saying its better to not be in a relationship, but everybody knows that lust based relationships rarely work out, so at some point they've got to get a fresh start and do the best they can with the cards that they are dealt, but its kind of hard and counter productive when people are constantly holding it over their head well after the fact.

What some of you don't realize is that if these folks during this time could go back and change things, they would. Do you really think that most of them don't realize they made a mistake? Most are scared to death and are hurting. Doing things to continue to point this out to them really does nothing except turn them away from Christianity.

 

[StefanM]

The Bible says that children are a blessing, it does not say that children are a blessing IF the parents are married.

With a shower, I would be celebrating the impending birth of a child and supporting the mother's decision to let her baby live---not the sin of conceiving out of wedlock.

The Blood either covers ALL sins or NO sins... Why squabble over which is the worst sin?

Very well said.

 

[JohnDeereFan]

Should the church allow the use of its facilities for a baby shower of an unwed mother?

I would have to say no, lest we give the impression that we are condoning her sin.

We can still meet her needs and give her supplies for the baby without a shower.

((And, yes, I already know that Annsi or whatever her name is, is going to call me a Pharisee.))

 

[StefanM]

((And, yes, I already know that Annsi or whatever her name is, is going to call me a Pharisee.))

If the shoe fits...:laugh:

 

[annsni]

I would have to say no, lest we give the impression that we are condoning her sin.

We can still meet her needs and give her supplies for the baby without a shower.

I agree that we can give her supplies and help meet her needs without a shower.

But how is a shower condoning sin? Especially if she did what the girls in our church have done (we had 2 cases of unwed mothers) - get up in front of the church and confess her sins (of her own accord - it's not like a requirement or anything) and ask forgiveness. Both also asked the church to step in and help the mother through this time of pregnancy and motherhood by praying for her.

For that girl - who confessed and repented - do we still condemn her for her sin?

((And, yes, I already know that Annsi or whatever her name is, is going to call me a Pharisee.))

Wow - paranoid much? I've never called anyone a Pharisee every. Wrong? Absolutely - but a Pharisee? Never.

 

[rbell]

What if the homosexuals confess their sin and stop participating in a homosexual relationship? If you are going to have a shower for the unwed mother, shouldn't also have one for the repentant homosexual with a child? Afterall, according to those that say the shower should be held, it's all about the child.

Look, I gave an example of biblical forgiveness and restoration, and you don't like it. Not my problem if your repeated red herrings are just that...

 

[PeterM]

In the instance of the shower the church I pastor gave for an unwed mother... it was anything but a celebration. The atmosphere was heavy as every woman in the building was totally aware of the circumstances. I have preached funerals for saved folks and lost folks and that shower was more like the latter. It was however a wonderful opportunity to communicate (actively and passively) our love for the young woman and her unborn baby and our obvious disapproval for the circumstances that got her there.

 

[JohnDeereFan]

If the shoe fits...:laugh:

Sorry you feel that way. Welcome to my ignore list.

 

[StefanM]

Sorry you feel that way. Welcome to my ignore list.

I'm so distraught. :laugh:

 

[corndogggy]

For that girl - who confessed and repented - do we still condemn her for her sin?

That's the problem, it lingers too long. In most cases in the scope of the situation we're talking about, there's the initial sin then it stops. This person shouldn't be treated any different than someone else who got caught having sex out of wedlock. This isn't the case though. Since their luck was different and a baby was produced apparently they deserve extra special condemnation that lingers. Their sin wasn't greater than the other person whom which you have already forgotten about, they just happen to have more proof of the act. This is why I have a problem with some of you acting this way, as you have obviously not forgiven her. If you judge, it's supposed to be for current acts, not previous acts that have stopped and have since been forgiven.

 

[matt wade]

That's the problem, it lingers too long. In most cases in the scope of the situation we're talking about, there's the initial sin then it stops. This person shouldn't be treated any different than someone else who got caught having sex out of wedlock. This isn't the case though. Since their luck was different and a baby was produced apparently they deserve extra special condemnation that lingers. Their sin wasn't greater than the other person whom which you have already forgotten about, they just happen to have more proof of the act. This is why I have a problem with some of you acting this way, as you have obviously not forgiven her. If you judge, it's supposed to be for current acts, not previous acts that have stopped and have since been forgiven.

No..the sin of the person who you say "luck was different" (I say God decided for a child to be born) is not any greater or less than the other person. The difference is is that no one even thinks about holding a celebration for the person who doesn't have a child. The problem is with the celebration of the person's sin. We should not celebrate any sin.

 

[annsni]

No..the sin of the person who you say "luck was different" (I say God decided for a child to be born) is not any greater or less than the other person. The difference is is that no one even thinks about holding a celebration for the person who doesn't have a child. The problem is with the celebration of the person's sin. We should not celebrate any sin.

But are we celebrating fornication?

Or are we celebrating a new life?

 

[Thinkingstuff]

No..the sin of the person who you say "luck was different" (I say God decided for a child to be born) is not any greater or less than the other person. The difference is is that no one even thinks about holding a celebration for the person who doesn't have a child. The problem is with the celebration of the person's sin. We should not celebrate any sin.

In this case God has taken sin and made something wonderful out of it. It's not celebrating sin but celebrating the life that the Lord Most High created. If repentance is there then there should be no question of celebrating a new child that God has made wonderfully in his/her mother's womb. I place those who would not forgive and exclude a repentant woman in this circumstance into the same catagory as the Pharasees. Or the men who gathered the stones to cast at the woman caught in adultery (interestingly enough the man wasn't there either), or those who will not look out for widows and orphans, or those to whom the Lord said "get thee from me. I never Knew you" and further says "When I was hungry you gave me naught to eat, when I was in prison, you didn't visit me...for when you do not do this to the least of these my bretheren you haven't done it to me" (paraphrased). So there.

 

[rbell]

But are we celebrating fornication?

Or are we celebrating a new life?

dingdingding

We have a winner!

 

[corndogggy]

I say God decided for a child to be born

If you truly believe this, then why would you not want to celebrate it?

 

[JohnDeereFan]

If you truly believe this, then why would you not want to celebrate it?

Because not everything God decides to allow is good or worthy of celebration.

For instance, God, in His sovereignty, decided that 3,000 people should die on 9/11. Now, we can acknowledge God's sovereignty over that act and we can even praise Him for His sovereignty, even if we do not understand His purposes, but the deaths of 3,000 people is not something that we celebrate.