Pastor approves living together?

[imwildfire]

The good news is there are not a lot of replies that this behavior is acceptable for a Christian. I'm finding comfort in that.

I do wonder how there can be any kind of "gray" answer. My first question to any "gray" answer is: Are we believing in the same Christ? Without a lot of study, it's not hard to find where Jesus refers to an adulterous and wicked, evil or sinful generation. (Matt. 12:9,Matt16:4,Mark 8:38) There's more, but I don't need more to show me what Jesus thinks about adultery. And then we read in 1 Cor 6:9 who will not inherit the Kingdom of God.

If adultery is going to be given a pass by a Pastor due to convenience or any other excuse, how is sin defined? Where is the line drawn and by what measure if not the written word of God? Why be concerned with anything in the Bible? I read we are to be Christ like which means obedience to God's word. All of it, not just when it's convenient. So by what standards would a pastor be giving advice about sin? He can't control another person's behavior, but isn't he responsible for giving the correct answer?

No one needs to answer all that. Needless to say, we won't be recommending anyone attend that church unless or until we hear something different.

I'll go back into my little hidey hole now.

 

[agedman]

Perhaps one, who doesn't jump to condemnation as the first response, is someone who is supporting something not "gray" but righteous.

For example, the adulterous woman who came to collect water. There was some communication about doctrinal matters before Christ exposed that He new of her sinful condition.

Look at how this took place:
They spoke of racism.

They spoke of worship.
They spoke of earthy versus eternal.
And after all the assumed rejection was unrealized by the woman, it was THEN that Christ came out with the statement of her manner of living and choices. Even then He did not "condemn" her, but lead her to understanding.​

Imo, very often it is far to easy for criticism and righteous indignation to overshadow and drive a wedge more deeply into a situation, when allowing time for the Holy Spirit to use Scriptures to convince, convict, and bring repentance makes for a far more righteous outcome.

For a wise pastor to allow such to take place is NOT a matter of him dwelling in the "gray" (unless he happens to be a fine Southern gentleman. )

 

[agedman]

I neglected to add that there is a huge difference in "defining sin" and "condemning sin."

It is the work of God to do both. The believer is to be a discern-er, not a definer, to be one who points to redemption, not condemnation.

The pastor should remember not to say, "It is wrong..." but rather to say, "The Scriptures state that ____ is wrong."

The Holy Spirit can use the Scriptures to reach the heart that a pastor's words could never scratch the surface.

 

[mcdirector]

We don't know for sure that the Pastor gave his approval. The information came through the mother through the daughter who said her pastor said . . . People have a way of hearing what they want to hear.

However, it wouldn't surprise me either.

 

[agedman]

We don't know for sure that the Pastor gave his approval. The information came through the mother through the daughter who said her pastor said . . . People have a way of hearing what they want to hear.

However, it wouldn't surprise me either.

There is much that goes on behind the closed doors of both a home and a pastor's office that family and friends can get both right and wrong.

It is so very easy to condemn and take sides.

The typical pastor is more often slain by lie than uplifted by truth.

The couple are and have been (apparently for some time) living a life of sinfulness and displaying character to the children that is inappropriate. The imprint upon the children is apparently already a part of their own view of what is acceptable in a home.

That is why I positioned my posts as I did.

Something has to change in the lives and living of the home and the children's experiential thinking.

Such change (imo) needs to be rooted upon the authority of the Scriptures and conviction of the Holy Spirit.

Condemnation heaped by a pastor upon the situation isn't (imo) going to be effective, because no doubt that condemnation is already a part of the history (from others). So, the only avenue for change (imo) must be the work of the Holy Spirit using Scriptures.

Otherwise, I would have, from the first post contributed, stated very clearly that living as husband and wife outside of the established societal rules of marriage was not only wrong, but should not be tolerated. That is for sure and for certain.

One part of the issue that has not been part of the thread is that of "Common Law Marriage." Could it be possible (at least in my day) that a couple living together were bound by common law after a certain period of time? So, could the couple actually be married and not realize it depending on the statutes of the state?

 

[chelle318]

What a really neat testimony!

This is an example of what I trust the pastor is actually desiring, allowing the work of the Scriptures and the Holy Spirit to convict and convince unto righteousness.

Continue to grow in wisdom and knowledge of the Scriptures and allow God to work moment by moment on your life and living.

Thank you again that you shared.

No problem. It is definitely not something I am proud of, but if it can help someone, I am more than happy to share it.

 

[beameup]

How long did "engaged" couples "live together" (under the same roof) prior to "marriage" in Biblical times?
PS: is there "sound reasoning" behind this "one year rule"?

 

[agedman]

How long did "engaged" couples "live together" (under the same roof) prior to "marriage" in Biblical times?
PS: is there "sound reasoning" behind this "one year rule"?

Not certain what "one year rule" has to do with marriage unless you consider marriage a "contract relationship."

I don't have that view, and I don't see the Scriptures supporting such.

The typical marriage involves a statement of vows made to God about what one party will determinedly do and be. As such there is no if / then statements, and therefore no contract.

It is sad and wrong that the word "contract" is made in reference to marriage.

 

[beameup]

Not certain what "one year rule" has to do with marriage unless you consider marriage a "contract relationship."

I don't have that view, and I don't see the Scriptures supporting such.

The typical marriage involves a statement of vows made to God about what one party will determinedly do and be. As such there is no if / then statements, and therefore no contract.

It is sad and wrong that the word "contract" is made in reference to marriage.

The pattern established for the Hebrews gives the future husband and wife one year "living together" in order to really get to know each other.
Mary and Joseph were "espoused" and were living together (under the same roof) in his father's house. They were not "sneaking around" (as is the pattern today), and having pre-marital sex.

 

[HankD]

I know we are not supposed to judge.
However, we are also told that judgment is up to God.

Best thing to do then is to quote the scripture - no judging just quoting:

Hebrews 13:4 Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.


HankD

 

[Internet Theologian]

The pattern established for the Hebrews gives the future husband and wife one year "living together" in order to really get to know each other.
Mary and Joseph were "espoused" and were living together (under the same roof) in his father's house. They were not "sneaking around" (as is the pattern today), and having pre-marital sex.

Where's the Scriptural evidence on this?

 

[agedman]

Where's the Scriptural evidence on this?

I was wondering the same thing?

Where does the Scripture even hint at this arrangement?

 

[Judith]

Please don't flame me for asking this. I know how wrong this is, but apparently not all pastors do?

This weekend I was speaking with a friend and she was telling me her daughter was going to live with her boyfriend after the lease on his house is up. You could have knocked we over with a feather. I know she professes to be born again and attends a local Baptist Church. I asked my friend if her daughter is still attending church and said "yes". So I boldly asked how could her daughter consider this since it is so clear in the Bible that this is sin. Her answer was that her daughter asked her pastor and he said it was OK because that's how it is in society today. My answer to that was "She needs a new pastor".

Are there really pastors telling anyone that living together in lieu of marriage is OK? I have NEVER run into any pastor that would put his stamp of approval on this arrangement, but then we don't get around much. Shocked doesn't really explain my thoughts.

More importantly, what should we say when told something like this? Other than pointing out scripture, what should we do?

As someone else has said Just because a mouse is in the cookie jar it does not make them a mouse. That applies to that pastor as well as that girl.
Just because someone claims to be a Christian it does not make them one. Believe what is written. No practicing adulterer has any place in heaven.

 

[StFrancis]

That is only possible if they have been legally married. I don't think that it is right time for her to move and stay with her boyfriend because of her current position. Not all pastors can suggest that and it seems he does not follow what the bible says and he is unable to support his decision.

 

[Sue-Ellen]

We don't know for sure that the Pastor gave his approval. The information came through the mother through the daughter who said her pastor said . . . People have a way of hearing what they want to hear.

However, it wouldn't surprise me either.

This is exactly what I was thinking. Nobody was there to hear the conversation between the daughter and the pastor. We don't know the full context of the conversation or what his exact words were or what the discussion actually was. \

He may have given his approval but I would definitely like to hear more about what was said when the discussion occurred.

 

[revmwc]

So back to a question I asked in a post what constitutes a marriage?

Exodus 21:10 if he take him another wife; her food, her raimen, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish. The original states it like this "If another-woman he is taking for him meat of her covering of her and habitation of her not he shall diminish."

Not a marriage but taking another woman the marriage bond the commitment to her will not diminish.

Psalms 78:63 "The fire consumed their young men; and their maidens were not given in marriage, is stated like this in the interlinear, "choice young men of him she devoured fire and virgins of him not they were praised" Notice the english says not given in marriage yet the straight hebrew to english says they were not praised.

The Greek word GAMOS translated wedding or marriage in the N.T. is properly translated, a wedding celebration, according to strongs, so that it is a feast celebrating the union of two people. But again what constitutes a couple being married?
We have Genesis 2:24, "Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh." How do they become one flesh here, does this say there is to be a ceremony or a wedding?

In Genesis 24 the dowry was paid for Rebekah and she went with the servant to Isaac. we see verse 67 "And Isaac brought her into his mother Sarah's tent, and took Rebekah, and she became his wife; and he loved her: and Isaac was comforted after his mother's death." She became his wife when? When the dowry was met or when he took her? But there was no ceremony was there?

Jacob served Laban seven years for Rachel but instead Leah went in and laid with him, were they married? He served and worked seven years for Rachel but Leah was became his wife by the act or was the relationship of Jacob and Leah adultery? No marriage took place just him serving for Rachel, then seven more years he served for Rachel.

So what constitutes a wedding or being married?

Mark 10:
6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.

7 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife;

8 And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh.

9 What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

10 And in the house his disciples asked him again of the same matter.

It is the leaving and cleaving.

 

[djordjem87]

This is why i joined the forum. I wanted to see these kind of stories because i am not familiar with customs in this church. I believe these traditions and rigid rules are less and less attractive to young people. Even pastors are approving and it is probably going to be more free each year ahead of us. In Orthodox Church in Serbia it is the same rule but no body is making any drama about it. I think we lost God in the middle of all these wars and bad things that happened here. Or maybe he left us.

 

[HankD]

In Genesis 24 the dowry was paid for Rebekah and she went with the servant to Isaac. we see verse 67 "And Isaac brought her into his mother Sarah's tent, and took Rebekah, and she became his wife; and he loved her: and Isaac was comforted after his mother's death." She became his wife when? When the dowry was met or when he took her? But there was no ceremony was there?

Jacob served Laban seven years for Rachel but instead Leah went in and laid with him, were they married? He served and worked seven years for Rachel but Leah was became his wife by the act or was the relationship of Jacob and Leah adultery? No marriage took place just him serving for Rachel, then seven more years he served for Rachel.

We don't know for sure that there was no ceremony. Nonetheless in each case above there was an agreement and/or a token of betrothal before witnesses. The Semitic history of a marriage covenant was at a minimum a consensual covenant agreement between the family patriarchs before witnesses with or without a ceremony. The conjugal act the consummation.

So it remains similarly today a consensual covenant (wedding license) agreement between a man and a woman before witnesses.

HankD

 

[revmwc]

We don't know for sure that there was no ceremony. Nonetheless in each case above there was an agreement and/or a token of betrothal before witnesses. The Semitic history of a marriage covenant was at a minimum a consensual covenant agreement between the family patriarchs before witnesses with or without a ceremony. The conjugal act the consummation.

So it remains similarly today a consensual covenant (wedding license) agreement between a man and a woman before witnesses.

HankD

But many states have common laws in place. Which once certain requirements are met then a divorce must occur to seperate. Thus common law is a legal form of marriage with no license issued. No ceremony performed but recognized by the state. So what makes a marriage in God's eyes?

 

[HankD]

But many states have common laws in place. Which once certain requirements are met then a divorce must occur to seperate. Thus common law is a legal form of marriage with no license issued. No ceremony performed but recognized by the state. So what makes a marriage in God's eyes?

IMO - the conjugal act between 2 consenting adult virgins, one male, one female.

There are other considerations. widows, widowers having had a true marriage, etc.

And IMO God "overlooks" the virginal requirement which was under the law of Moses.
Especially of those saved after a time of promiscuity (assuming no previous marriage.

HankD