When a Man (used to be a woman) Comes to Church

[Cow Poke]

You could have left out the above and simply addressed the question in my first reply to this thread "What was the precise nature of the role of counsellor at this camp?"

I'll answer any post as I see fit, and I don't need instruction from the likes of you.

You did NOT just "ask that question".

[Cow Poke]

You could have left out the above and simply addressed the question in my first reply to this thread "What was the precise nature of the role of counsellor at this camp?"

Here is what you wrote...

An interesting case but the reaction seems rather overblown. Is it imperative that a counsellor be of the same biological sex? What was the precise nature of the role of counsellor at this camp?

It is hardly unknown for other counsellors as well as therapists. analysts etc. to work with patients of both sexes.

It is quite dishonest of you to imply that you only asked that question and I should have limited my response to answering it.

I'm giving you fair opportunity to prove that you can actually be in a civil discussion without resorting to your usual behavior.

And now this is fair warning - if you can't just be civil - get out.

[Cow Poke]

It was a surprise that they came to the class....most newcomers start attendance with the morning service. Now we did have a few of those, and afaik they all respected the order of service....no display of affection etc.

The OP's situation is very unique for now...but how frequently will it happen in the future? How many repentant people will face this question? Tattoos are discouraged in our church because of the strong link to gang culture, but we don't make our people disappear the tattoos they walk in with. Does CP's situation compare to this?

My son-in-law was a tattoo artist before he married my wayward daughter. They have both become very active in our Church, but he still has his arms covered in naked ladies and skulls and evil looking stuff. He wears long sleeved shirts to church, but it's hard to miss the tats.

I think everybody sees the change in him, and understands you just don't wash off tats.

[Thoughtful Monk]

The only area of possible disagreement is the bolded section. That was in response to

There is a difference between continuing in sin and flaunting your lifestyle

With that, I agree with seer about the lesbian couple who had attended his church. I would welcome someone even if they continued living in a homosexual lifestyle just as long as they didn't flaunt it or advocate for it. Much the same with the hard core alcoholic. I wouldn't ban them from the church if they continued drinking, but if they constantly held big parties, always trying to get others to "drink up" passed out during service because they're still drunk, and the like, then that would be a problem. Same with a gay person who performs as a crossdresser or participates in a gay rights parade.

But even there I'm iffy, especially if they really are seeking God. If that is truly the case I don't want to be a stumbling block.

And again, for pastors/ministers/priests, it is a whole 'nuther ball game. Likewise deacons and Sunday school teachers. Leadership positions need to be filled by folks who can also lead by example and not of the do as I say not as I do variety. Although, a reformed addict or alcoholic etc. is different.

I agree. If somebody is genuinely seeking God (and I think we don't always recognize when that is happening), aggressively confronting their sin could easily be counterproductive (becoming a stumbling block). Sure, we don't want their sin to disrupt the church or cause a weaker (as described in 1 Corinthians 10:23-33) member to stumble. On the other hand, we don't want to turn away a lost sheep that could be saved.

All in all, these are tough situations to work correctly.

[Cow Poke]

What happened to the person who sent the email blast?

That's actually a good question, because he was wrong, too. If you have a problem with somebody, according to Matthew 18:15-17, you go to that person one-on-one first, between you and them alone.

He was counseled, and agrees he should not have done that, because, if nothing else, it threw the pastor into a situation for which he was not the least bit prepared.

If he couldn't go to the person one-on-one (and I could understand his hesitancy) he should have gone to the pastor to ask for advice. "Here's something that greatly concerns me, and I need to know how to deal with it".

[Cow Poke]

It is an interesting question: on the face of it, the person concerned stepped outside the boundaries of fair dealing, unless an approach had first been made to church leadership without result.

Yes, if not "one-on-one" to the individual, then to the pastor for counsel and advice. This whole thing could have been handled more discreetly in the beginning while looking for a more permanent solution.

[Cow Poke]

I agree. If somebody is genuinely seeking God (and I think we don't always recognize when that is happening), aggressively confronting their sin could easily be counterproductive (becoming a stumbling block). Sure, we don't want their sin to disrupt the church or cause a weaker (as described in 1 Corinthians 10:23-33) member to stumble. On the other hand, we don't want to turn away a lost sheep that could be saved.

All in all, these are tough situations to work correctly.

And they require wisdom and experience on behalf of the pastor and staff, and an appeal to the spiritual not to the flesh.

[Cow Poke]

...Tattoos are discouraged in our church because of the strong link to gang culture...

Actually, I hadn't thought before you said that about how much this is like my own son-in-law, and his rather worldly tatoos.

I think our Church has accepted him and can overlook the tats because they've seen such a marvelous change in his life.

He went from doing satanic-looking stuff to some very BEAUTUFUL banners and tapestries for our Church. I love the ones he did for Resurrection Season, with an empty tomb and a Risen Lord.

I may actually post them here if I can find some pictures of them.

[DesertBerean]

My son-in-law was a tattoo artist before he married my wayward daughter. They have both become very active in our Church, but he still has his arms covered in naked ladies and skulls and evil looking stuff. He wears long sleeved shirts to church, but it's hard to miss the tats.

I think everybody sees the change in him, and understands you just don't wash off tats.

We had a guy over the years attending church who was just COVERED with tats face and body. Was a gang member and spent time in prison on and off. He had an extremely vulgar word right between the eyes. It was hard (for me anyway) to look at his face (gotta read lips...). He did have that word obliterated with some type of tat removal technology. That stuff COSTS! He may have had one of those free offers I've heard were made to former gang members etc.

[Cow Poke]

We had a guy over the years attending church who was just COVERED with tats face and body. Was a gang member and spent time in prison on and off. He had an extremely vulgar word right between the eyes. It was hard (for me anyway) to look at his face (gotta read lips...). He did have that word obliterated with some type of tat removal technology. That stuff COSTS! He may have had one of those free offers I've heard were made to former gang members etc.

Yup, my daughter had some tats removed, and it ain't cheap. Fortunately, most of hers wouldn't be seen in normal dress, and the ones that are visible are floral and... um... child friendly, if that's possible.

[Starlight]

So the church turned a happy, contributing and active church member into someone who was much less engaged than they had been, because of prejudice and bias about their past when it was discovered?

Kinda seems obvious that it's the prejudice and bias at work in the rest of the church that is the problem here and that that's who needs to repent and deal with their sins.

[Cow Poke]

So the church turned a happy, contributing and active church member into someone who was much less engaged than they had been, because of prejudice and bias about their past when it was discovered?

Kinda seems obvious that it's the prejudice and bias at work in the rest of the church that is the problem here and that that's who needs to repent and deal with their sins.

You'll please excuse me if I choose not to take advice on moral or religious issues from a far left-wing anti-Christian bigot who believes killing children is morally defensible.

[Starlight]

The situation makes me think of a Jehovah's Witness church discovering one of its members has had a blood transfusion.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Here is what you wrote...



It is quite dishonest of you to imply that you only asked that question and I should have limited my response to answering it.

Based on your OP I did not see what caused the concern. I assumed that counsellors had their own accommodation and were there merely in a "pastoral" capacity.

However, now that you have qualified it re adults sharing sleeping accommodation with young people - I recognise your [and that church's concern] but I do not necessarily see a concern.

You wrote that "With all the child molestation cases in church camps, boy scout camps, and the vulnerability of children -- there are always precautions that need to be taken"

Given that [premised on the scandals that come to public attention] molestation cases among church and youth leaders are not necessarily about heterosexual abuse, I do not know you [or the church] consider that adult men sleeping with adolescents and younger boys reduces the risk.


Edited to add: Furthermore this person identified as a man, was married to a woman, and had a child [adopted]. Therefore why would this person's sexual predilections be anymore of a risk than those of the biological male leaders in the church group? This person [like] them preferred women.

[NorrinRadd]

That's actually a good question, because he was wrong, too. If you have a problem with somebody, according to Matthew 18:15-17, you go to that person one-on-one first, between you and them alone.

He was counseled, and agrees he should not have done that, because, if nothing else, it threw the pastor into a situation for which he was not the least bit prepared.

If he couldn't go to the person one-on-one (and I could understand his hesitancy) he should have gone to the pastor to ask for advice. "Here's something that greatly concerns me, and I need to know how to deal with it".

It was stupid, but the Age of Internet has facilitated impulsive gossip. I can easily imagine myself, especially in younger days, being shocked and doing something like that before thinking it through.