The Narrow Path Ministries

Michelle wrote:

RND wrote:

mattrose wrote:Better to trust? Trust whom?

You have 2 Christians, both members of your church family, claiming opposite things. One says there is all sorts of evidence. The other says there is no proof. I'm asking about a scenario in which your heart/mind tends to 'trust' the former over the latter.

This seems slightly different than the OP. More info added. You have a "he said/she said" situation on your hands. I am more apt in such a situation to trust the one that denies.

This is a nitpick and wildly off topic, but this is not different from the OP at all, it's exactly the same information that was given there.

Michelle, this isn't "nitpicking." In the OP we aren't told, "One says there is all sorts of evidence." And that's all I was pointing out. No "nitpicking" just an observation.

That said, I get your advice. So far it seems we have

1) Trust the denial until you are proven otherwise

Trust the "denier."

Was that really necessary?

For clarification? You bet. I would trust the one making the denial unless I had first had information or knowledge of the situation.

2) Trust God to expose sin in due time

Won't He? But once He does should we stop loving?

Why did you ask, "won't He?" Was there something Matt said that makes you think that he doesn't trust God?

The "won't He" is referring to God and what He does. I have no reason to believe Matt doesn't trust God. In fact, that's a given with me.

All in all, the 2 pieces of advice are not entirely different.

Well, I hope not.

They're not.

[/quote]

Great. Agreement!

Well, this time I'm with RND. There are too many case of condemning a person without adequate evidence. How can one even hypothetically suppose that the woman is guilty if there is insufficient evidence for that supposition? I don't see that she should receive discipline until such evidence is forthcoming.

Bring out your polluted water if you must!

RND wrote:Michelle, this isn't "nitpicking." In the OP we aren't told, "One says there is all sorts of evidence." And that's all I was pointing out. No "nitpicking" just an observation.

No, I meant that I was nitpicking on your answer. It just bothered me that you were like, "well, if you would have told me that before, it would have been different," when Matt hasn't changed the story at all. Sorry to have been unclear.

Michelle wrote:

RND wrote:Michelle, this isn't "nitpicking." In the OP we aren't told, "One says there is all sorts of evidence." And that's all I was pointing out. No "nitpicking" just an observation.

No, I meant that I was nitpicking on your answer. It just bothered me that you were like, "well, if you would have told me that before, it would have been different," when Matt hasn't changed the story at all. Sorry to have been unclear.

Oh, no sweat. Sorry if I was unclear as well. The extra added information that Matt shared just leads to to conclude that this is a "he said/she said" situation which I don't see as a good thing for anyone. I'm still more apt in such a situation to trust the one that denies. I guess that's just me.

Paidion wrote:Well, this time I'm with RND. There are too many case of condemning a person without adequate evidence. How can one even hypothetically suppose that the woman is guilty if there is insufficient evidence for that supposition? I don't see that she should receive discipline until such evidence is forthcoming.

Bring out your polluted water if you must!

I actually kind of feel like there was an initial rush to jump on the bandwagon to condemn the woman, as well.

BUT

What if this is the situation: this woman works outside the home and has become friendly with her co-worker, who is a male. They've worked together on a few projects, sometimes ordering lunch broght in together in order to keep working during this time. A couple of times, in order to celebrate completion of a project, they've even taken lunch at a restaurant together, just the two of them. Now that they are working on other aspects of their job, he's taken to stopping by her desk, almost every day to chat. During these chats they've confided in each other about certain strains in their marriages; these heart-to-heart conversations cementing the feeling that they are becoming close friends. Some of their co-workers have noticed and remarked about the close relationship these two have, but the rumor-mill hasn't really gotten churning yet...they just seem to have hit it off really well. The woman's husband, however, has heard enough about this guy from work, and that, coupled with the strains on his marriage, perhaps the long hours she spends working makes him feel neglected, causes him to start suspecting that there is more to this work relationship than friendship. Of course she denies any adultery, it hasn't occured. But, Paidion, do you believe her relationship with this man at work is inappropriate? I do.

No doubt it is "inappropriate" in the eyes of people (they love to notice and talk about these "improprieties"). But should society determine relationships?

However, since in the scenario you described, her husband objects, she should not meet with the man for lunch or relate to him so closely as a friend. On the other hand, if her husband does not object, and has no suspicions or feelings of neglect, then I don't see a problem.

Paidion wrote:No doubt it is "inappropriate" in the eyes of people (they love to notice and talk about these "improprieties"). But should society determine relationships?

However, since in the scenario you described, her husband objects, she should not meet with the man for lunch or relate to him so closely as a friend. On the other hand, if her husband does not object, and has no suspicions or feelings of neglect, then I don't see a problem.

It's the husband's suspicions that I was getting at.

Paidion wrote:On the other hand, if her husband does not object, and has no suspicions or feelings of neglect, then I don't see a problem.

I can certainly see potential problems here; remember in Michelle's scenario,

"they've confided in each other about certain strains in their marriages; these heart-to-heart conversations cementing the feeling that they are becoming close friends."

That should raise red flags - of course it's theoretically possible for this to remain an innocent friendship, but what a slippery slope they would be on.

This is only partially relevant to the discussion, but I think this is useful information for folks.

I'm not legalistic about this (for other people), but a man (and a woman for that matter) must have certain lines which he just will not cross or he risks almost certainly falling into sin in this area someday, I believe. The clearer that distinction is, it serves three purposes -- it prevents the practical moment from leading to a moment where temptation can happen unexpectedly; it honors the spouse by telling the other their relationship is worth such a line; and it honors God for the same reason.

Some of the best advice I ever received was from someone who had done a "lot" of marital counseling. He said that the people who were at the greatest risk from his experience of having an affair were those who thought it could not happen to them (and especially if the stated reason was their "walk.") The further advice was to never (no, never) be alone in a car or otherwise with a member of the opposite sex unless you have called your spouse, told them about it, and schedule a call back (or something like that). When professionally possible, avoid always having dinner or after-hours meetings alone with another.... It only takes one time where the stars are aligned emotionally, opportunistically, and vulnerabilities, etc. and ... you get the point.

Now, returning to one of RND's points -- he suggested that listening to a witness was giving in to gossip -- that "can" be true, but it is not perpetuating gossip to take it to the one being accused, and if there are two witnesses, it can hardly be classified as gossip (not the OP topic, of course). Besides -- "I heard..." is quite different than someone coming to an elder after having seen such a thing and confronting the accused and saying "I tried to get her to confess, but she didn't and now I feel we need to address this sin amongst us." This witness could be lying, of course, but that's why the qualifications of an elder are so important - he must exercise discernment from experience in this matter, and may need to bring it to the congregation -- there is a possibility of getting it wrong, but that's just the reality, I think, and I think God will honor the process so long as the participants are prayerfully trying to discern the situation.

Perhaps if I use more specific scenarios it'll help bring clarity to any advice given

Case #1
A Christian couple (John & Jane) is struggling with their marriage. Jane has a history of sexual promiscuity from before she was a Christian. Jane starts spending a lot of time with a male co-worker. Rumors start spreading around town. John becomes nervous and jealous. Jane refuses to end the friendship despite John's wishes. John hires a private investigator to determine if his wife is being honest. The PI determines that there is evidence that an affair is going on (embraces, hand-holding, etc). John confronts Jane but she denies an affair. John initiates a divorce. The couple separates.

Meanwhile, Jane continues attending their church. John deepens his walk with Christ and finds new fellowship in a different church (while still participating in small groups at 'their' church. John wonders why the pastors won't discipline his wife. He assures the pastors that he has evidence. The evidence won't "prove" the affair, but rest assured, it's a strong case. Unfortunately, his lawyer says he must wait before presenting the evidence to anyone. Jane, meanwhile, wants to participate in a ministry position at the church. At the same time, now that she is separated, Jane begins to date the very man whom provoked the previous suspicion.

Should the church let Jane participate in a ministry position? It seems like most people would say NO. But she might respond: "On what grounds? I've been falsely accused. My husband divorced me. I want to serve." If the church says YES, the people in the town might very well say: "It's obvious that Jane and this guy were having an affair, but that church just let her go on business as usual. Hmmm."