The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

robindch

> What moral authority does the church to turn someone away?

Removing the word "moral" from the above, since it's meaningless in the context, a church can throw out any of its members whenever it wants to, just like any other club. BTW, has anybody noticed that church membership is identical in one critical respect to membership of trade unions, political parties and military outfits -- you can only belong to one at a time and the only thing worse than being thrown out is having the brass 'nads to switch sides.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

i think if you're a buddhist you can be a christian or whatever too.. they're the bi-sexuals of the religion game

robindch

> a strong and attractive message in its own right, and simultaneously a more or
> less explicit claim that no two believers can really get too far from each
> other, since all accept the literal truth of Scripture.

I disagree. I think that all believers think that they believe that the text of the bible is literally true in all regards, except the bits that obviously aren't, (according to taste). But people are pretty useless at assessing the nature and implications of their beliefs, or as Baggini and Stangroom point out, what people think is not what people think they think. I don't believe that any religious believers claim that there really was a prodigal son, or that Oholibah's lovers really did have the undercarriage of donkeys. Hence, most people will admit that there's at least some interpretation going on, and that's where they begin to have separate beliefs, believing what they want to believe (and in a book as big as the bible, you can find anything you want).

Asserting the literal truth of the bible seems to me more the lowest common denominator of religious belief, acting as not much more than a rallying point for group-identity, rather than a departure point for any serious discussion about what religious believers believe they believe.

Scofflaw

robindch wrote:

> a strong and attractive message in its own right, and simultaneously a more or
> less explicit claim that no two believers can really get too far from each
> other, since all accept the literal truth of Scripture.

I disagree. I think that all believers think that they believe that the text of the bible is literally true in all regards, except the bits that obviously aren't, (according to taste). But people are pretty useless at assessing the nature and implications of their beliefs, or as Baggini and Stangroom point out, what people think is not what people think they think. I don't believe that any religious believers claim that there really was a prodigal son, or that Oholibah's lovers really did have the undercarriage of donkeys. Hence, most people will admit that there's at least some interpretation going on, and that's where they begin to have separate beliefs, believing what they want to believe (and in a book as big as the bible, you can find anything you want).

Asserting the literal truth of the bible seems to me more the lowest common denominator of religious belief, acting as not much more than a rallying point for group-identity, rather than a departure point for any serious discussion about what religious believers believe they believe.

Hmm. Perhaps I was unclear. A "rallying point for group-identity" is exactly what I have suggested it is, as is "lowest common denominator". I have pointed out that interpretation is involved, and that it's covered over by the literalist claim.

I certainly didn't mean to suggest that people really believed that the Bible is entirely literally true, only that they believed they believed it, and that it was very beneficial to their church organisation that they do so.

If you come straight out, as a church, and admit that your views are simply an interpretation of the Bible, then you are inviting the obvious rejoinder, which tends to lead to more splitting, because that church is based on a specific view, and those who disagree with that view can simply found another denomination based on their particular view.

By claiming that you are simply sticking straight to the Biblical text (the "lowest common denominator"), you allow room for interpretative differences (because it's not possible to stick to the text really), but retain them within the body of the organisation, which allows it to continue its growth despite differences amongst its believers - thus turning the claim into a "rallying point for group-identity".

cordially,
Scofflaw

robindch

Apologies, I think I was unclear too! I was disagreeing with the "no two believers can really get too far from each other" bit. My point being that while no two believers believe that they are too far from each other, in fact, each one can hold views which completely contradict the other person's views. Basically, all they agree on is the form of the belief, while the content is often left undiscussed or mired eyebrow-deep in lifeless claptrap. You get a bigger and more powerful ingroup if you just appeal to abstract form, rather than specific content -- hence religious has evolved to do this.

Asiaprod

Mordeth wrote:

i think if you're a buddhist you can be a christian or whatever too.. they're the bi-sexuals of the religion game

Oooh, cheeky. I've been called many things, but thats a new one.:D
I would agree up to a point, but even Buddhism does go its own merry way eventually.

Asiaprod

wolfsbane wrote:

Asiaprod said:

Not sure what you mean. The sinner repents toward God, confesses to Him and is forgiven. The sinner has to let the church know that this has happened, if he is to continue in fellowship with them. No priestly mediatorship involved.

How strange, I would have thought that the Church here in question does fill the role of mediator. If not why do you have to let them know you have adequately repented? You God has already forgiven you. It appears to me at least that far too much emphasis is placed on fellowship. I would place it on personal independent growth.

Scofflaw

robindch wrote:

Apologies, I think I was unclear too! I was disagreeing with the "no two believers can really get too far from each other" bit. My point being that while no two believers believe that they are too far from each other, in fact, each one can hold views which completely contradict the other person's views. Basically, all they agree on is the form of the belief, while the content is often left undiscussed or mired eyebrow-deep in lifeless claptrap. You get a bigger and more powerful ingroup if you just appeal to abstract form, rather than specific content -- hence religious has evolved to do this.

How very unclear I must be! No wonder I can't persuade the Creationists. That was exactly the point I was making. The "no two believers" bit is essentially a pious humbug designed to paper over differences of interpretation without fission - hence "a more or less explicit claim that...".

Protestantism didn't originally work that way - it split repeatedly over matters of interpretation. The "literal truth of the Bible" rallying cry is, in a sense, a new strategy (half-century or so) - it was a doctrine that was to hand, because it had been genuinely accepted without any difficulty before the massive advances of the last 150 years. That gives it the weight of historical authority, to which is added the effect of cognitive dissonance - by putting the believer directly in conflict with science, it forces the believer to cling all the more strongly to their faith.

cordially,
Scofflaw

JimiTime

If I may intervene in the debate about Wolfsbanes scenario with dis-fellowshipping. I cannot believe that so many have jumped on a bandwagon of reasoning that does not comprehend what is being said.
Firstly; I am not a member of Wolfbanes church and have certain disagreements with his viewpoints, however, I don't see why this issue is for dispute

It is biblical that 'bad association spoils useful habits'. It is biblical that if someone is commiting sin, that you speak to them in private to see if it can be sorted. If it can't, bring along a witness. If still no joy, bring it before the congregation. If the man is unrepentant, he should not be left to mix with the Christian community until his repentance is made known by him. He asks God for forgiveness, but in order to protect the fellows of the congregation, an unrepentant man should not be left in the congregation so as to risk him leading others into un-christian behaviour. So the motivation of the sinning man should be Love towards his neighbour who he hurt, and towards the congregation who he hurt also as they should all be bretheren. So motivated by Love he should be able to declare that the congrgation has nothing to fear as he is repentant. The congregations motive should be Love for the sinning man and Love for the rest of their bretheren. In this, they must try with love as the motivation to give the offending man every opportunity to repent. If this does not bear fruit due to the mans hard-heartedness, then out of the motivation of Love for their bretheren, he should be cut-off from them until he repents, so that he does not lead any of the flock astray.
In saying the above, I do however recognise that this process can be abused, I.E. Certain men of 'power' within a congregation may influence proceedings, if they have a personal view of the man in question, and this can be a problem. Love should always be the motivation, but unfortunately in a majority of cases it is not. This however, does not remove the principal of the procedure being correct. But again, I do understand that abuse of this procedure is both, prevolent and wrong. This principal of Love can be said for alot of the world of Christendom, It is the message of Christ, but is lost to many in practice.:(

robindch

> No wonder I can't persuade the Creationists.

Was thinking of this on the way into work this morning. It's a bit like that scene from Spinal Tap: Creationism "goes to eleven...":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d54UU-fPIsY

> Protestantism didn't originally work that way - it split repeatedly over matters
> of interpretation. The "literal truth of the Bible" rallying cry is, in a sense, a
> sense, a new strategy (half-century or so).

Yes, it's a wonderful example of cultural evolution in action. Just have lots and lots of different people producing different ideas, then just watch which ones turn out to be the most popular and spread the best -- bingo! -- instant mass-movement "truth"!

Is it any wonder that religious people get so wound up about evolution and tie themselves in knots denying it? It explains not only how they arose themselves, but how their beliefs arose also. Nobody likes a sneak

BrianCalgary

robindch wrote:

> What moral authority does the church to turn someone away?

Removing the word "moral" from the above, since it's meaningless in the context, a church can throw out any of its members whenever it wants to, just like any other club. BTW, has anybody noticed that church membership is identical in one critical respect to membership of trade unions, political parties and military outfits -- you can only belong to one at a time and the only thing worse than being thrown out is having the brass 'nads to switch sides.

Actuallt Robin this is untrue. I am currently a memebr of teh Christian and Missionary Alliance Church of Canada. The RC church still considers me a member and I go there maybe twice a year.
I was baptized and confirmed Anglican and they still have me on the books, I went last two Easters ago. And lo and behold I have spoken at one community church and a Baptist church and in a couple of weeks another community church affiliated with teh Evangelical Free church.

So member at three, friend of three others. I didn't need to renounce my others when I signed up in the Alliance. We are heavily involved in the Alliance and anyone who is onvolved in their church really don't have time to be a full participating member of any other.

BrianCalgary

In the spirit of the discussion of what to do with an unrepentant sinner, I brought the topic up yesterday in my senior high sunday school class. What would you guys do if Charlie started to sell his body to support his drug habit? Charlie being a kid who has grown up in the church. After the laughter subsided, after all who would pay the kid for his body?

The guys all said they would want to support him as much as possible to bring him out of the destructive lifestyle that he was in. I then asked wht if I were to do it? The laughter went on longer . It was decided that I would be removed from my position of leadership but welcomed to work through the lifestyle.

In the case of having an affiar with my neighbours wife, we have a different problem and dynamic there. I would be removed from leadership. It would be rough to continue to attend a church with my wife and kids there, with my new squeeze, better to go somewhere else.

For me to engage in such an activity though there would have to be even bigger underlying issues that would have to be dealt with. My perfect church would have to be willing to help in anyway possible to bring reconciliation to the couple, and hoipefully to proper relationship. But, in having said that, are both parties in the broken marriage willing to do work toward that goal? If not the church is fighting an uphill battle.

The issue of hitting the neighbours wife goes far beyond a simple sin that has stopped.

And to hit on wolfsbane for putting in an example that is a very simple one is abit unfair.

Each situation would be quite different and would need to be dealt with ona an individual basis.

In my mind the church community should do all it can for healing and reconciliation of hurt relationships. In order for that to be accomplished you need all parties willing to participate in the reconciliation process.

After all Christ came for the purpose of repairing a damaged relationship with God, and Christ is all about reconciling damaged relationship.

That to me is what church is all about, a place to worship, a place to reconcile, a place to study and a place to support.

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote:

If this does not bear fruit due to the mans hard-heartedness, then out of the motivation of Love for their bretheren, he should be cut-off from them until he repents, so that he does not lead any of the flock astray.

Does this include not letting him use the local shop, have access to the local library, send his children to the local school, coach the local GAA team, run his local plumbing business, marry a local girl, etc etc in case he leads others in the flock astray??

This Christian message of "love" quickly turns into a message of segregation, exclusion and fear.

BrianCalgary

Wicknight wrote:

Does this include not letting him use the local shop, have access to the local library, send his children to the local school, coach the local GAA team, run his local plumbing business, marry a local girl, etc etc in case he leads others in the flock astray??

This Christian message of "love" quickly turns into a message of segregation, exclusion and fear.

Your refernce to coaching the GAA squad is intersting. In our secular part of the world, anyone who wishes to coach a minor soccer team has to go through a police check. If there is even one possibility of there being a transgression against children, you aren't coaching.

My point being there is a line regarding leaders and their actions and should that person be stripped of leadership.

So someone in the church who crosses that line, remove them from leadership, but don't ban them completely unless ther is a safety issue.

Zombrex

BrianCalgary wrote:

My point being there is a line regarding leaders and their actions and should that person be stripped of leadership.

Yes but what is that line.

In a "secular" part of the world that line is not being an unrepentive sinner, it is the threat of harm to the children he coaches.

In Christian terms I am an unrepentive sinner. Not only renounce God, I claim that He does not exist (though for some reason I always put a capital over He/Him/His ... you can take the boy out of Catholic Ireland, you can't take Catholic Ireland out of the boy ...). I have pre-marital sex and various other sinful things.

I've no problem being excluded from a "flock" because I live in a big city and there are hundreds of different flocks around. If a private Catholic school wants a good upstanding Catholic person to teach their kids computers or hockey that is fine by me. Christian intolerence luckly doesn't effect me that much because I live in a largely secular big city, where religon is a private matter and if people were to exclude others not like them they would quickly find themselves the excluded ones.

The issue comes when someone lives in an area that is just "one flock". Then if they are excluded from the flock because of their "sinful behavior" that is pretty much it, they are excluded from everyone. If the only school in town excludes a teacher because she is divorsed where else is she supposed to teach? If the only DIY store turns away an openly gay man where else is he supposed to shop? If a child is not allowed go to the local school because his parents are not married what school is he supposed to go to?

Christians always say "love the person, hate the sin". But it seems more "hate the sin, love the person, but then only if they also hate the sin. If they don't exclude them from your society" As I said, this Christian message of "love" quickly turns into a message of segregation, exclusion and fear.

BrianCalgary

Wicknight wrote:

Yes but what is that line. "

I honestly don't know.

Wicknight wrote:

In a "secular" part of the world that line is not being an unrepentive sinner, it is the threat of harm to the children he coaches."

Agreed

Wicknight wrote:

In Christian terms I am an unrepentive sinner. Not only renounce God, I claim that He does not exist (though for some reason I always put a capital over He/Him/His ... you can take the boy out of Catholic Ireland, you can't take Catholic Ireland out of the boy ...). I have pre-marital sex and various other sinful things.."

We are still praying for you.:D

Wicknight wrote:

I've no problem being excluded from a "flock" because I live in a big city and there are hundreds of different flocks around. If a private Catholic school wants a good upstanding Catholic person to teach their kids computers or hockey that is fine by me. Christian intolerence luckly doesn't effect me that much because I live in a largely secular big city, where religon is a private matter and if people were to exclude others not like them they would quickly find themselves the excluded ones.

The issue comes when someone lives in an area that is just "one flock". Then if they are excluded from the flock because of their "sinful behavior" that is pretty much it, they are excluded from everyone. If the only school in town excludes a teacher because she is divorsed where else is she supposed to teach? If the only DIY store turns away an openly gay man where else is he supposed to shop? If a child is not allowed go to the local school because his parents are not married what school is he supposed to go to?.."

And unfortunately that type of discrimination happens far too often in out world today. In all societies, not just Christian.

Wicknight wrote:

Christians always say "love the person, hate the sin". But it seems more "hate the sin, love the person, but then only if they also hate the sin. If they don't exclude them from your society"

I don't think that you can write a rule that covers all here. The underlying priciple I think has to be, reconciling relationships, with the idea of removing the plank from your own eye as opposed to the speck from someone elses.

We have the type you have mentioned above in our church and I think they drive more people away than what they attract. The church has to be a place of healing, but there are those who think it should be a club for 'those who have made it' (:( )

Zombrex

BrianCalgary wrote:

We are still praying for you.:D

Cheers

BrianCalgary wrote:

We have the type you have mentioned above in our church and I think they drive more people away than what they attract. The church has to be a place of healing, but there are those who think it should be a club for 'those who have made it' (:( )

Brian it is hard for me to respond to you as a rabit religious fundamentalists when you are being so reasonable and understanding ... stop it now ..:p

JimiTime

Wicknight wrote:

Does this include not letting him use the local shop, have access to the local library, send his children to the local school, coach the local GAA team, run his local plumbing business, marry a local girl, etc etc in case he leads others in the flock astray??

This Christian message of "love" quickly turns into a message of segregation, exclusion and fear.

So what would you suggest?

robindch

> Actuallt Robin this is untrue. I am currently a memebr of teh Christian and
> Missionary Alliance Church of Canada. The RC church still considers me a
> member and I go there maybe twice a year.

Interesting -- I believe that institutional exclusivity is still pretty much the case here in Ireland and elsewhere. I must say that I hadn't realized, or would have thought, that things could had evolved to so quickly from the previous state of extreme mutual exclusivity to a state of non-competitive co-operation. Orgel's Second Rule strikes again!

Thanks for putting me right.

.

BrianCalgary

Wicknight wrote:

Cheers


Brian it is hard for me to respond to you as a rabit religious fundamentalists when you are being so reasonable and understanding ... stop it now ..:p

All those who do not believe as I do and interpret the word as I do, are headed straight to Hell, and need not ever appear at the doorway of my church.:D

Feeling better now, wicknight?:)

BrianCalgary

robindch wrote:

> Actuallt Robin this is untrue. I am currently a memebr of teh Christian and
> Missionary Alliance Church of Canada. The RC church still considers me a
> member and I go there maybe twice a year.

Interesting -- I believe that institutional exclusivity is still pretty much the case here in Ireland and elsewhere. I must say that I hadn't realized, or would have thought, that things could had evolved to so quickly from the previous state of extreme mutual exclusivity to a state of non-competitive co-operation. Orgel's Second Rule strikes again!

Thanks for putting me right.

.

Love that rule.

We are finding in the mssionary business quite a bit of cooperative effort in both the humanitarian aspect of mssion work as well as the gospel spreading aspect.

Albeit there are pockets of Christendom and certain congregations that would not like to see Catholics together with Baptists or the like, and still competing for congregational membership.

But humanity is sometimes rather unreasonable in their viewpoints. (sigh)

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote:

So what would you suggest?

I would suggest that people are allowed come to church and are not asked about, nor expected to explain, their sins or which sins they have or have not repented for.

Isn't that supposed to be between them and God?

JimiTime

robindch wrote:

> Protestantism didn't originally work that way - it split repeatedly over matters
> of interpretation. The "literal truth of the Bible" rallying cry is, in a sense, a
> sense, a new strategy (half-century or so).

Yes, it's a wonderful example of cultural evolution in action. Just have lots and lots of different people producing different ideas, then just watch which ones turn out to be the most popular and spread the best -- bingo! -- instant mass-movement "truth"!

Is it any wonder that religious people get so wound up about evolution and tie themselves in knots denying it? It explains not only how they arose themselves, but how their beliefs arose also. Nobody likes a sneak

I am sensing Irony. How exactly did the theory of evoltion come about? Was it, hey look at this evidence I found showing the origins of earth and man? Or was it, 'lets take God out of the equation. What other explanation could there be?' Come up with an interesting theory, then say. 'Ok class this is what I think now lets go look for evidence to back it up.' Remember evolutionists, you should not be so cocky as you are certain of nothing. The thing is, you like to pride yourself on having the 'upper hand' over the 'crazy' Christian. Conclusive evidence cannot be offered to you to convince you of Gods existence, but you cannot offer conclusive evidence to the contrary. I'm not entering into debate about it, just merely saying that your point seems a tad 'slap me on the back, 'cause I is clever'. To coin a phrase you usually reserve for the 'religious' types. You're a wee bit condesending. I can understand why someone like Darwin, maybe witnessing the surpression by Religion on the mind decided to take God out of the equation. But alas, he threw out the baby with the bathwater. I'm kent brockman and that was my 2 cent:)

Son Goku

JimiTime wrote:

I can understand why someone like Darwin, maybe witnessing the surpression by Religion on the mind decided to take God out of the equation. But alas, he threw out the baby with the bathwater. I'm kent brockman and that was my 2 cent:)

I'm seeing double!
Two people making the same, demonstratably false, mental-projection based, point:
See second paragraph.

Evolution was made because a scientist thought it offered a decent explanation of biological phenomena. Most testing holds this conclusion.
It has nothing to do with scientists wanting to take religion out of the equation. That makes no sense. I don't know a single scientist who thinks like that. Please understand scientists are people who are interested in nature not people who hate religion.

JimiTime

Wicknight wrote:

I would suggest that people are allowed come to church and are not asked about, nor expected to explain, their sins or which sins they have or have not repented for.

Isn't that supposed to be between them and God?

So a man who is having an affair with his neighbours wife should keep it to himself and pretend to all its not happening, and continue deceitful. Then hypocritically turn up to 'church'. That should be the christian way should it? or the way you think would be best? Remembering the point is an 'unrepentant' man.
Another point of note, is that an unrepentant man does not usually come forward and say hey I'm messin' with your wife. The biblical point is that if I see a brother do this, I should first approach him and try reason with him. If he is not having any of it, I take along a witness to reason with him. then I take ito the congregation. If in all these cases the man still says 'I don't really care what you say, I'm doing my own thing', what should be the next step?

Scofflaw

JimiTime wrote:

I am sensing Irony. How exactly did the theory of evoltion come about? Was it, hey look at this evidence I found showing the origins of earth and man? Or was it, 'lets take God out of the equation. What other explanation could there be?' Come up with an interesting theory, then say. 'Ok class this is what I think now lets go look for evidence to back it up.' Remember evolutionists, you should not be so cocky as you are certain of nothing. The thing is, you like to pride yourself on having the 'upper hand' over the 'crazy' Christian. Conclusive evidence cannot be offered to you to convince you of Gods existence, but you cannot offer conclusive evidence to the contrary. I'm not entering into debate about it, just merely saying that your point seems a tad 'slap me on the back, 'cause I is clever'. To coin a phrase you usually reserve for the 'religious' types. You're a wee bit condesending. I can understand why someone like Darwin, maybe witnessing the surpression by Religion on the mind decided to take God out of the equation. But alas, he threw out the baby with the bathwater. I'm kent brockman and that was my 2 cent:)

Is this actually what you think happened? That someone (who? Darwin?) actually decided to cook up an "explanation" that left God out? And is God the baby, or the bathwater?

I accept, by the way, that atheism isn't provable, and that it does carry the risk of (often unwarranted) intellectual arrogance. Not all atheists would agree with me, of course, which is their privilege.

cordially,
Scofflaw

BrianCalgary

Wicknight wrote:

I would suggest that people are allowed come to church and are not asked about, nor expected to explain, their sins or which sins they have or have not repented for.

Isn't that supposed to be between them and God?

1,000 Post

Absolutely.

However to Jimitime's point, if one of my brothers is engaging in behaviour that is damaging and sinful, I have a responsibility to approach him or her about it in a loving manner. The inverse is also true, to have my fellowman come to me if I am engaging in some bad behaviour. I get this periodically teaching High school kids, cause they go home with only a part of the story and sometimes leave out the context.

To me that is the reason for being part of a church, I can learn and grow there as well as have people who I can rely on to help me when I stray.

JimiTime

Son Goku wrote:

I'm seeing double!
Two people making the same, demonstratably false, mental-projection based, point:
See second paragraph.

Evolution was made because a scientist thought it offered a decent explanation of biological phenomena. Most testing holds this conclusion.
It has nothing to do with scientists wanting to religion out of the equation. That makes no sense. I don't know a single scientist who thinks like that. Please understand scientists are people who are interested in nature not people who hate religion.

Fair enough, I'll take you on your word.

I am a Christian. I believe we were created by the Most High God, just in case you dont remember me. Secondly, an honest question. Leaving out who created us. Do you trully feel it logical that we were not intelligently designed? Even from a scientific perspective. I always think, if we weren't intelligently designed, why are we not just surviving? How do you scientifically explain emotion? Food is sustanance, but iit can make you feel amazing. The variety of flavour, tantilising ones sense of taste. A pink lady apple tingling both sweet and bitter receptors, fantastic. I mentioned before about seeing a rose garden as evidence of not only Intelligent design, but also a creator who Loves us, and created us to experience beauty in so many forms. A poster noted that, why can't it just be a rose. Personally, I think insight into that rose makes it more beautiful. If I see a rose in someones garden, I can admire it and see its beauty. Now if someone was to give me a rose, I would enjoy that rose on a new level. It has something more than a beautiful colour and aroma. It says someone loved me enough to give it to me, and fills my heart. In the same way, if you believe in God, you believe that he Loves you and created you to be tantilised by the many forms of beauty that tantilise the senses. i.e. music, aroma, visual beauty, taste, touch. If we make it mathematical, the insight is lost not gained in my opinion. If it wasn't creation by a being that loved us, why are we receptive in such a way? Its a question that has always baffled me about the logic of people who don't believe in God.

JimiTime

Scofflaw wrote:

Is this actually what you think happened? That someone (who? Darwin?) actually decided to cook up an "explanation" that left God out? And is God the baby, or the bathwater?

I accept, by the way, that atheism isn't provable, and that it does carry the risk of (often unwarranted) intellectual arrogance. Not all atheists would agree with me, of course, which is their privilege.

cordially,
Scofflaw

To be honest, I'm not sure. The point I was making was more along the lines of, what came first. The theory or the evidence? was evidence discovered, or was a theory produced and evidence saught to back it up?

JimiTime

BrianCalgary wrote:

1,000 Post

Absolutely.

However to Jimitime's point, if one of my brothers is engaging in behaviour that is damaging and sinful, I have a responsibility to approach him or her about it in a loving manner. The inverse is also true, to have my fellowman come to me if I am engaging in some bad behaviour. I get this periodically teaching High school kids, cause they go home with only a part of the story and sometimes leave out the context.

To me that is the reason for being part of a church, I can learn and grow there as well as have people who I can rely on to help me when I stray.

You still stop short of the point here. What if he tells you to stick it? yet still comes and mingles with your church and is still messin with one of the wives of another member of your church?