# Facebook and Church Discipline



## yoyoceramic (Oct 7, 2011)

With the continuing emergence of social networking sites like twitter, Facebook, and G+, I am wondering how many of you have had to rebuke a brother or sister on unbliblical use of these social media outlets. For example, sometimes I see posts of professing Christians (ie they are a "fan" of the Bible, Jesus, soandso theologian etc...), but their posts contain swearing (even if it is in acronym format), anti-government diatribes, pictures smoking hooka, or other such things believers ought to abstain from for the sake of Christ and being above reproach. Do you think this may become an issue, especially for younger people in the church (high school, college age users)?


----------



## Romans922 (Oct 7, 2011)

Multiple times from members of my congregation(s) (and other's congregations), I have seen and my session has addressed issues that come about through social networking sites. 

Issues like swearing, false theology, drunkenness, sexual immorality, etc.

To answer your question, it already is an issue. 


Also, there is nothing wrong with smoking a hooka (at least I don't think there is, I may be ignorant here, but there is no problem with someone smoking).


----------



## rookie (Oct 7, 2011)

I see 2 sides of this.

I see it as an issue for rebuke and correction, but I also see it that "you will know them by their fruit".

I have deleted a number of people that claimed to be christian but the posts were more worldly than the people that don't profess. Now this generation has to be even more on the watch because whatever they post on FB, Twitter or whatever it is, it's seen by everyone.

If a church elder doesn't bring someone aside for those kinds of posts, I question the church. And in a sense, it's great way to bring someone to Christ that thought they were saved.


----------



## he beholds (Oct 7, 2011)

yoyoceramic said:


> With the continuing emergence of social networking sites like twitter, Facebook, and G+, I am wondering how many of you have had to rebuke a brother or sister on unbliblical use of these social media outlets. For example, sometimes I see posts of professing Christians (ie they are a "fan" of the Bible, Jesus, soandso theologian etc...), but their posts contain *swearing* (even if it is in acronym format), *anti-government diatribes, pictures smoking hooka*, or other such things believers ought to abstain from for the sake of Christ and being above reproach. Do you think this may become an issue, especially for younger people in the church (high school, college age users)?



Say what???? Those things are anti-Christian and even possibly deserve discipline? Clearly it's not a hooka so I must ask, what are you smoking?


----------



## yoyoceramic (Oct 7, 2011)

Romans922 said:


> To answer your question, it already is an issue.


Thanks Andrew... Yeah I too see this coming down the pike, and it is really distressing to me. In fact, I have given much more careful thought about the sort of political articles I post, since that can become a sort of idol quite easily. So I take it that a few of your members on session are on facebook or they were alerted to some congregant's use of the site? 



Romans922 said:


> Also, there is nothing wrong with smoking a hooka


I certainly agree, but often it is mixed with pot... so I think it could be a gray area. Why run the risk of offending a weaker brother? I don't mean for this to hijack the thread however.



rookie said:


> And in a sense, it's great way to bring someone to Christ that thought they were saved.


Good point "...If he listens to you, you have gained your brother."


----------



## Romans922 (Oct 7, 2011)

yoyoceramic said:


> Romans922 said:
> 
> 
> > To answer your question, it already is an issue.
> ...



I didn't know it was often mixed with pot. I would be against that and any illegal drugs added.


----------



## M21195 (Oct 7, 2011)

I like the idea of Facebook for the use of the local church, since its easier/expedient to post announcements, info etc on FB then on a web site. I don't use FB. I don't understand why people have the need to enlighten others with their everyday activities. Vanity, vanity....


----------



## Todd King (Oct 7, 2011)

yoyoceramic said:


> With the continuing emergence of social networking sites like twitter, Facebook, and G+, I am wondering how many of you have had to rebuke a brother or sister on unbliblical use of these social media outlets. For example, sometimes I see posts of professing Christians (ie they are a "fan" of the Bible, Jesus, soandso theologian etc...), but their posts contain swearing (even if it is in acronym format), anti-government diatribes, pictures smoking hooka, or other such things believers ought to abstain from for the sake of Christ and being above reproach. Do you think this may become an issue, especially for younger people in the church (high school, college age users)?



So, being anti-government is anti-Christ? Really!?! Well, I guess the authors of the Declaration of Independence weren't Christians after all. Maybe you could read it and give me a better idea of just what exactly it was that they were espousing. And what about the speaker of these words: Mic 3:1	¶	And I said, Hear, I pray you, O heads of Jacob, and ye princes of the house of Israel; [Is it] not for you to know judgment?


Mic 3:2 Who hate the good, and love the evil; who pluck off their skin from off them, and their flesh from off their bones;


Mic 3:3 Who also eat the flesh of my people, and flay their skin from off them; and they break their bones, and chop them in pieces, as for the pot, and as flesh within the caldron.


Mic 3:4 Then shall they cry unto the LORD, but he will not hear them: he will even hide his face from them at that time, as they have behaved themselves ill in their doings.


Mic 3:5	¶	Thus saith the LORD concerning the prophets that make my people err, that bite with their teeth, and cry, Peace; and he that putteth not into their mouths, they even prepare war against him.


Mic 3:6 Therefore night [shall be] unto you, that ye shall not have a vision; and it shall be dark unto you, that ye shall not divine; and the sun shall go down over the prophets, and the day shall be dark over them.


Mic 3:7 Then shall the seers be ashamed, and the diviners confounded: yea, they shall all cover their lips; for [there is] no answer of God.


Mic 3:8	¶	But truly I am full of power by the spirit of the LORD, and of judgment, and of might, to declare unto Jacob his transgression, and to Israel his sin.


Mic 3:9 Hear this, I pray you, ye heads of the house of Jacob, and princes of the house of Israel, that abhor judgment, and pervert all equity.


Mic 3:10 They build up Zion with blood, and Jerusalem with iniquity.


Mic 3:11 The heads thereof judge for reward, and the priests thereof teach for hire, and the prophets thereof divine for money: yet will they lean upon the LORD, and say, [Is] not the LORD among us? none evil can come upon us.

I suppose the old battle cry of "No king but King Jesus!" was just a bunch of heretics or Christians needing discipline.

On the contrary, I find that it is statist, non-scripture comprehending fools who believe we need to follow our government no matter how corrupt that are in need of discipline. It is coming, however, so I need not worry about instituting it.

Furthermore, is it wrong for people to ingest substances that God created for our own good, that some government has arbitrarily decreed illegal? So, if I post on Facebook that I ingested my daily supply of raw milk and followed it with my daily supply of raw, homegrown vegetables and fruits, are you saying that such is anti-Christ? If government can arbitrarily decree marijuana or other such natural herbs as illegal to ingest, then they can declare raw milk (they have), fruits and vegetables (the legislation is currently proposed) as illegal. Gen 1:29	And God 430 said 559, Behold 2009, I have given 5414 you every herb 6212 bearing 2232 seed 2233, which [is] upon the face 6440 of all the earth 776, and every tree 6086, in the which [is] the fruit 6529 of a tree 6086 yielding 2232 seed 2233; to you it shall be 1961 for meat 402.

Finally, which curse words are you referring to people saying, or acronymizing? Are you perhaps referring to a word in this sentence? Exd 20:17	Thou shalt not covet 2530 thy neighbour's 7453 house 1004, thou shalt not covet 2530 thy neighbour's 7453 wife 802, nor his manservant 5650, nor his maidservant 519, nor his ox 7794, nor his ass 2543, nor any thing that [is] thy neighbour's 7453.

Who is it that arbitrarily gets to decide which word is appropriate and which one isn't? It seems to me that it is more the attitude with which a word is said that determines appropriateness more so than any actual word.

I know my viewpoint probably is not popular, and may get me 'disciplined' by the mods, but you really need to give some critical thought to what you are actually saying, asking, and promoting. For the record, I do not, nor have I ever used any substances declared illegal by the US government (except raw milk), nor do I promote abuse of such substances (including raw milk). Scripture, science and history have demonstrated numerous times that simple occasional use of some substances does not necessarily constitute abuse.


----------



## Zenas (Oct 7, 2011)

I've smoked hookah on a number of occasions. I did a fair amount of bar exam preparation in a hookah bar. 

I've seen some insane things on Facebook from church members and church officers (not Rae Whitlock ). I just sort of shake my head. At the time, the things that were accepted and approved of were far worse, so I never brought the issue up.


----------



## py3ak (Oct 7, 2011)

he beholds said:


> yoyoceramic said:
> 
> 
> > With the continuing emergence of social networking sites like twitter, Facebook, and G+, I am wondering how many of you have had to rebuke a brother or sister on unbliblical use of these social media outlets. For example, sometimes I see posts of professing Christians (ie they are a "fan" of the Bible, Jesus, soandso theologian etc...), but their posts contain *swearing* (even if it is in acronym format), *anti-government diatribes, pictures smoking hooka*, or other such things believers ought to abstain from for the sake of Christ and being above reproach. Do you think this may become an issue, especially for younger people in the church (high school, college age users)?
> ...



"Swearing" obviously needs to be defined. Is it cursing, i.e., the pronunciation of an imprecation? Is it blasphemy (the taking of God's name in vain)? Is it vulgarity? While a Christian might be approached about any of the above, obviously some are less ambiguous than others - for instance there may be a time to pronounce an imprecation (though probably not on FB), but there is never a time to blaspheme.

Anti-government diatribes might depend to some extent on the context; but certainly someone promoting anarchy ought to be challenged to think more Biblically.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Oct 7, 2011)

I for one am grateful for FB. I have been called out. Pastor Andy Webb was used of God to kill (mortify) some bitterness in my life. It was around the Winter celebrations of last year. I praise God for allowing it. I had been harbouring some bitterness and it was peaking. It really was beneficial for me. Sorry if I offended anyone. Saddened also because I knew better.


----------



## yoyoceramic (Oct 7, 2011)

I am sorry the examples I used in my question were so distracting. My essential question pertains to the relationship between the discipline administered by the local church/congregants and individual Christians who use Facebook.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Oct 7, 2011)

Todd King said:


> So, being anti-government is anti-Christ? Really!?! Well, I guess the authors of the Declaration of Independence weren't Christians after all. Maybe you could read it and give me a better idea of just what exactly it was that they were espousing.



Before you start espousing our Declaration of Independence as a foundation I would direct you to where it led. The Constitution is not a Christian's Crown of beauty. Just my humble opinion. The Constitution is better than most Nationalistic Ideologies but it didn't submit to Christ. I wish Psalm 2 would have been declared in both documents.


----------



## py3ak (Oct 7, 2011)

yoyoceramic said:


> My essential question pertains to the relationship between the discipline administered by the local church/congregants and individual Christians who use Facebook.



In principle Facebook isn't really different than seeing someone at a restaurant or in a mall. If a faithful brother from church sees you engaging in foolish jesting in a mall parking lot he'll probably say something to you. If he happens to observe you doing the same thing online, likewise.


----------



## Todd King (Oct 9, 2011)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Todd King said:
> 
> 
> > So, being anti-government is anti-Christ? Really!?! Well, I guess the authors of the Declaration of Independence weren't Christians after all. Maybe you could read it and give me a better idea of just what exactly it was that they were espousing.
> ...



Mr. Snyder, you are correct that our Declaration of Independence led to something that is not beautiful or lovely. Every time a group of subjects asserts their rights which are endowed to hem by their Creator, it comes with wholesale slaughter of said subjects. Once in a while, the subjects win. Am I trying to glorify war? Not at all. I am simply pointing out historical facts; facts which, without knowledge of them, would lead us all back into subjection without any benefit. After all, those who do not learn from history, are destined to repeat it.

Regarding our Constitution, again you are correct. It is a less than perfect document and system of government. However, even disregarding the fact that a full 90% + of the principles and limitations found in that document are derived directly from the Scriptures, and disregarding the fact it was, and still is, the best system of government set up by man, let us not forget that it is the law of this land. Therefore, we are bound to honor and obey it according to our text in Romans 13. Furthermore, all of our governmental agents swear an oath to the Almighty God to uphold said document and the system of government that is laid forth in it. As such, we have a duty and responsibility to see to it that they keep their oath. Also, with proper understanding of covenant, we know that when leaders violate an oath that they swore to God, that it brings down God's cursing upon the people who are in subjection to such an one- whether it be civil government, church, or family.

Lastly, the point I was making is that there is a long established history of godly men who have been anti-government when government was anti-God. We can find four such examples in the book of Daniel, although there are plenty of other examples throughout both biblical and modern history.


----------



## Webservant (Oct 9, 2011)

I post things on my Facebook wall which criticize the US government, and the way I do so is appropriate, but many times is offensive to those who prefer the path of blind obedience. I am also the church webmaster, and I run their Facebook group. It did occur to me that some may think that my own political opinions are, somehow, sanctioned by my church. This is what led me to do two things: (a) set up a Facebook Page (instead of a group), so it's not my face going out with every news item from my church, and (b) create a Facebook list called, "church" so that my political posts are not sent to people who may be offended or to new members who may confuse my private political opinions with information coming from the church. As to the poster's original point... yes, at times it is very easy to get carried away in Facebook discussions, and while it is sometimes not pleasant to be called on it (I have been, truth be told) it is necessary, and I thanked the person who gently reminded me that others could read my posts.


----------

