. . . I say make the most of it.
A week ago Annette wrote that her “church pastor said flirting is a sin.”
I believe that a pastor flirting with any member of his or her congregation would be a sin.
I believe that a person married or in a committed relationship flirting with someone not his or her partner could be a sin.
But other than that, I believe her pastor is just revealing his own hang-ups.
What do you believe?
Ken:
As you’ve insinuated, it’s “context, context, context.” Now, if you’re going to have a discussion about this, that is, if you assume that the pastor is not being absolutist about it, you’ll need to define your terms.
We’ll move past the first definition of flirt (at m-w.com) “to move erratically, flit” because that’s not what he’s talking about. On to the second: “a. to behave amorously without serious intent b. to show superficial or casual interest or liking.”
I would assume that, given how Annette’s post is worded, pastor was talking about 2a., since otherwise no one could even flirt with the idea of attending his church, as 2b. would point to.
The key phrase is “with serious intent”. If you have serious intent, the problem is not that you’re being sexual, it’s that you’re lying. And lying is indeed a sin.
That having been said, I don’t think the pastor is thinking that deeply, he’s just being anti-sex.
I don’t believe that such a thing as a “sin” exists.
Guilt is a useless emotion (doesn’t mean I don’t feel it, I just think it’s a useless load of %$#@ perpetrated by religious institutions trying awfully hard to keep us all in line. And I don’t like being manipulated.)
I use “sin” to mean a transgression against another person.
As I wrote in the post I am conflicted, but I’m thinking the pastor is being too harsh.