Not endorsing the wrong team
This week's verses are on 1 Corinthians 5:9-13:
Paul is writing these verses to the Corinthian church, which was in disarray. People were loud and proud about their ongoing sin. They made excuses for it (which are addressed in other verses) and bragged about the sorts of things people could get away with and still be Christians. Paul was horrified.
The person Paul is talking about here is a person who was flamboyant about an adulterous relationship. This isn't someone falling into temptation once and going to the elders to confess it. It isn't someone who is trying their best but who occasionally falls off the wagon. This is someone who has created a whole alternate theology around blatant sin, and has charmed the church into endorsing it.
We're called to be tolerant of the faults of others, particularly if they're not Christians and have been led astray by the fashions of the modern era. But someone who should know better and doesn't, and who refuses to hear criticism, is dangerous. By openly cutting corners, or going the wrong direction, they encourage others to cut corners too, or to follow them in sin. They're not just sick; they're contagious.
Oftentimes these people latch onto the "do not judge" verses in the Bible, while ignoring this week's verses. "So what if I'm molesting altar boys. Isn't God's grace enough for me? So what if I'm spending donations for the hungry on building myself a nice little vacation home with its own island and an air conditioned dog house. Who are you to judge?" But we are supposed to judge other Christians, at least in a medical sense. Paul isn't heaping bitter hate on the evil person. He's saying that if someone is visibly ill, maybe it's best to get him away from the kids and elderly, and let the fever burn itself out someplace safe.
Paul says don't even eat with such a person. The person is morally unwell and has refused treatment. If someone is sneezing and getting sick all over and refuses to take care of themselves, would you recommend sitting down next to them for lunch? You'll end up as sick as they are, and you won't help them a bit!
But how do you judge the right point to excommunicate someone? People have erred on the wrong side of this long enough that a lot of churches forget that it's an option. It's tempting to use it as the nuclear bomb to get rid of people you don't like. Young Sally shows up to church in a well-fitting dress and all of the spinsters fly into a spitting rage and demand she be excommunicated before she corrupts all of the men. Johnny votes no on the building project and the other elders demand he be excommunicated for standing in the way of God's will and not having faith for the money. Those are bad reasons.
In Paul's case, this person's sin was well-known. The person not only refused correction but was proud of their sin, encouraging people to see it as something special. And it was something people outside of the church were familiar with too, undermining their reputation. And it was something which, by the sounds of it, was encouraging other sexual immorality in the church.
What other options do you have at that point? For the sake of the unrepentant sinner as well as the sake of the rest of the church, a separation has to be made. For the sinner, it removes the illusion that their sin is endorsed by the church. Maybe that'll be a wake up call. For the church, it removes the blot on its reputation and the ambassador from Team Satan passing out flyers for how hot things are on the dark side.
Do everything you can to help people who are caught in sin. But for those who embrace sin, and sit proudly atop it like a general, get them away from the others before someone gets hurt.
I wrote you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people. In no way did I mean the immoral people of this world, or the greedy and swindlers and idolaters, since you would then have to go out of the world. But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who calls himself a Christian who is sexually immoral, or greedy, or an idolater, or verbally abusive, or a drunkard, or a swindler. Do not even eat with such a person. For what do I have to do with judging those outside? Are you not to judge those inside? But God will judge those outside. Remove the evil person from among you.
Paul is writing these verses to the Corinthian church, which was in disarray. People were loud and proud about their ongoing sin. They made excuses for it (which are addressed in other verses) and bragged about the sorts of things people could get away with and still be Christians. Paul was horrified.
The person Paul is talking about here is a person who was flamboyant about an adulterous relationship. This isn't someone falling into temptation once and going to the elders to confess it. It isn't someone who is trying their best but who occasionally falls off the wagon. This is someone who has created a whole alternate theology around blatant sin, and has charmed the church into endorsing it.
We're called to be tolerant of the faults of others, particularly if they're not Christians and have been led astray by the fashions of the modern era. But someone who should know better and doesn't, and who refuses to hear criticism, is dangerous. By openly cutting corners, or going the wrong direction, they encourage others to cut corners too, or to follow them in sin. They're not just sick; they're contagious.
Oftentimes these people latch onto the "do not judge" verses in the Bible, while ignoring this week's verses. "So what if I'm molesting altar boys. Isn't God's grace enough for me? So what if I'm spending donations for the hungry on building myself a nice little vacation home with its own island and an air conditioned dog house. Who are you to judge?" But we are supposed to judge other Christians, at least in a medical sense. Paul isn't heaping bitter hate on the evil person. He's saying that if someone is visibly ill, maybe it's best to get him away from the kids and elderly, and let the fever burn itself out someplace safe.
Paul says don't even eat with such a person. The person is morally unwell and has refused treatment. If someone is sneezing and getting sick all over and refuses to take care of themselves, would you recommend sitting down next to them for lunch? You'll end up as sick as they are, and you won't help them a bit!
But how do you judge the right point to excommunicate someone? People have erred on the wrong side of this long enough that a lot of churches forget that it's an option. It's tempting to use it as the nuclear bomb to get rid of people you don't like. Young Sally shows up to church in a well-fitting dress and all of the spinsters fly into a spitting rage and demand she be excommunicated before she corrupts all of the men. Johnny votes no on the building project and the other elders demand he be excommunicated for standing in the way of God's will and not having faith for the money. Those are bad reasons.
In Paul's case, this person's sin was well-known. The person not only refused correction but was proud of their sin, encouraging people to see it as something special. And it was something people outside of the church were familiar with too, undermining their reputation. And it was something which, by the sounds of it, was encouraging other sexual immorality in the church.
What other options do you have at that point? For the sake of the unrepentant sinner as well as the sake of the rest of the church, a separation has to be made. For the sinner, it removes the illusion that their sin is endorsed by the church. Maybe that'll be a wake up call. For the church, it removes the blot on its reputation and the ambassador from Team Satan passing out flyers for how hot things are on the dark side.
Do everything you can to help people who are caught in sin. But for those who embrace sin, and sit proudly atop it like a general, get them away from the others before someone gets hurt.
Comments
Post a Comment