The Barbarian
Crabby Old White Guy
- Apr 3, 2003
- 25,918
- 11,305
- 76
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Libertarian
The odds are slim.
I think you're right.
Upvote
0
The odds are slim.
People are not to judge that way. Sorrrrry
John 7:24
Do not judge by appearances, but judge with right judgment.”
John 8
15 You judge according to the flesh; I judge no one.
Isaiah 11
3 And his delight shall be in the fear of the Lord. He shall not judge by what his eyes see, or decide disputes by what his ears hear, but with righteousness he shall judge the poor, and decide with equity for the meek of the earth;
John 8
7 And as they continued to ask him, he stood up and said to them, “Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her.”
James 2
4 have you not then made distinctions among yourselves and become judges with evil thoughts?
Proverbs 24
23 These also are sayings of the wise. Partiality in judging is not good.
1 Samuel 16
7 But the Lord said to Samuel, “Do not look on his appearance or on the height of his stature, because I have rejected him. For the Lord sees not as man sees: man looks on the outward appearance, but the Lord looks on the heart.”
What this passage does not permit is shaming and shunning, as is frequently practiced among cultish and dangerously authoritarian groups.
There must be love, compassion, and an intent by the Church to both establish boundaries as well as foster an atmosphere of reconciliation and healing.
Who are you to say who is simply cohabitating and who is married? Where you there when the two became one?Something that I have been thinking about a lot lately is 1 Corinthians 5:11. This is specifically about the person who claims they are Christian, but is living in sin...even boasting about it. It is clear that we are not to associate with a person like this, not even to share a meal.
In these present times, I'm seeing more and more people who claim Christ embrace some of the very sins listed in this passage. I can scroll through facebook and see someone post about God's love only just to post acceptance of immorality not too long later; this person also lives with her boyfriend and child they have together. I've had a classmate who claimed she was Christian laugh about sleeping with her boyfriend; they're not together anymore and she has a new boyfriend who I've seen act inappropriately with her in public before they were "officially dating" and they even just went on vacation together. I know another girl who also claims she's Christian and lives with her boyfriend. My own sister is living in this way and sadly, we are not speaking because of it. She wanted nothing to do with me when I voiced how I felt about her lifestyle. These are just a few examples among what I am seeing a lot of lately.
I've interacted with all of these people, and yes, even shared a meal with them. I wasn't thinking too much about this verse then, but according to it, am I not to associate with them? What happens in the case where they study at the same university as you or work in the same workplace? Isn't that "associating" with them by the very definition of the word? The same passage says it is not talking about the people of the world, because to not deal with them we would have to leave this world. Obviously we aren't supposed to be best friends with the people of the world either, which leaves us free to do business with them, work with them, speak with them, etc. This must mean that for those who claim to be Christians and are living in blatant sin, that we cannot even associate with them in mundane everyday ways. How can we realistically do this, if say, they happen to be your coworker?
Is this verse talking about only the person engaging in such immorality, or does it also address those who are active supporters of it? I know of many who aren't committing immoral acts themselves, but they applaud those who do. They either think calling the person out on their sinful behavior will leave them feeling condemned and fear it will push them further from God, or they actually celebrate the lifestyle the "Christian" is living in the name of freedom and love. I am friends with someone else on facebook, an ordained reverend; instead of rebuking the other "Christian" friend who is falling away in faith, recently declared she is a witch, that she doesn't believe that the path she is on will lead to destruction and that she is in control of her power, gets the support and cheering of her new found freedom by the reverend instead. This left me so unsettled.
I don't understand why people who want to live in such a way don't just use their freewill and fully commit, since they are already doing these things anyway, rather than claiming Christ at the same time. It seems actually more complicated and less "freeing" if they want to be tied to the very faith that condemns these things. But I digress...
What I'm really wondering is how we follow this verse, especially in these times when so many say they follow God but live in sin. How do we navigate this issue in our everyday lives? How do we define "associating"? Is being employed by the same employer associating? Being friends on facebook? Are those who condone and even preach immorality while they themselves are not physically engaging in the sin on the same level as those who are?
I don't disagree with anything you say, but I'm not sure this addresses the OP's concern. I have little question that Paul would expect church discipline against anyone living with someone outside marriage. But many churches don't do that. I'm not sure whether it's "many" or "most." It may well be "most."The sort of person Paul speaks about is a Christian who engages in destructive behavior. We aren't simply talking about someone who is in the wrong. The list includes destructive behaviors--idolatry, prostitution, drunkenness, extortion, etc.
Such a person is no longer welcome into the community of faith, or what we often call excommunication.
The question further then is what does the Apostle mean by eating, does he mean simply sharing a conversation over a basic meal? Or does he refer to the Eucharist? In either case, the point is such a person is now excluded from the fellowship of the community as their destructive behavior shouldn't be tolerated, or worse, encouraged. The goal, of course, of church discipline is ultimately restoring communion, and so the point isn't punishment--to hurt, shame, or revile the person--but to clearly establish boundaries about what sorts of behaviors can't be tolerated because they bring harm, and that repentance and restoration are the end goal. And if this person has no interest in this, they are allowed to go their own way.
What this passage does not permit is shaming and shunning, as is frequently practiced among cultish and dangerously authoritarian groups.
There must be love, compassion, and an intent by the Church to both establish boundaries as well as foster an atmosphere of reconciliation and healing.
-CryptoLutheran
The church is no longer like a family to most of us. It's more like one of several clubs we're members of.
That is indeed the purpose of a public marriage ceremony. Having sex does not = marriage. Marriage is a covenant consummated by the physical act of sex. These people I know are enjoying the sexual component, but have made no marriage commitments. Also, this statement makes no sense because the examples of people I gave, fully disclose that the person they are living with are their boyfriends.Who are you to say who is simply cohabitating and who is married? Where you there when the two became one?
I absolutely agree that churches have become clubs. People who become members have this elevated sense of importance and man-made rules are constructed, which become club guidelines.I don't disagree with anything you say, but I'm not sure this addresses the OP's concern. I have little question that Paul would expect church discipline against anyone living with someone outside marriage. But many churches don't do that. I'm not sure whether it's "many" or "most." It may well be "most."
In fact the list of sins is much longer than just sexual. It includes things that would be included in "social justice." To my knowledge, churches have used church discipline almost entirely for sexual sin, except in fairly legalistic church that might use it for dancing, etc. Not generally for greedy or "revilers," though.
I think two things are going on, neither of which is likely to change:
I would argue that for individuals to shun other individuals, in an environment where it's not really useful for discipline, accomplishes nothing and is a bad idea. It would be different if you're a member of a congregation that is actually following Paul's approach to discipline. In that case members would be expected to support it. I don't think individual Christians can expect to discipline others outside of the kind of congregational structure that Paul assumed.
- The church is no longer like a family to most of us. It's more like one of several clubs we're members of. It makes sense for a family to do discipline. A club really can't. In many churches we don't know enough about members' lives to provide help, much less discipline. A club, and most churches, can throw you out, but not do what Paul actually intended.
- Like it or not, there's been a change in sexual ethics. Few Christians would openly say that it's OK to have sex outside of marriage, but few really expect Christians to wait until marriage to have sex.
I don't disagree with anything you say, but I'm not sure this addresses the OP's concern. I have little question that Paul would expect church discipline against anyone living with someone outside marriage. But many churches don't do that. I'm not sure whether it's "many" or "most." It may well be "most."
In fact the list of sins is much longer than just sexual. It includes things that would be included in "social justice." To my knowledge, churches have used church discipline almost entirely for sexual sin, except in fairly legalistic church that might use it for dancing, etc. Not generally for greedy or "revilers," though.
I think two things are going on, neither of which is likely to change:
I would argue that for individuals to shun other individuals, in an environment where it's not really useful for discipline, accomplishes nothing and is a bad idea. It would be different if you're a member of a congregation that is actually following Paul's approach to discipline. In that case members would be expected to support it. I don't think individual Christians can expect to discipline others outside of the kind of congregational structure that Paul assumed.
- The church is no longer like a family to most of us. It's more like one of several clubs we're members of. It makes sense for a family to do discipline. A club really can't. In many churches we don't know enough about members' lives to provide help, much less discipline. A club, and most churches, can throw you out, but not do what Paul actually intended.
- Like it or not, there's been a change in sexual ethics. Few Christians would openly say that it's OK to have sex outside of marriage, but few really expect Christians to wait until marriage to have sex.
Congregations I'm in have done various types of discipline a few times. But not in quite the way Paul envisioned. Of course it's probably true that what we see as the major threats aren't the same. Not surprising, since we're not dealing with a whole congregation of converts from Roman culture in Corinth.And so all of this is really a matter about how we talk about congregational ethics; and I think those sorts of discussions, and how we go about both keeping the vulnerable safe as well as seek the reconciliation of those who have or are doing harm. Because both of these things are parts of the Church's mission, to be a people of peace, love, and reconciliation in a sinful world. We cannot tolerate destructive and harmful behavior, and at the same time we desire the reconciliation and healing of the abuser even as we desire to protect and safeguard others from abuse.
And so all of this is really a matter about how we talk about congregational ethics; and I think those sorts of discussions, and how we go about both keeping the vulnerable safe as well as seek the reconciliation of those who have or are doing harm. Because both of these things are parts of the Church's mission, to be a people of peace, love, and reconciliation in a sinful world. We cannot tolerate destructive and harmful behavior, and at the same time we desire the reconciliation and healing of the abuser even as we desire to protect and safeguard others from abuse.
-CryptoLutheran
A question I have then is what sort of public marriage ceremony is acceptable to our God?That is indeed the purpose of a public marriage ceremony.
While I accept that the people you refer to are living in fornication it does not follow that they have not been joined as one in sex because of their desire to subvert the created order by not making a covenant before YHWH.Having sex does not = marriage. Marriage is a covenant consummated by the physical act of sex. These people I know are enjoying the sexual component, but have made no marriage commitments. Also, this statement makes no sense because the examples of people I gave, fully disclose that the person they are living with are their boyfriends.
You should not be associating with themSomething that I have been thinking about a lot lately is 1 Corinthians 5:11. This is specifically about the person who claims they are Christian, but is living in sin...even boasting about it. It is clear that we are not to associate with a person like this, not even to share a meal.
In these present times, I'm seeing more and more people who claim Christ embrace some of the very sins listed in this passage. I can scroll through facebook and see someone post about God's love only just to post acceptance of immorality not too long later; this person also lives with her boyfriend and child they have together. I've had a classmate who claimed she was Christian laugh about sleeping with her boyfriend; they're not together anymore and she has a new boyfriend who I've seen act inappropriately with her in public before they were "officially dating" and they even just went on vacation together. I know another girl who also claims she's Christian and lives with her boyfriend. My own sister is living in this way and sadly, we are not speaking because of it. She wanted nothing to do with me when I voiced how I felt about her lifestyle. These are just a few examples among what I am seeing a lot of lately.
I've interacted with all of these people, and yes, even shared a meal with them. I wasn't thinking too much about this verse then, but according to it, am I not to associate with them? What happens in the case where they study at the same university as you or work in the same workplace? Isn't that "associating" with them by the very definition of the word? The same passage says it is not talking about the people of the world, because to not deal with them we would have to leave this world. Obviously we aren't supposed to be best friends with the people of the world either, which leaves us free to do business with them, work with them, speak with them, etc. This must mean that for those who claim to be Christians and are living in blatant sin, that we cannot even associate with them in mundane everyday ways. How can we realistically do this, if say, they happen to be your coworker?
Is this verse talking about only the person engaging in such immorality, or does it also address those who are active supporters of it? I know of many who aren't committing immoral acts themselves, but they applaud those who do. They either think calling the person out on their sinful behavior will leave them feeling condemned and fear it will push them further from God, or they actually celebrate the lifestyle the "Christian" is living in the name of freedom and love. I am friends with someone else on facebook, an ordained reverend; instead of rebuking the other "Christian" friend who is falling away in faith, recently declared she is a witch, that she doesn't believe that the path she is on will lead to destruction and that she is in control of her power, gets the support and cheering of her new found freedom by the reverend instead. This left me so unsettled.
I don't understand why people who want to live in such a way don't just use their freewill and fully commit, since they are already doing these things anyway, rather than claiming Christ at the same time. It seems actually more complicated and less "freeing" if they want to be tied to the very faith that condemns these things. But I digress...
What I'm really wondering is how we follow this verse, especially in these times when so many say they follow God but live in sin. How do we navigate this issue in our everyday lives? How do we define "associating"? Is being employed by the same employer associating? Being friends on facebook? Are those who condone and even preach immorality while they themselves are not physically engaging in the sin on the same level as those who are?
Hi, I agree with your message, but I'm struggling as to take it in action.. I wanted to join a community of Christians, I'm myself not converted but I know the Word of God is Truth, somehow I still wanted to have close contact with friends and family who are non-believers.. I did not put God first so the community sent me home because I didnt decide to convert and follow Jesus and I did not feel convicted over my desobidience...The goal, of course, of church discipline is ultimately restoring communion, and so the point isn't punishment--to hurt, shame, or revile the person--but to clearly establish boundaries about what sorts of behaviors can't be tolerated because they bring harm, and that repentance and restoration are the end goal. And if this person has no interest in this, they are allowed to go their own way.
Hi, I agree with your message, but I'm struggling as to take it in action.. I wanted to join a community of Christians, I'm myself not converted but I know the Word of God is Truth, somehow I still wanted to have close contact with friends and family who are non-believers.. I did not put God first so the community sent me home because I didnt decide to convert and follow Jesus and I did not feel convicted over my desobidience...
The problem is that I still feel no conviction over my sins, I only feel condemned so I haven't come back to the community, because I don't have sincere repentance, I feel trapped half in the World/half away from it because I have knowledge of the Bible but disobeyed and do not have godly repentance.. I also don't feel comfortable speaking about God and Jesus openly because with this discipline I think I'll be a bad example from faith.
I wish the discipline could have brought me to a godly sorrow like the Corinthien, it is a need and shows love to the sinner from the elders, who need to protect the other sheeps in the church