mark@uunet.uu.net (Mark Richter) (05/18/91)
OK, time to stir things up. I've seen numerous quotes from 1 Corinthians 6 in this place, and they are frequently used to justify ejecting or rejecting certain persons from the church based on their sexual preference. When I read this chapter, Paul seems to be pretty clear. *But*, what I am struggling with (in the process of understanding the hubbub currently underway in the Presbyterian church) is how all the Biblical references I can find on sexuality and sin stack up against the ministry of Jesus. So, in hopes of getting a constructive discussion going, I posit the following: Taken as a whole, the ministry of Jesus is one of inclusion, not exclusion. In fact Jesus sought out sinners, not believers. I posit that Paul's seemingly clear treatise on the subject of sexuality and sin is not clear at all, and, moreover, that Jesus *never* would have preached such things in the same way Paul seems to have. Consider the story of the adultress and the casting of the first stone and the command of Jesus "go and sin no more". (He didn't say, "Get out.") Please, sombody tear into me and show me where I'm right or wrong. Mark D. Richter apexepa!mark mark@apexsc.com --- End of forwarded message from uunet!MAILER-DAEMON (Mail Delivery Subsystem) [In every case I can think of, Jesus asked the sinners he sought out to repent. I can't think of any examples where he dealt with unrepentant sinners, except perhaps the rich young ruler, who he dealt with a certain show of discipline I think. Church censure has always been a ticklish issue, and whenever it was used, there have been questions of how it should be used. One view in the patristic period was that public sins should be censured publicly, and private sins dealt with privately. A situation happened not long ago in a church far enough away that I think I can describe it without violating any confidentiality. (It's not in my denomination nor anywhere near here. A friend described the situation.) One church employee began having an affair with a church member. At least one was married. The church suspended the employee. This led him to get counselling, and seems to have helped facilitate a happy ending. This is an example of a situation where the church had such an obvious and public involvement that to avoid doing anything would be visible countenancing of the sin. Election of church officers would seem to be another case. No one expects them to be perfect. But they are examples. Thus their character does seem relevant. On the other hand, no one wants the church to start encouraging members to be busybodies. Nor do we want to develop into a kind of hypocrisy where there are certain visible sins that people have a particular aversion to, and we only pay attention to them. There is a special danger in using church discipline where there are disagreements about standards. Church discipline is most useful to help people who have been become thoughtless or lax, but accept the relevance of the standards. When there are disagreements about standards, church discipline is unlikely to lead to healing. You may still use it if the majority believes it is an unacceptably bad witness to allow the action to be present in the church. But this is a horse of a rather different color than the example I gave above. The question is where to draw the line. It seems that this is going to depend somewhat upon the expectations of the members. Church discipline is only useful if members accept its use as helpful rather than intrusive. Any church is going to have to develop a strategy that is appropriate to its members' expectations and standards, fits in with an overall strategy of pastoral care for members, and that everyone accepts as being done in love. This is clearly a difficult problem. Many churches (including mine) seem to prefer not to do anything. Perhaps members from churches that do practice church discipline would like to describe their policies and (to the extent that confidentiality allows) some of their experiences. --clh]
hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr) (05/19/91)
I disagree with the "posit"ion that Jesus would not condone Paul's stance on excluding certain members for sexual immorality. 1. Jesus associated with sinners. Jesus ate and drank with tax collectors. One time he even stopped the stoning of a woman who had been caught in the very act of adultery (but for some reason, the guilty man was not with her, as he should have been.) Notice his words to her. "Neither do I condemn thee. Go and sin no more." Jesus forgave her sin. At one time, he said to the Pharisees that they that are whole need not a physician, but they that are sick. Jesus was a phisician to the spiritually sick tax collectors and prostitutes. But notice that Jesus harsh words were to the Pharisees, who were supposed to be the people of God, but were filled with unrighteousness. They did not keep their own burdensome laws that they put on others. They loved to recieve the honor of men, but did not care as much about what God thought. Jesus called many of them hypocrites. In the same way, Paul was harsh on those who claimed to know the truth, but lived in sin. Look at I Corinthians 5:9-10, "I wrote to you in an epistle not to company with fornicators: Yet not altogether with fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters: for then we must needs go out of the world." In other words we can eat with sinners, just as Jesus did! Yet the next verse says that if a man claims to be a brother and does these things, we should not keep company with him, or even eat with him. Look at Matthew 18:15-17. I know that it applies specifically to when one sins against another, but we can make application to this situation. If one sins agaisnt us, we are to go to him and tell him. If he listens, we have gained a brother. If he will not, then we are to take one or two more with us, so that every word maybe established. If he will still not listen, then finally we take him before the church. If he will not listen, then we are to treat him as a heathen and a publican. back then, when the disciples were still ruled by the Pharisees, they were taught that they were not to eat with the heathen and tax collectors (as we see formt he Pharisees words to Jesus in the passage I previously refered to.) The disciples were told not to associate with the man. Of course, after the ressurection, it was revealed that it was okay to associate with heathens (Gentiles) and the disciples had the example of Jesus in witnessing to sinners. I think that Jesus and Paul were in perfect agreement. Associate with sinners, but not it they claim to be Christians and will not hear the truth. Maybe we can get into a discussion about dust-shaking if we stay on this topic. Link Hudson
tas@pegasus.com (Len Howard) (05/22/91)
Mark, here is one vote in support of your position. I also believe Jesus taught an incusionary philosophy. He came to the world, not to hob-nob with the priests and pharasees, but to save sinners. He WANTS sinners to repent and become part of the body of Christ. We do not make them part of the body by excluding them from participation.