This is from a comment on a post that I happened to read yesterday, "We don't have any business 'working with' and 'caring for' people who claim to be in Christ and claim that God is not bothered by their sinfulness. We are instructed to excommunicate them from our fellowship and inform them that God will be merciful to them and forgive them should they ever repent and desire to once again be in Christ."
You may know where this is from and who it's about; if not, the exact information is irrelevant. Here's what is: the peson in question professes Christ and has admitted to being gay. Supposedly, he made the claim that God is not bothered by this. Personally, I'm not so sure from what I read that this was the case. But, let's give the commenter the benefit of the doubt and say that this claim was made. Are these dual claims, made by a Christian, sufficient cause to say of him, "Do not work with him; do not care for him"?
Earlier, the same commenter had written, "But we are instructed BY GOD not to associate with people who claim Christ and at the same time confess their complete lack of desire to repent of their sin." Really? First, I wonder just how one infers confessing a "complete lack of desire to repent of their sin" from a statement to the effect that God is not bothered by it. Furthermore, if such a desire has been expressed, does it need to denote a final state? May it not rather be the cry of the moment, something, which itself, will be given up in repentance? Part of the problem is that repentance, and therefore, nonrepentance, are conceived of as singular acts of the will producing lasting and demonstrable results. "Repent." "No." "Get out." This is wrong. Nonrepentance should never be determined absent an extended period of active compassion. It should not be determined by someone who is not involved in the situation. No matter how hardened a believer may appear on the outside, we cannot know what the Holy Spirit is doing to his insides.
Then there is the matter of this divine instruction. The immediate text is found in I Corinthians 5:11-13, "But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler--not even to eat with such a one. For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? God judges those outside. Purge the evil person from among you." It does look drastic, but does it require the hard line approach of the commenter? Perhaps, on a first reading of the context. Paul has just instructed the Corinthians to excommunicate a sexually immoral man. He then makes this statement and follows it up in chapter 6:9,10 by saying that "neither the sexually immoral, nor idolators, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, not thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."
That seems to settle the matter, but here's what must be the case if it does. There was a single case of sexual immorality at Corinth, which Paul delt with decisively. He then gives a list of sins that must also be addressed in the same manner. Of course, no one else in the Corinthian church was anything like this. Greedy, revilers, swindlers- who could think such a thing? In fact, they could look back on their life before conversion and see what they used to be like. Thank God for present day sinless perfectionism. Right. These same Corinthians, whom Paul has just scolded for taking each other to court, saying, "But you yourselves wrong and defraud--even your own brothers!" He follows his list of who won't make it into heaven with reasons to stop being sexually immoral: it joins members of Christ to a prostitute. In both types of sin, the body of Christ is divided. The Corinthians are doing both and both need to stop.
We need to reexamine what it means to be guilty of these sins, or any sin. If guilt is simply equated with doing them, then the Corinthian church either had good reason to boast, or, as far as eternity, they ended up being a lost cause. No, guilt is more than mere action; it has to do with our standing, or lack thereof, in Christ. There is a significant difference between the level of sin that required excommunication at the beginning of chapter 5 and that practiced by the average Corinthian. Paul writes in 5:10, "I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people--not at all meaning the sexually immoral of this world, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world." These practices permeated the Corinthian culture, including those who were in the Corinthian church. The earlier sin was "of a kind that is not tolerated even among pagans." The idea, of course, is not that the church should set its standards according to the world, but that the sin in question went beyond the restraints of common grace. And both the sinner and the church were being complacent about it.
Imagine the Corinthians conviction as they read Paul's letter. "Do not associate with these kinds of people." "But I'm that kind of people." "These will not inherit the kingdom of God." "I do these things and am powerless to stop." We have no more reason to hope than the Corinthians did. Which is what makes Paul's next sentence one the sweetest expressions of grace there is. "And such were some of you." We who constantly give in to vile habits and inclinations are not defined by these. Instead, we were washed, sanctified, and justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. We are not guilty of that which we do for Christ has accepted us.
Does this then mean that antinomianism and nonrepentance are appropriate? Not at all. Remember, Paul is rebuking the Corinthians for these sins. Repentance is required. But repentance is no more a once and for all act than our salvation is immediate glorification as a result of some sinners' prayer. We can't give people a few chances to get it right and then just figure they don't really mean it. "How often should I forgive, Lord-seven times?" Repentance should not be determined when, for all appearances, someone remains in sin. If you do not know someone, then how can you tell the difference between a steady stream of casual sin and frequent reoccurences of the same sin that are puncuated by anguished pleas for divine forgiveness? Repentance, not freedom from sin, is what defines the Christian life on earth.
The Corinthians were in union with Christ and were called to live in that fellowship, even though their habits included getting drunk, stealing, adultery, and the like. This fellowship, showing itself in mutual love and compassion, was even to be shown towards those of their number who kept committing homosexual acts. It wasn't just a matter of tolerating an orientation.
Paul brought them into dispair over their sin and then told them who they were in Christ. The response to such grace is not apathy. It is, "Yes, I am holy in Christ, but look at what my sin is doing to Christ." Repentance is the constant response of those souls who, realizing what they have done to their Lord yet again, rush to him for mercy. It is that deep sorrow for breaking up the body of Christ. Forgiveness and love are when Christ, knowing our weakness- our inability to stop sinning, says, "Here is my broken body; take and eat."
Posted by kcourter at março 4, 2005 12:02 PM