As I head into the second post examining the implications of 1 Corinthians 5 on how Christians who disagree with each other on the issue of homosexuality should treat one another I want to make one thing abundantly clear: I do not claim to have "the answer" to the question at hand. I do not claim the kind of authority that would allow me to even attempt such a thing, but as a follower of Christ I am sharing my ideas with other believers in the hope that we will continue to wrestle with this passage. I think that one of the greatest dangers in approaching a passage like this is to blithely assume you know what it means, and in that confidence dismiss it. This happens on all sides of the debate, with people either "explaining it away" on the one hand, or assuming they know what it means on the other hand so that they don't have to think about the further implications because to them it is just about "that one thing."
It is our natural human tendency to want nicely packaged resolution to things. It makes life much more convenient if we have the answer and then put it to mind, but I believe that part of "meditating on scripture day and night" is leaving space to continue to learn and grow as I learn new things from a passage throughout my life. In keeping my mind open and continuing to wrestle I am not waffling so that I never have to make a choice on things, rather I am staying open to what the Spirit is showing me today, that I did not catch the last time I looked at this.
So the following is not so much an answer to the "Question of Corinthians" but rather a set of questions that the Spirit has been using to challenge me as I wrestle with this passage. I hope that you will gain benefit from it as well.
1. The Question of Consistency
Several of the people who commented on the first half of this post noted that Christians have tended to focus on the fact that the passage does not just focus on the issue of sexual immorality, but also lists idolatry, greed, drunkenness, and swindlers as those we should not eat with. The issue of greed came up in particular, with people debating what constitutes a person being greedy, and several people noting that much of the world would consider our Western lifestyles horribly greedy. Why I have never heard a sermon warning me not to eat with greedy people? What about Slanderers? I don't think I have even heard a definition of the word in a sermon, let alone exposition on what it means to avoid them. If sexual immorality is so clear, why are these other issues treated so differently? Even within the wide definition of sexual immorality there is a huge gap what Christians agree on. Why do we treat divorce and remarriage so differently from homosexuality? Does that mean we loosen our views on homosexuality or tighten them on other issues? What would it look like if we did?
2. The Question of Discernment
What role does discernment of the individual case as hand should go into how I apply this scripture? It seems as Jesus confronted the Pharisees one of his frequent critiques was that the applied rules without understanding the point behind them, and ended up missing the point. What is the point of Paul's pronouncement here? Since this is in response to a particular case, when does it apply and when does it not? Is there a difference between approving of homosexuality and bragging about incest. It is interesting to me that individual in question was using Scripture to back up his actions? Did he sincerely believe what he was doing was okay? Does that make a difference? How far does one have to go before the church should put them out? If someone things rated R movies are okay, and another doesn't do we put them out too? Is the point of church discipline the restoration of the brother or maintaining God and the Church's holiness?
These questions are ones that i have particularly grappled with, and as I have tried to discern a way forward have come to the following: the heart of the person involved is a key question. I have had friends who when coming to this issue have basically gone "this is so hard, I am going to change my beliefs so I can get what I want." The interesting thing about this is that while they often protest they are following God still, their attitude is reflected on other issues. I remember telling one friend I talked with "I understand people disagree on the issue of homosexuality, but you are sleeping with multiple partners, some of who are married! I think you are making excuses at this point!" On the other hand I look at friends of mine like Justin Lee (who is featured on the DVD) who even as their views on homosexuality have changed have sacrificed greatly to uphold the Christian beliefs of chastity, faithfulness and sexual purity. Although I still disagree with many things with Justin, having got to know him and his heart to follow Christ I feel confident continuing to work and minister with him. I certainly would have no compunction about eating a meal with him. With my other friend while I have not cut him out of my life, the difference in heart has led to alot of strain on our friendship as my refusal to approve of his actions has caused him to reject me.
The other thing that really sticks with me as I wrestle with this passage is that if the purpose of excommunication is to bring a brother to repentance, why I have I never seen it have that result in my many friends who have been thrown out of the church? What I have seen instead is that those who are hard hearted just leave, and those who still care about God find other churches that agree with them, or stay on the outskirts of the church. They want to be part of the body but will not compromise their integrity of belief simply to be let back into community. Are they the same as the example in Corinthians? Should they be handled the same way? Does church discipline work different when you have millions of believers in a city instead of a handful?
3. The Question of Assumptions
One of the things that struck me most when I read the comments on the last post is how people often start at a totally different place than me. I was particularly intrigued by the one poster who immediately linked "eating together" with the Lord's Table. This is not a connection I would ever have made on my own, and do not know that I agree with it yet...but I started to ask why they made that connection, and why it never occurred to me. I am guessing that it has a lot to do with the differences in the denominations in which we circulate. I tend to come from a denomination that does not put huge emphasis on communion (as we call it) though we practice it. But when I mentioned this to a friend who grew up in a church where the Eucharist (a term I never even heard growing up) is central to church life they immediately saw a connection there.
In another comment someone talked about reading Paul versus reading Jesus, and immediately my conservative evangelical side kicked in and went "that's not a valid point..all Scripture is God breathed..." often these discussions bog down because we are not really arguing about homosexuality or whatever else, we are arguing about principles of interpretation. So what assumptions am I bringing to the text that blind me to what the Spirit is telling me? How has my context shaped me to hear and how has it shaped me to overlook important things? What are the read divides? What are the valid critiques that those who disagree with me see clearly that I am likely to ignore?
Like I said, I do not have the final answer to all of these questions. As I encounter more and more people who disagree with me on this issue I am trying to listen to the Spirit and discern on how I should interact with each of them. I continue to ask what is helpful to them, to the church, and what Christ wants to do in this situation. I have had those I have had to set boundaries on. There are others that I embrace as brothers and sisters in Christ and do not apologize for doing so. But I do not want dismiss this passage. I believe God is alive and speaking through Scripture and so I continue to wrestle with this passage but alone and with other believers as I continue to follow Christ. Thank you all for being a small part of that and I look forward to continuing to wrestle with you.
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Thank you for this post, and for these questions. I find it curious and encouraging that when a blog is full of this many questions of self-doubt and self-reflection, no one is quick to respond. Perhaps that is because our responses to touchstone passages and phrases have become too automatic. Probably that owes somewhat to avoiding pain and confusion; for those who have embraced their gay sexual identity, the pain of rejection by loved ones and confusion of mixed messages from the christian community, and for those who maintain that gay lifestyle is wrong, the pain of living with the consequences of that belief in relationship to loved ones and themselves and the confusion of a pluralistic society. I am a chronic doubter, something I have come to love and hate about myself.
I am currently trying to live "in obedience" to this passage as I understand it. To me it is not a one-moment affair, but echoes teachings of Jesus. I try to take it literally but also the spirit of it, for one without the other is impotent to wholly affect our lives. I believe Paul makes a careful distinction here between sinning and embracing sin, living in freedom and abusing freedom. It is an issue of wrongful living without remorse, whether that be greed or sexual immorality.
I broke off contact with my christian brother when he chose to embrace his gay sexuality and pursue a relationship with another man. The church I attended at the time was influential in that decision; recently the pastor had with much sadness asked the church to draw back from a man who had decided to divorce his wife. He could be firey when denouncing doctrines he saw as false, but never would I accuse him of hypocrisy in blessing greed, slander, or the other specifics mentioned here.
The process has been painful and never resolved for me. I question myself at every turn and am plagued with worry about the practical and personal consequences of my decision. I love my brother and desire the best for him, and hope he doesn't learn to hate me. I have not disowned him; in my commitment to him as a believer I cannot condone what I believe to be evident sin.
You ask some excellent questions here, many of which I have never thought of and look forward to exploring, particularly the issue of the societal context in that the outside society believed such behavior to be sin. (Though would they have felt as clearly about the other things listed here, like idolatry?)
I also want to make this known to those across the "gap" from me. Many use this scripture as cover for hate; I don't deny that. But invoking it is often a bitter experience for both sides. In fact, I would suspect that it is supposed to be bitter for both sides, for the weight of dealing with sin should never be born by just the sinner - Jesus makes that much certain. I thank God that we have Paul's follow-up letter to the Corinthians as well, and in it time and time again he testifies to the great pain that he caused the church in what he asked them to do. He does not speak merely about the one man's sorrow and repentance, but the church as a whole experiencing a godly sorrow. In fact, Paul confesses that it pained him just to write I Corinthians. This passage is not a dogmatic drawing of battle lines. It is a love that is willing to endure great pain to achieve what is best for the brothers and sisters of Christ.
What is best, today, is clouded. And it is clouded for me. Perhaps in a month God will make it clear to me I have approached this wrong all along - I pray He does, because emotionally I long to be with my brother. But my spirit or the Spirit has never felt at rest with such a decision, though I explore and question it constantly.
Bitter and firm decisions are not evidence of unthinking judgment. I do not accuse my brother of it in his choice to live as a gay man. Thank you, thank you for this nuanced approach to this crucial passage.
T
The reason I have not responded to this post is simply because there is much to digest here. These are good questions and worth some thought before responding publically.
In my experience, the issue of discernment has been prevalent when it comes to this issue.
When we start excommunicating people from God's house, we get into very sketchy teritory. If we kicked everyone out who was overweight, divorced, greedy, gay... etc. We'd have empty churches.
There needs to be some understanding to the fact that what one views as "faithful living" can differ between people. We need to encourage one another on to live as faithfully to God as we can, with what God has given us. I do not believe excommunicating people does that. It sends a very different message to us who are trying to workout our faith and sexuality.
Awww. I'm practically in tears, just knowing some of the background b/w the 2 previous "anonymous" posters :(
T, I'm actually very glad to hear that this issue impacts you so, and that you are humble enough to not only reconsider your conclusion, but to even hope that your presumptions about the passage are wrong.
Honestly, I wish I could talk to you in person, b/c I would cherish the opportunity to understand more clearly the way in which you view Scripture, and how you came to your interpretation of this passage in particular. Perhaps one day we will get that chance :)
Brian, thanks for those questions! I think they are all spot-on. I think what informs my particular opinion the most is this whole issue of consistency. I simply was never able to - in good conscience - apply this passage literally. Not to anyone I know. Perhaps that has a lot to do w/ the fact that I have not personally come in contact with anyone that I know of who commits any egregious, completely harmful sexual sins such as incest. If I knew someone like the friend you mentioned, would I wrestle a bit more w/ this passage? Perhaps so. It's hard to tell. One thing I do know is that I'm very tired of the cherry-picking we Christians do when it comes to the Bible. Even for those who do apply this passage to slanderers, the greedy, et al . . . they'll still allow their women to enter the church doors and SPEAK! And without head coverings at that!
I can't say that I understand the entirety of Scripture. I barely understand bits and pieces! What I can tell you is that I take it seriously, and I love God earnestly. And at the very least, I'm honest enough to tell you that - on the surface of things - I selectively pick and choose Scriptures I give more or less credence to. I wish we as the Body would all have the honesty to admit to the practice. . . b/c I've yet to meet a Christian who doesn't! Instead, they justify why they're OK ignoring one verse ("it's the cultural context!"), while failing to apply the same rigors to all other verses. Pity . . .
And looking here at cases like this, it seems all the more sad to me. We've got families torn apart as a result of specific interpretations of this passage, and what good has come of it at all? Who exactly has yet to taste of the abundance and fullness of Christ while attending to a literal interpretation of this Scripture? It really makes me question . . .
The Bible can speak to people in many ways but when what you are hearing from it is to hurt those that you love it is time to look to your heart for direction. Remember, love is the most important aspect of life, don’t take your love from a family member when your love is what they need and what you need to grow in your faith.
Another perspective and possibly a bit of a hidden question… In my experiences with gay friends it seems that those that are most opposed to ‘their kind of love’ often times have a deep secret themselves. That is not to say that they are gay themselves but that they are afraid to truly look at themselves and that this ‘denial’ causes them to react thoughtlessly to their loved ones.
Dear Anonymous
I think your second point makes dangerous assumptions and generalization. While I have met people that that is true for, I think it is not any better to assume that people that hold that perspective do so out of secret agendas of the heart than it is for the other side to assume that all people who hold a side A perspective must be doing so because of unconfessed sin, a hard heart, spiritual warfare or whatever other reason you could come up with.
I enjoyed reading your part 2. A critical part of exegesis is asking questions of the text. You did that beautifully, leaving many points open to ponder.
Another point to ponder is that if this is the way we should deal with something we perceive sexually immoral than why did God not demonstrate this with Old Testament polygamy?
While we cannot totally dismiss this passage we would do well to discern its purpose. Its purpose, as I mentioned in my comments on your part 1 seems to be restoration. As you noted, we have not seen this purpose realized anytime we have practiced excommunication in modern times. I agree with you on this and tend to think that while the purpose remains the same throughout history, the means by which we accomplish that purpose changes as culture changes. For the first century church where community was everything and there was no alternately believing church to go to perhaps this was effective. But for modern times where there are multiple church choices nad ideologies this method either leads to loss of faith or the individual simply migrating to a church that is receptive to this particular viewpoint.
As to the Lord's supper, in that culture, the Lord's supper was part of their meal together. It had not yet been formalized into what we have today. This is evidenced by what Paul says regarding the Lord's supper in I Cor 11:17-34 where Pauls instructs the worshippers not to get drunk on the Lord's supper nor hoarde it so that some leave hungry (hardly possible if you are talking about a thimble of wine and a cracker).
Blessings,
Dave
Post a Comment