A Process Or Now

[AnOrangeCat]

On 8/15/2023 at 6:53 AM, Neighbor said:

As to the woman that had five husbands  before her  then present union without recognition as a marriage: I do not think Jesus was endorsing her five marriages any  more or less than her then existing arrangement. That which documented her marriages meant little or nothing to her. I do think that is what  my Lord was pointing out, not that a certificate of sorts made  an intimate  relationship blessed of God. He was pointing out that He knew, that He was God in the flesh. He knew her heart.

I agree. With a few exceptions Jesus didn't really dwell on people's sins or emphasize them much. The exceptions tended to be the hypocrites and people taking advantage of faith for their own gain. That was a different ball game entirely. But for everyone else, including the woman caught in adultery, it was just a simple "Go your way and sin no more."

I don't really get a feeling of endorsement either. Jesus said enough to establish His credibility. In the end that was all that was needed to get her receptive.

[Yes, and]

9 hours ago, Rockson said:

1) Who do you believe should take decisive action? That would be of course the leaders of the gathering of believers wherever they go. 

2) What kind of action do you envision needs to be taken? It's outlined in 1 Cor 5 the whole chapter. Have a read of it all if you might and comment back. It speaks of those who are in fornication.....it speaks of leaders who prided themselves for not doing something about it. It speaks of what should be done. It speaks of while the church is not to judge as Jesus stated, 1 Cor 5 brings a clarity. It speaks that in the church or gathering of believers you have to judge in a certain context. It also speaks if you don't carry out the instructions don't you know a little leaven can spoil the whole lump and your inaction isn't REALLY  walking in love. 

Thank you for the more thorough responses! Now we're getting somewhere.

I did read through 1 Cor 5 because I wanted to find out what language is in there which would lead you to conclude that Paul was writing to the leaders. The vast majority of his letters remain rooted in language addressing the members of the Body as a whole. There are exceptions to this, of course, notably when writing to Timothy, Titus, and Philemon. And Luke describes his meeting with and address to the elders at Ephesus (Acts 20). When Paul does write to a specific person or persons, the language is very clear in its departure from speaking to the One Body. There is none of that here in 1 Co 5. Most of the rest of 1 Corinthians speaks to this, how the One Body should behave as the One Body, through all the gifts of the individual members.

This context and understanding is crucial. There is NO clergy/laity distinction. You, @Rockson, by virtue of your own connection to the vine, by virtue of the thing which God has placed on your heart, have the responsibility* to take decisive action. If you truly love this couple, if you truly desire their godliness, then fully enter their lives. Don't leave it to someone else. Go alongside them (you do know the meaning of "Paraclete," do you not? As the Holy Spirit is to us, so are we to be with one another).

From your own testimony the Holy Spirit is already at work with the female. Look/pray to see how he may pour through you his grace to them both. Turning this into a question about how an institution should be handling this does nothing but divert your eyes from the true work of Jesus in your midst.

*"Responsibility," the root being response + able. He calls and we respond, as he provides the ability through His power to do so!

[Rockson]

9 hours ago, JimmyB said:

So two young men or two young women who want to live together are putting themselves in a place of high temptation?

Two people of the opposite sex are most certainly doing so. This is a given known to every generation throughout time. 

[Rockson]

8 hours ago, AnOrangeCat said:

 But for everyone else, including the woman caught in adultery, it was just a simple "Go your way and sin no more."

Correct. Go and sin no more. But if they didn't what then? Wouldn't a chapter like 1 Cor 5 eventually come into play? 

8 hours ago, AnOrangeCat said:

I don't really get a feeling of endorsement either. Jesus said enough to establish His credibility. In the end that was all that was needed to get her receptive.

Sure it got her receptive. But it also made a point. Jesus didn't condemn her but I think we'd be mistaken to somehow claim Jesus wasn't trying to prick her conscious that the man you now have is not your husband. She quickly tried to change the topic and he let her but he made his point. Some things in your life do need adjusting. 

[Rockson]

1 hour ago, Yes, and said:

Thank you for the more thorough responses! Now we're getting somewhere.

I did read through 1 Cor 5 because I wanted to find out what language is in there which would lead you to conclude that Paul was writing to the leaders. The vast majority of his letters remain rooted in language addressing the members of the Body as a whole. There are exceptions to this, of course, notably when writing to Timothy, Titus, and Philemon. And Luke describes his meeting with and address to the elders at Ephesus (Acts 20). When Paul does write to a specific person or persons, the language is very clear in its departure from speaking to the One Body. There is none of that here in 1 Co 5. Most of the rest of 1 Corinthians speaks to this, how the One Body should behave as the One Body, through all the gifts of the individual members.

 

I have no problem accepting a lot of this you're saying but put a focus on the things the body is expected to do FROM those very verses.....if we went through them from 1 Cor 5 line upon line we might find it enlightening and something it seems Christians today avoid as most want to portray themselves as nice. I get that but there's a false nice and a true one if you get my meaning. 

[JimmyB]

10 hours ago, Rockson said:

Two people of the opposite sex are most certainly doing so. This is a given known to every generation throughout time. 

But I was referring to people of the same sex.  Regardless, the problem is not what people are actually doing but what people fantasize about what they are doing.

[Yes, and]

14 hours ago, Rockson said:

I have no problem accepting a lot of this you're saying but put a focus on the things the body is expected to do FROM those very verses.....if we went through them from 1 Cor 5 line upon line we might find it enlightening and something it seems Christians today avoid as most want to portray themselves as nice. I get that but there's a false nice and a true one if you get my meaning. 

Absolutely get your meaning. "Better is open rebuke than love that is concealed." And, "Faithful are the wounds of a friend, but deceitful are the kisses of an enemy." -Prov. something:something and something:something. You are describing a very real cultural ethos which has us avoiding speaking truth plainly and sometimes harshly. There are still "broods of vipers" and "whitewashed tombs" and the like, but the ethos doesn't allow us to be like Jesus, or follow the wisdom of Solomon, calling them out in this regard. Or Paul to Cephas: "I opposed him to his face!"

Now, let's consider a perspective which I can absolutely guarantee will get pushback from possibly a large number of folks here, maybe even yourself. But, that's OK.

I already broached this idea when I said:

15 hours ago, Yes, and said:

Turning this into a question about how an institution should be handling this does nothing but divert your eyes from the true work of Jesus in your midst.

Ask yourself this question: to whom (or to what—an important distinction!) was Paul writing. Was he writing to people or was he writing to a thing, an entity, an organization? When we equate what we now call "church" to what Paul (and Jesus and the other disciples who spoke of the church) meant  when they used the word (ekklesia, or ecclesia) we have established a false equivalence. All it meant to them was the gathering together, the assembling, of believers—wherever and however they gathered. Certainly, various roles are to be played, various gifts are to be used, but by everyone. Your initial question is conceived strictly within the framework of a what, by which the rules of that what are supposed to be followed. Your "disconnect" arises from this understanding, because you have been raised (however and under whatever circumstances that may be) to believe that the institution (and more importantly, the leaders of the institution) are supposed to handle these matters in certain ways. And when a monkey wrench is thrown into the works, such as with your specific example, and the institution doesn't handle it the way you perceive it should be handled, the disconnect occurs.

If, however, you simply see your brother and sister whom you love in an error which you believe should be pointed out, so that they can come to repentance, then you should go to them in private. Jesus' words in Matthew 18 point this out, but this process generally does not work for the institutions.* It does (or could) work in the context of simple relationship (and the power of the Holy Spirit). Why doesn't it work for the institutions? Because there's always another institution right around the corner or across the street which will happily receive new dues-paying members, never mind whatever lifestyle they choose to live!

*Yes, I grant that rare exceptions exist in which "church discipline" in an institutional setting sees fruit, but only because God can and will do whatever he wants. It's certainly not because of virtuous folk following a playbook! There is none righteous. No, not one.

[Rockson]

22 minutes ago, Yes, and said:

Ask yourself this question: to whom (or to what—an important distinction!) was Paul writing. Was he writing to people or was he writing to a thing, an entity, an organization? 

I believe Paul obviously was writing to the collective group of believers in Corinth. Elders of the church or what we call Pastors should largely be those who would take actions. 

22 minutes ago, Yes, and said:

If, however, you simply see your brother and sister whom you love in an error which you believe should be pointed out, so that they can come to repentance, then you should go to them in private.

And this has already been done. Now the rest of 1 Cor 5....how do YOU interpret and understand what's to be done? 

22 minutes ago, Yes, and said:

 Why doesn't it work for the institutions? Because there's always another institution right around the corner or across the street which will happily receive new dues-paying members, never mind whatever lifestyle they choose to live!

Sure people can go right down the street and they'd be received. Doesn't mean that they'd be right in so doing though correct? So is we say why bother because of this reason then are we to just throw out passages like 1 Cor 5 and say well forget it? 

22 minutes ago, Yes, and said:

*Yes, I grant that rare exceptions exist in which "church discipline" in an institutional setting sees fruit, but only because God can and will do whatever he wants. It's certainly not because of virtuous folk following a playbook! 

But then again that wouldn't make sense would it. The Holy Spirit through the Apostle Paul told those believers what THEY were supposed to do. They hadn't done it and really they had no excuse for not doing so. So when they had revelator from God's word then yes they should have followed the playbook. (if one wanted to call it that) 

[Yes, and]

@Rockson: I've been preoccupied with other matters, but wanted to respond, along two separate lines.

On 8/17/2023 at 3:11 PM, Rockson said:

Elders of the church or what we call Pastors should largely be those who would take actions. 

Can you see that this response of yours presumes the clergy/laity distinction? If you were to go with Matthew 18 as a general pattern for how to deal with the leaven, there is no room whatsoever in there for the "Clergy" to be the ones to take action. It is, simply, "the church" (the gathering of believers) who should act, in the sense which the Amish would call a "shunning" (which is also similar to what Paul instructs the Thessalonians in regard to the person(s) who is not contributing to the needs of one another (2 Th 14-15)).

Also, pay close attention to what Jesus implies about the nature of the assembly (or gathering): He is there in the midst of two or three gathering in his name. What he delineates is not at all the same thing as what we have been taught is the church.

On 8/17/2023 at 3:11 PM, Rockson said:

Now the rest of 1 Cor 5....how do YOU interpret and understand what's to be done? 

On 8/17/2023 at 3:11 PM, Rockson said:

Doesn't mean that they'd be right in so doing though correct? So is we say why bother because of this reason then are we to just throw out passages like 1 Cor 5 and say well forget it? 

No, we don't forget it, but staying within the context of the institution, in looking to its hierarchy to fix the problems, to address these issues, is a no-win proposition because...

THE INSTITUTION ITSELF IS NOT THE CHURCH, and you are asking these question within the framework of the institution (or your particular institution). Can I be more plain? Saying something like this is why I previously said:

On 8/17/2023 at 2:35 PM, Yes, and said:

Now, let's consider a perspective which I can absolutely guarantee will get pushback from possibly a large number of folks here, maybe even yourself.

At this point there is not much more I can add, simply because A) your questions exist within an institutional context which developed after the time of the Gospel writers and the apostles who bore witness to the resurrected Jesus, and which, ultimately, is foreign to notions of Body life found in the NT, and B) I do not equate the institution(s) with the One Body.

I did say at the outset of this response that I would respond along two lines. That was the first. The second is this:

Paul is definitely not approaching the matter of the incestuous son from a position of morality. By this I mean he doesn't have a pocket-sized list of rules as his basis for distinguishing what is good and what is bad. In his teaching, all are unrighteous, but then made righteous only on the basis of faith in the righteous Lord. His trouble is with the Corinthians associating with the "so-called brother," the one who flaunts his immoralities while claiming faith. This kind of person should be dealt with, and indeed (according to Matthew 18) two or three Corinthians (whether Elders or whoever of Jesus' true disciples) could have availed themselves of the same power Paul says he will employ in 1 Co 5:4-5.

So, if you want to apply your own pocket-sized list of rules which cross the line, necessitating shunning, what are they? Do your rules include bitter jealousy, selfish ambition, favoritism, love of money, gossip, quarreling, etc? (I'm here thinking specifically of James' letter, in which you will find only one reference to a sexual sin—and there adultery is mentioned merely to point out that the Law utterly convicts us as sinners.) Do some of these rules not make your list upon which you believe the leaders of your institution should practice disassociation?

Finally, do you view the man and woman who are cohabiting as "wicked," the way Paul uses the idea in 1 Co 5:13? What does the Spirit in you say about them? Are you ready to agree with one or two other brethren to deliver one or both over to Satan for the destruction of their flesh, so that their spirits may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus?

Edited August 24, 2023 by Yes, and
Added addressee @Rockson