One of the most challenging passages in the New Testament is 1 Cor. 5:9-13.
9 I have written you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people– 10 not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. 11 But now I am writing you that you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler. With such a man do not even eat.
12 What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? 13 God will judge those outside. “Expel the wicked man from among you.”
Now, most Christians readily enough accept the teaching of vv. 9-11. We understand that we are not to condone sins of this nature. However, we rarely teach–much less obey–vv. 12-13.
Paul plainly prohibits us from judging those outside the church. A Christian who slanders or is sexually immoral is to be disfellowshipped–shunned–in hopes of bringing the sinner to repentance to preserve his soul. But a non-Christian slanderer or sexual sinner is not to be judged at all. Why not? Because that’s God job–not ours. In other words, those outside the church are lost and will not be less lost because we judge or condemn them.
This passage has very real application for how the church is to deal with the world. It prohibits the church from imposing Christian morality on non-Christians via the power of the state. However, at least three exceptions come to mind.
First, the church stands in the shoes of prophets, such as John the Baptist, who became martyrs in order to speak truth to power. John fearlessly condemned the sins of Herod and so was imprisoned. Why risk his ministry to condemn someone who wasn’t about to change just because of John?
I think John condemned Herod because he couldn’t credibly condemn sin in the common people while ignoring the sins of the powerful. The examples set by the powerful will inevitably affect the morals of the rest if God’s people are afraid to confront them. (Therefore, it’s shameful that the Christian right has failed to condemn Scooter Libby’s perjury even though they readily condemned Clinton’s perjury. Falwell and Dobson have had nothing to say. The Christian right is hopelessly compromised by its association with power politics–but so is the left.)
Second, God’s people are called by John and the Old Testament prophets to oppose laws that oppress the vulnerable of society. When the legislature prefers the powerful to the poor, the church must–out of love–come to the defense of the poor.
Sometimes, what’s right depends on why you do it. The Alabama churches recently got together and defeated a lottery proposal. Well, there’s no reason for the churches to prevent the lost from gambling, and the saved need no laws to do what’s right. If the churches’ motivation was to impose Christianity on the lost of the world by force, the churches would have been acting in a most un-Christlike way.
But in this case, the churches opposed the lottery because it was designed to dupe the poor into making bad decisions in order to subsidize college expenses of the more wealthy–and the law was properly adjudged unjust and so opposed by God’s people.
When we act for the vulnerable of society, we stand on solid, prophetic ground. When we impose a Christian lifestyle on the lost, we do not.
Finally, the church sometimes properly presses for laws that are needed to protect all of us from evildoers. Rom. 13 teaches that this is a God-ordained role of government. Hence, we may fairly expect the state to punish murderers, thieves, and frauds.
This leads to a difficult distinction. We may certainly expect the government to impose a morality that protects society from evildoers, because we love those in the world enough to want them to be safe from murderers, thieves, and frauds. But we may not insist that government impose morality in general. We can’t ask the government to make people attend church (as actually happened during the Reformation and in Puritan New England). We can’t ask the government to impose prayer on non-Christian school children.
This leaves a lot of room for argument. I mean, does banning Sunday liquor sales (a big issue here in West Alabama) impose Christian values on the lost? Or would it be a loving means of preventing dangerous alcohol abuse? The answers don’t always come easily, but the questions should be clear enough.
This is why I have a tough time with Christian boycotts against worldly groups/institutions. The AFA puts on a lot of boycotts and I just think it feeds right back into the stereotype that Christians are angry and ignorant. We are much better off offering a productive voice toward the positive than bashing non-Christians for acting like non-Christians. Dan Kimball has a really interesting book & DVD called "They Like Jesus But Not the Church" that is helpful, although many in CofC's would probably disagree on how he handles women's roles in his material.
Exactly. Boycotts are the use of worldly power to impose Christian behavior on non-Christians.
They lead to resentment, don't work, and certainly don't bring anyone to Jesus.
I don't see that in the passage. Nobody seems to have a problem with Christians opposing murder, rape, burglary… It only gets controversial when Christians oppose things that certain groups in society do not oppose — abortion, homosexuality, etc. But aren't we supposed to be the salt of the earth, the light of the world? Isn't our speech supposed to be seasoned with salt? If Christians don't advocate godly moral values, who will?
I can see that it would be *unwise* to try to use the power of the state to enforce our values on an unwilling public. I just don't see that passage prohibiting it. And whether we use the power of the state or the media or word of mouth, we need to be advocating godly moral values in our culture.
“This leaves a lot of room for argument. I mean, does banning Sunday liquor sales (a big issue here in West Alabama) impose Christian values on the lost? Or would it be a loving means of preventing dangerous alcohol abuse? The answers don’t always come easily, but the questions should be clear enough.”
This reminds me of my younger days, when I often traveled to a State where they didn’t sell alcohol on Sundays – I would stock up on Saturday. I lost a close friend last year, due to liver problems, caused by his drinking. Banning sales didn’t help him. Banning liquor sales doesn’t impose Christian values on the lost, they know how to get around the banning. As always, you make some good points.
Randy
Alan,
In 1 Cor 5, "judge" surely takes on a judicial meaning, as Paul was calling on the church to disfellowship a member. "Judge," in context, includes to impose sanctions. The Greek krino includes that meaning, depending on context.
In answer to your question re murder, you're quite right that Christians in a democracy may vote to impose penalties for murder, for example.
Here's how I've got it figured. If we're acting out of love for society — to protect people from evildoers — then the scriptures certainly justify our actions.
But if we are acting to impose God's will on unwilling non-Christians, well, that's not our place. Therefore, we have no business telling people they can't do business on Sunday (although we can plea for the right to be free to worship ourselves).
Obviously, the line isn't always clear. In fact, we can take the same position for contrary reasons. When Christians get on TV and pound the Bible as the reason for a new law, the non-Christians won't feel the love. Indeed, there's no evidence that love is even in contemplation — just judgment.
But if we argue from the standpoint of what's best for society, we'll be seen for who we are – provided we mean it.
Hence, in the case of pornography, we can and should argue from the standpoint of what's best for marriage and the victims of the industry — rather than just saying God's against and so we have to pass a law.
That's not to say that we secularize our arguments, taking God out of the equation. Rather, we present God as God presents himself — he who loves most perfectly.
But instead we present ourselves as though we were called by God to execute judgment on the lost. That day hasn't yet come.
Sometimes I wonder how God can be so patient. If it were all up to me, I'd intervene and stop the murders, the abortions, the theft, and the meanness. But God doesn't. When we try to force unbelievers to do right (through whatever means) we are doing something God has chosen not to do.
OTOH God does speak out against those evil things. And we should too. Not only that, but we should also intervene on behalf of those who cannot speak for themselves… not for selfish reasons but in their defense.
Alan,
Exactly. The church – as the church – should certainly stand for the rights of the unborn, but should do so out of love — because God loves children and we do as well because we follow God.
This would be imposing morality on the lost, but it's nonetheless right, because the fundamental rule is love, and love compels us to stand for those who can't stand for themselves.
Of course, this means that our declarations of love will fall on deaf ears if we care nothing for the mothers and for children needing adoption. Coming from this direction forces us to demonstrate our bona fides — our authenticity.
This is one reason we'd far rather announce God's law and force others to obey. Coming from the platform of love puts a much bigger burden on us — but it's a burden we should want to bear.