So far, no one has mentioned the passage I consider central to the discussion —
(1Co 5:9-12 ESV) 9 I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people — 10 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. 11 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. 12 For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge?
This passages bears analysis at at least four levels —
First, what does it say about the Two Stories post? Does this passage influence your answer to these questions?
1. Is the church in Story 1 right? Unwise? Or guilty of sin?
2. Is the church in Story 2 right? Unwise? Or guilty of sin?
Second, how did Jesus live Paul’s teaching? Or did he?
Third, why is it that this passage is not part of our thinking? What is it about our heritage that makes this teaching of Paul’s — in an epistle very frequently studied in our churches — invisible to us?
Fourth, consider the ministries and programs of your church. Don’t say anything that would embarrass your congregation, but do the works your community of believers participate in live out this passage? I’m not suggesting that every single work should or even could. I’m just wondering how many of our congregations have works that involve intentional association with, you know, the immoral. (Sorry: it’s the Sunday school teacher in me. I just have to finish with an application.)
(I’m still refraining from commenting (much) until we get to the end.)
I could tell story after story about how my congregation applies this passage. However, I'll limit it to a story about my wife. We were conducting a Bible study in a low-income apartment complex when we discovered that one of the women (a prostitute) in the complex was pregnant. Although we talked with her frequently, she never attended our Bible study. However, she always sent her 5 children to our Bible study. As her due date approached, we realized that she would probably not have a baby shower since she had no family or friends who could afford to buy her anything. Soon after the baby was born, my wife organized a baby shower for her and her newborn baby (who had Down Syndrome). Close to 20 women from the church came to the shower and filled the room with all kinds of gifts for her and her baby. She was overwhelmed by the church's generosity and friendliness. Since then, she has moved away, but we know that she moved away with the knowledge that Christians cared about her and her family. We did not approve of everything in her life, but we cared about her. Hopefully, she will remember and turn to Christ some day (if she has not done so already).
As Paul himself said, we cannot avoid sexually immoral people while still living in this world. His concern seemed to be that we avoid associating with sexually immoral people in the church and by our association approve of their immorality. I don't see how this scripture sheds much light on the two groups to which you have directed our attention. Did you have something else in mind?
In our town, there is a correctional facility for juvenile girls who are either pregnant or have recently given birth. Last year, as part of our big service day, we had a group of our ladies throw the girls a "baby shower." They had cake and all the decorations and games you would expect at a baby shower. We gave each girl a children's bible story book and donated diapers and other supplies to the facility. Most importantly, about 15 ladies from our congregation spent the afternoon with the girls at the facility.
Unfortunately, we had some who objected to this project and refused to be a part of it because we shouldn't be celebrating teen motherhood.
Brian B, that's ironic, considering the greatest mother of all time was a teenager when she gave birth to Jesus…
and sad, on many levels.
But does Mary's biography justify teen-pregnancies? I don't think so, and I can feel with those who object to baby-showering in such a situation. Not that i say it is right to act this way, but I can't say it is right to somehow bless sinful behavior either. It is always right to show love to people, though. But it is not that simple, is it?
Alexander
Surely a baby shower is blessing the mother and the baby, NOT the sinful behaviour?
But for some (even forthe sowered one) the difference might not be so clear …
We have dealt with this in our own church and it is a difficult question of balance. How do you show your love to people at the same time of teaching them or convicting them of their sin. You do not want to be so overbearing in condemning them, but at the same time you don't want to go to the extreme of seeming to approve of their actions. Movies and TV back in the 50's began portraying the extreme overbearing parents and society forcing the girl into hiding until her child was born, that the shame was unbearable. So society moved to the other extreme that their is no shame now in an out of wedlock birth, so much that birthrates have gone through the roof.
So you can't really blame those for not wanting to give support. In our church situation we've also seen this problem escalate and how to address it is something we are still struggling with.
We have become so accepting of out of wedlock births
I guess there is no way to go back and correct posts. "Their" were a few errors above and I don't know where that last line came from!
In most cases we have the contact with those in these situations away from the church.
We as individuals must make the decision alone in each case.
To love one in trouble and help them is always a good thing to do regardless of the sin.
The sinner gets your thinking on their sin quick enough and in most cases shares your opinion and position but has gotten in over their head so to speak and now needs help.
Throwing them in the fire in not an option as none of us can cast the first stone. We must meet as Jesus did the woman at the well.
To not do so is committing a sin ourselves and answering for that would be harder to do than the sin we threw the one in the fire for!
The old saying applies "Love the sinner, but hate the sin"!
Wendy,
I tend to agree with Abasnar regarding the appropriateness of using comparing modern teen pregnancy to Mary. Based on things I've read from you in various places, I'm surprised you would be so quick to overlook the cultural differences between Mary's time and our time.
Mary lived in a culture in which girls her age were marrying and having children. Mary herself was betrothed to Joseph when Jesus was conceived inside of her. The scandal around Mary's pregnancy was not her youth, but the apparent indiscretion of an unwed girl. Yet we know that Mary's pregnancy was not the result of a sinful act or a poor choice.
And that is the difference in the mind of those who objected. The girls we served are having babies in contravention of the cultural norm. We no longer think it is normal for 15-16 year old girl to have a baby. Culturally, we expect girls to be at least in their 20's before having children. Add to the fact that these girls are unwed, the pregnancies are the result of poor choices and sexual activity that most would consider sinful.
I don't think Mary's example would have been helpful in dealing with those who objected to this particular service project.
Anne, ever seen the list of great people that were born out of wedlock?
What a contribution they have made to mankind.
The problem is not the out of wedlock births, as I feel the alternative taken by most, meaning abortion is worse, but, it is the sexual conduct that is the root problem.
That's where we must start and put our emphasis and correcting that will take care of the out of wedlock births and the rampant abortions.
Brian, I think you may find the cultural norm changing. In several segments of our society younger sexual activities and resultant pregnancies are becoming not merely normal but symbols of social success. Remember what is "normal" and what is "right" are not necessarily the same and what is normal can indeed shift drastically in a very short time.
Abasnar,
A couple of thoughts regarding your comments about the baby shower.
First, this was not a traditional shower in the sense that the girls received an abundance of clothes and toys and money to purchase more of these items. Keep in mind that this is a correctional facility. The girls that are in the facility are there because they committed some sort of crime. These girls come from low socio-economic backgrounds. To help maintain control and avoid jealousy issues, the girls are not allowed to have many personal items while in the facility. Because of this rule, we were asked not to give things to the girls unless we gave one to all of the girls.
To comply with this, as I said before, we gave each girl a children's bible. The rest of the "gifts" were given to the facility in the form of diapers and other essentials for the care of newborns.
The shower was more about creating an environment for the girls that they are likely to have not received anywhere else. We gave them the opportunity to interact with each other and with our ladies in a social environment. We gave them the opportunity to feel that they are special and that their babies are special. Although the circumstances may not be deal, all new life is precious, even the life these girls brought into the world.
Second, you asked Wendy if Mary's example "justifies" teen pregnancy? I don't think that having a shower justifies the behavior that led to the pregnancy. This is what I would tell people at our church that would object to the concept of the shower. Would you have these girls compound their sin by adding the sin of abortion on top of it? These girls made difficult choices to keep their babies rather than taking the perceived easy way out. What we are trying to accomplish in the shower and in our other activities at the facility is to support these girls in their roles as mothers.
The bell can't be unrung, so to speak. Should we just abandon these girls so that their babies are raised to make the same mistakes? Would you like to see these girls become grandmothers at the age of 30 because their children make the same mistakes? We believe that through this service, we can show these girls the love of Christ and just maybe influence them to end the cycle of poor choices at their generation.
These girls may leave the facility and return to their prior choices and they may not. But if we don't choose to show them Christ's love, who will?
I appreciate your stand on this issue, Brian and I agree 100%. It's God's loving kindness that draws people to Christ. It's love that shows the world we are Christians. The Good News of Christianity is that God accepts sinners.
Brian B: Bro—you get the email I sent you a few months back? Good for your church. That is an amazing display of love.
I can't believe we are having a discussion about whether or not treat unwed mothers as humans. I find this disturbing. So, I'll just revert to legalism myself in order to connect with this mindset.
If it is the sin we are avoiding, then we need to figure out who is not evangelizing enough and do a "light shunning" on them so that we can passively-aggressively show them that we don't approve.
…And do we even want to talk about the fatties? Gays, single moms, whatever…I am tired of the Christian double standard for sin.
I'd be remiss not to say that nobody has dealt with the the stories in light of 1 Cor 5 yet (myself included).
JMF,
I did get your email have been negligent in responding. My apologies for that. I will respond further via email.
Alabama John, I don't think my post said anything about disparaging the innocent child. What I was posting was about how difficult it is to know exactly how to handle the situation. It's like disciplining your children how firm or how soft are you on them when they've done something wrong. Many of us, contrary to popular belief, are looking at the welfare of the people's souls, not just looking to catch people in sins.
JMF, I'm not sure anyone is anyone is going to put a Scarlet Letter on anyone's chest or treat an unwed mother as a paraiah. But when the church is faced with this situation more and more you can look at it two ways –"wow we are really reaching out and bringing many people in (except they are children who have been taught) or "is there something missing in teaching our children, are we doing something wrong."
And you may be "tired of the Christian double standard for sin", but likewise I am tired of anytime a Christian speaks against a sin we hear "but what about that sin, we're not saying anything about that sin" or we are being judgmental.
What if a person does mistakenly believe that we approve of their sin? That doesn't mean we actually approve of sin, and it does not mean that we're promoting that sin. Presumably, we are going to address that sin eventually as our relationship develops with them.
Do we forsake the opportunity to love them and help them in their need because of that possible misunderstanding. Of course, Jesus' ministry to sinners appeared as an approval of sin to the Pharisees, but it was not. We need to consider the real possibility that our hesitancy to "show approval" may actually benefit the adversary more than it glorifies the Lord.
There is a world of difference between sending the signal, "We are here to help you." and "We are so happy for you." It may be difficult for a casual observer to tell the difference ( I hope people are enjoying the shower ). But it's an important difference none the less.
It depends on the situation. I'm not wise enough to spell it out in writing but it follows the advice, "rejoice with those who rejoice and mourn with those who mourn."
I am totally with you – I just wanted to show, that there are some valid points in the concerns of the critics as well. It is a narrow path, and I – personally – would have participated in this showering.
Readers,
I'm all for the baby shower. The young woman was not a Christian and therefore not to be judged. 1 Cor 5:9-13 is quite clear. Rather, our task is love and persuasion and a demonstration of God's grace. We aren't the moral police of the world. Rather, our task is to call the world to confess Jesus — which brings repentance.
But repentance without Jesus is not our job. That's for the police.
Thanks, Jay. I appreciate your understanding of it.
Brian & Terry, In re-reading through this thread I hope I didn't mean to imply what was done for those girls was wrong. I think it wonderful that the love of God was shown to others and that it may someday make a difference in their lives.
There is a difference in responding to our own and responding to the world. And I think there is a difference in not condoning the world's response to sin, but not singling out those who have fallen for scorn.
Does attending a dinner party at a tax collector's house necessarily mean the attendee endorses all the business practices used to get the money that paid for the dinner party? i'm not sure i see the significant difference between Jesus' typical evening out and these baby showers. Not to say there isn't one, i just don't see it yet.
But suppose these girls were, in fact, Christians. In that case, we shouldn't be having baby showers for them? Once someone is your brother/sister, then we have to be incompassionate and ungracious? (i suspect penitence makes a difference.)
–guy
Guy, that's where the difficulty has come in. Would we be giving a wedding shower for the man in 1 Cor 5 who has taken his father's wife?