Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: apexepa!mark@uunet.uu.net (Mark Richter) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Sexuality, morality and the church Message-ID: Date: 18 May 91 05:52:35 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Lines: 78 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu OK, time to stir things up. I've seen numerous quotes from 1 Corinthians 6 in this place, and they are frequently used to justify ejecting or rejecting certain persons from the church based on their sexual preference. When I read this chapter, Paul seems to be pretty clear. *But*, what I am struggling with (in the process of understanding the hubbub currently underway in the Presbyterian church) is how all the Biblical references I can find on sexuality and sin stack up against the ministry of Jesus. So, in hopes of getting a constructive discussion going, I posit the following: Taken as a whole, the ministry of Jesus is one of inclusion, not exclusion. In fact Jesus sought out sinners, not believers. I posit that Paul's seemingly clear treatise on the subject of sexuality and sin is not clear at all, and, moreover, that Jesus *never* would have preached such things in the same way Paul seems to have. Consider the story of the adultress and the casting of the first stone and the command of Jesus "go and sin no more". (He didn't say, "Get out.") Please, sombody tear into me and show me where I'm right or wrong. Mark D. Richter apexepa!mark mark@apexsc.com --- End of forwarded message from uunet!MAILER-DAEMON (Mail Delivery Subsystem) [In every case I can think of, Jesus asked the sinners he sought out to repent. I can't think of any examples where he dealt with unrepentant sinners, except perhaps the rich young ruler, who he dealt with a certain show of discipline I think. Church censure has always been a ticklish issue, and whenever it was used, there have been questions of how it should be used. One view in the patristic period was that public sins should be censured publicly, and private sins dealt with privately. A situation happened not long ago in a church far enough away that I think I can describe it without violating any confidentiality. (It's not in my denomination nor anywhere near here. A friend described the situation.) One church employee began having an affair with a church member. At least one was married. The church suspended the employee. This led him to get counselling, and seems to have helped facilitate a happy ending. This is an example of a situation where the church had such an obvious and public involvement that to avoid doing anything would be visible countenancing of the sin. Election of church officers would seem to be another case. No one expects them to be perfect. But they are examples. Thus their character does seem relevant. On the other hand, no one wants the church to start encouraging members to be busybodies. Nor do we want to develop into a kind of hypocrisy where there are certain visible sins that people have a particular aversion to, and we only pay attention to them. There is a special danger in using church discipline where there are disagreements about standards. Church discipline is most useful to help people who have been become thoughtless or lax, but accept the relevance of the standards. When there are disagreements about standards, church discipline is unlikely to lead to healing. You may still use it if the majority believes it is an unacceptably bad witness to allow the action to be present in the church. But this is a horse of a rather different color than the example I gave above. The question is where to draw the line. It seems that this is going to depend somewhat upon the expectations of the members. Church discipline is only useful if members accept its use as helpful rather than intrusive. Any church is going to have to develop a strategy that is appropriate to its members' expectations and standards, fits in with an overall strategy of pastoral care for members, and that everyone accepts as being done in love. This is clearly a difficult problem. Many churches (including mine) seem to prefer not to do anything. Perhaps members from churches that do practice church discipline would like to describe their policies and (to the extent that confidentiality allows) some of their experiences. --clh]