Bob posted an interesting blog about an article in today’s LA Times. Find it here.

This speaks to a problem we have in society: the inability to separate a person from their past. If someone has sinned in a way that we find unsavory at any time in their past, we treat them as though they’re a threat to do it now. The subject of the article was convicted 13 years ago. He’s served his prison time, paid his debt to society, and now he’s just trying to get on with his life. But his neighbors won’t let it happen.

There’s no mention in the article to whether or not the neighbors are Christian, but judging by the demographics in the US, there are some there. Hopefully they’re the ones trying to be at peace with him.Jesus encountered a lot of sinful people in his life. Well, since everyone who has ever lived (with the exception of him) has been a sinner, then he only encountered sinful people. And he forgave. Tax collectors, zealots, prostitutes, adulteresses, blasphemers, liars…and he forgave every one of them who asked. He still does. In order to receive his grace, all we have to do is repent and confess, then ask for it.

Paul was a murderer of Christians before he became one. And Jesus sought him out to take the message to the Gentiles. If that man could be forgiven, why not this one? We have to do a much better job of separating the sin from the sinner, because with the measure we judge with, we will also be judged. If you hold someone’s past sins against them, yours may be held against you.

The Feminarian posted something similar, but she deals directly with the church. She discussed the views of Cyprian and Augustine in dealing with the lapsed (those who recanted during persecution, then came back to the church) and those in schism. The crux of her argument comes down to this:

The question of who is a schismatic is interesting for my denomination right now. By the standards of Cyprian, those who have defied their bishop’s authority and broken communion with the wider church are worse sinners than those living immorally. In our diocese, that means those who will not ordain gay and lesbian priests are worse than those who are inclusive, if they have broken relationship with our bishop (and a few have). [A note: Cyprian assumes the lapsed will repent, and the gay members of the Episcopal church are not considered sinners, which adds another layer of confusion to this question.] However, those in schism from the Episcopal Church are still in communion (theologically, at least) with the majority of Anglicans and other Christians worldwide. So in truth, it is probably the Episcopalians supporting gay priests who are the true schismatics and if living in gay relationship is sinful, then our priests and bishops have a double whammy of both schism and lapsing.
Yet despite all of this, Augustine would still affirm the effectiveness of their ministry, because God worked in their ordination, and God will continue to work through their sacramental ministry. And so even those of us under the authority of bishops like mine can take heart that we are not completely lost. I have personally witnessed the Spirit’s effectiveness in the lives and ministries of gay people. Even if they are sinning, Augustine must be right that God will still work through them!

I can’t say that I agree that this sort of division is worse than the sin in question, but it does weaken the Church in certain ways. I also agree that the condition of the minister will not affect the grace imparted on those he ministers to. But does that make it okay for said minister to live in sin? Scripture tells us that sexual immorality is one of the things that makes a person unclean(Mk. 7:21). It tells us to flee from it(1 Cor. 6:18), and to expel those who live in it (1 Cor. 5).

While the minister’s sin will not directly affect the salvation of his congregation, what does it say of the hearts of those who allow him to continue in it? Aren’t we supposed to work towards the purity of the church, as well as the unity? This doesn’t mean expelling a sinful brother or sister outright, but following Jesus teaching in Matt. 18, if they refuse to repent, they should be put out. Of course, he says to “treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.” I think that means you should put him out of the body, and re-evangelize him. Teach the basics, showing God’s offer of forgiveness and grace.

It would seem that Cyprian and Augustine wrote at a time when the laity had little say in the operations of the church. Once someone was put in charge of a parish, the congregation had no other options (”Nothing outside a man can make him ‘unclean’ by going into him…”). So this made sense then. But today, the people are in charge of the church hierarchy, so the outward condition of the clergy is a direct reflection of the laity (”Rather, it is what comes out of a man that makes him ‘unclean.’” Mark 7:15).

I think that since we live in an era of the church where we are in control of who leads us, we need to be very careful about the people we elevate.� We must even be careful of those who seem to be elevated by God.� Jesus said in Matthew 24 that “false Christs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and miracles to deceive even the elect�if that were possible.” If we aren’t diligent, those false prophets will deceive us, and though their sinfulness won’t affect our salvation, the fact that we chose them to lead us and allowed them to continue belies our internal condition.� The enemy waits to ensnare us, and he’ll use anything he can exploit, including love and tolerance, to reach his goal.

Technorati Tags: Augustine, bishop, christianity, Christians, Church, communion, Cyprian, demographics, denomination, diocese, ECUSA, Episcopalian, episcopal_church, fornication, gay, gentiles, grace, homosexual, homosexuality, immoral, immorality, jesus, judge, judgment, lapsed, la_times, lesbian, liars, ministers, murderer, neighbors, ordination, paul, priests, prophets, salvation, Satan, schism, sexual_immorality, sex_offender, sin, sinfulness, sinner, spirit, tax_collectors, Theology, unclean, Whatever, Whatever, zealots

Share your thoughts.

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)

Website