Sin in the Church - Part I

1-2 I also received a report of scandalous sex within your church family, a kind that wouldn’t be tolerated even outside the church: One of your men is sleeping with his stepmother. And you’re so above it all that it doesn’t even faze you! Shouldn’t this break your hearts? Shouldn’t it bring you to your knees in tears? Shouldn’t this person and his conduct be confronted and dealt with?
- 1 Corinthians 5:1-2 (Message)

This passage of instruction by Paul is a very difficult passage to practice in the church. It takes guts. You must have leadership in the church willing to stand up to members and confront them about their personal lives. Today, this is simply not done. I contemplate that there are a variety of reasons:

1. It’s their life. Our society tells us that someone’s personal life is their own business. It is no one else’s right to interfere. Remember Bill Clinton and the intern? There were many arguments in my place of business between the older people and young people over this. The young insisted that his personal life had no bearing upon his work as POTUS and it was nobody’s business. This same society (who are now around 40 years old) tells Christians who lead and attend churches the same. Paul teaches here that a Christian living in purposeful sin should be confronted.  
2. Gossip. Everyone has been hurt by gossip. Churches are notorious for gossiping but not confronting. They run around behind the person who is living in sin and talk to everyone about them so they feel unwelcome and self-conscious and worse, friendless. This is not defended in Scripture anywhere. Paul teaches here a very different method.  
3. Happy. The world tells us it (whatever the person is doing) is okay as long as they are happy. If they are happy and living a successful life then who are we to take a position against them? If they were sad and miserable then we should help them, but they are happy, so we should let them live. The Bible does not tell us our goal is to live a happy life, but a sanctified one.  
4. Hypocrite. No one likes the idea of confronting a Christian brother or sister of a sin when they themselves are sinners. It seems like an undefendable position and they are very conscious of being named hypocrites for doing so. Yet, Paul is very clear that the confrontation must be done if we love the unrepentant sinner.

Paul is very clear about what to do and how to do it. Before we analyze that, we first must reflect on the situation. First, it is well known. The situation of sexual immorality is so well known that it has come to Paul’s attention. He isn’t there. There are no cell phones or any communication devices outside of someone delivering a letter or delivering the message personally. That takes time. So, Second, it’s been going on for a while. It’s been happening long enough that it has become known and someone thought that Paul should be aware, so they wrote a letter and sent it or took the message to him. They walked or rode a camel or horse, maybe took a boat. Remember, no cars, busses, trains, or even a bike. This took a while. Third, even those outside the church knew about it. If a son is laying with his father’s wife, whether the father is dead or not (this is unknown), you can be sure that the community is aware of it.

A key question is whether the man is unashamed. The insinuation is that he is not burdened by feelings of living wrong or guilt in his lifestyle. Otherwise, he would seek help or want to change his lifestyle and Paul would instead be writing on helping and encouraging the church in their extension of love to this brother who seeks repentance. This is clearly not the situation. Paul states that this sin is of such a variety that even the pagans, those outside the church, do not tolerate it. Yet, here is a man in the church who openly lives this way and apparently does so with little remorse.

My guess is that the man has justified it and seeks to justify it with all who he comes in contact. He is only protecting her or providing for her. My experience is that he also insinuates that the situation is someone else’s fault. If only the father wouldn’t have died or if the father wasn’t a good-for-nothing then he wouldn’t be having to take on his responsibility, etc. I’ve never seen another Christian living in sin who simply said, “Yes, I know it’s sin and I know I’m hurting others to get what I want.” There is always justification and it is always someone else who is partly to blame.

How quickly would this destroy the church or make it irrelevant? Matthew Henry comments, “It was told in all places, to their dishonour, and the reproach of Christians. And it was the more reproachful because it could not be denied. Note, the heinous sins of professed Christians are quickly noted and noised abroad. We should walk circumspectly, for many eyes are upon us, and many mouths will be opened against us if we fall into any scandalous practice.”

This is no time to celebrate the church's diversity.