[open] Christ and the Epistles

[contriteheart]

Does anyone else ever feel a bit of a disconnect between the life and teachings of Christ, and those of the Epistles?

Here's what I mean. When I look at the life of Christ, I see someone who was scandalous in his associations, who cared for and ate with the sinners, and who condemned the Pharisees. He called all - sinner and Pharisee alike, to repentance and faith.

When I look at the Epistles, I see things like "If anyone calls himself a Christian, and is sexually immoral, an idoloter, etc., don't even eat with such a person." (Sorry for the paraphrase - I'm being lazy and didn't feel like looking it up.)

Practically speaking, how do we balance these two things in the church? How do we retain an openness to sinful people, and yet help all to see and repent of their sins? How do we, as a church, maintain a standard of purity, while still not losing our openness to and love for lost and sinful people? :scratch:

BTW, I'm not speaking here as one who has no sin. I am a sinner in need of grace, as we all are. But as the church, I think it's evident from scripture that we are all called to holiness.

-Grace

[AngloWesleyan]

There is no disconnect between the teachings of Jesus in the Gospels and the teachings of Paul in the Epistles. Jesus hung out with "sinners" because they heeded his call to repentance, unlike the Pharisees and other religious elites who saw no need to repent, despite their creative ways of getting around the more rigid provisions of the law (divorce, honoring parents, etc.).

When Paul warned believers in Corinth not to associate with those who called themselves Christians but were sexually immoral, etc., he was warning them against precisely the same kind of Pharisaical arrogance and hypocrisy which Jesus found so detestable. Specifically, he was warning against a man who was a leader in the Corinthian church but was involved in an incestous relationship with his father's wife (1 Corinthians 5.1-13). This man could put on a show of outward righteousness while being inwardly corrupt, and his hypocrisy was infecting the rest of the congregation (Paul rebukes them for being "arrogant" and "boastful" about the situation).

Also, please read the passage in context. Paul prefaces his remarks with, "I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people--not at all meaning the sexually immoral of this world, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters, since the you would need to go out of the world." Only then does he follow with, "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. For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? God judges those outside. Purge the evil person from among you."

In other words, do not associate with hypocrites. Their arrogance is contagious. Such persons are to be excommunicated (the admonition "not even to eat with such a one" implies excluding them from the eucharist) in order that they might be shamed into repentance and restored to the fellowship, as this particular man was (2 Corinthians 2.5-11).

[contriteheart]

Hi AngloWesleyan, and thanks for your thoughts on this! :)

Mods, would it be possible to make this thread open to non-Wesleyans? I would really like to continue this discussion with anyone who would like to pursue it here without restrictions.

There is no disconnect between the teachings of Jesus in the Gospels and the teachings of Paul in the Epistles

I agree. I should have phrased it differently. I meant to say that it sometimes feels like a disconnect - not that it is one.

Jesus hung out with "sinners" because they heeded his call to repentance

Perhaps, but the scriptures would seem to suggest that he also hung out with "sinners" simply because they were sick and in need of a physician. His blessings and healing were not reserved for those who heeded his call to repentance. He healed many who went on their way and didn't so much as come back to say "thank you."

Also, please read the passage in context. Paul prefaces his remarks with, "I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people--not at all meaning the sexually immoral of this world, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters, since the you would need to go out of the world." Only then does he follow with, "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. For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? God judges those outside. Purge the evil person from among you."

Good point. The problem I see is that a large segment of our current society seems to self-identify as Christians. So sometimes reaching the sinners means reaching the sinners who think they are Christians. In other words, in our case (at least in the Bible belt) refusing to associate with someone who called themselves a Christian but lived an immoral life could also pretty much be synonymous with refusing to associate with the immoral people of this world.

In other words, do not associate with hypocrites. Their arrogance is contagious. Such persons are to be excommunicated (the admonition "not even to eat with such a one" implies excluding them from the eucharist) in order that they might be shamed into repentance and restored to the fellowship, as this particular man was (2 Corinthians 2.5-11).

Yes, I agree. Unfortunately, that is not the stance of the UMC, which believes in completely open communion (as did John Wesley, I'm told.) You don't even have to be baptized or self-identify as a Christian to receive communion in our church. I have a problem with that.

I still think this is a delicate line to walk - to expect and promote holiness within the church, without somehow also becoming "sanitized," and perhaps even unintentionally exclusionary. I guess I should explain what I mean by that. My husband and I attended a wonderful non-Methodist congregation for awhile. The people seemed very upright, earnest in their love for Christ, and moral. Perhaps because they had lived their lives this way for a long time, and had raised their children to do so, they had gained a good bit of material prosperity, and seemed squeaky-clean and upstanding. This is a good thing. They were also very friendly, and that is a good thing.

However, my husband and I have a relative who is a recovering alcoholic. I can tell you that she would probably not set foot in that place twice, because her life is messy. It's hard for a person whose life is a mess to come into a place where everyone looks like they stepped out of Mayberry RFD. I have known a lot of other people like this in my life. I have been one if them. I came to Christ at a church filled with messy people. They were messy, I was messy, the church was messy, but Christ was working in them in powerful ways and transforming them, as He was me.

So how do we allow room for people to come in messy, but not stay that way? How do we make room for people who do not have their act together? How do we allow people time and space to grow in grace, while still maintaining a standard of holiness? I guess that's what I'm asking in my inelegant little way.

-Grace

[contriteheart]

"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. For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? God judges those outside. Purge the evil person from among you."

In other words, do not associate with hypocrites. Their arrogance is contagious. Such persons are to be excommunicated (the admonition "not even to eat with such a one" implies excluding them from the eucharist) in order that they might be shamed into repentance and restored to the fellowship, as this particular man was (2 Corinthians 2.5-11).

Also, have you ever seen anyone excluded from the Eucharist because they were greedy or a drunkard? I've been a Christian for about 20 years, and been in a number of different Christian circles, and I don't think I've ever seen that applied - regardless of what the Bible says about it. If we're going to apply church discipline (which I believe in), shouldn't it be done uniformly?

Think of it! Excluding the greedy from communion in modern-day consumer-driven America. Didn't Paul know anything about effective church growth strategies? ;)

-Grace

[AngloWesleyan]

Perhaps, but the scriptures would seem to suggest that he also hung out with "sinners" simply because they were sick and in need of a physician. His blessings and healing were not reserved for those who heeded his call to repentance. He healed many who went on their way and didn't so much as come back to say "thank you."

Jesus prefaced his entire ministry with the declaration, "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand." We need to understand the entirety of his ministry in this context. The "sinners" he hung out with were those who cried out, "Jesus, Son of David, have mercy on me." Prostitutes came to him with tears in their eyes, fell down at his feet, and pleaded for forgiveness. The ones who received mercy without apparently asking for it up front, like the woman caught in adultery, were sent away with the stern admonition, "Go and sin no more." The only incident in which ingratitude is noted involves ten lepers, only one of whom, a Samaritan, bothered to come back and thank Jesus for healing him. Jesus is none too happy that nine of his fellow Jews didn't bother to thank him while a Samaritan went out of his way to do so.

Good point. The problem I see is that a large segment of our current society seems to self-identify as Christians. So sometimes reaching the sinners means reaching the sinners who think they are Christians. In other words, in our case (at least in the Bible belt) refusing to associate with someone who called themselves a Christian but lived an immoral life could also pretty much be synonymous with refusing to associate with the immoral people of this world.

If they are hypcrites, we should not associate with them. If that means putting them out of the church for the good of their own souls, then so be it. We have relaxed church discipline to our own peril, endangering our effectiveness at reaching the lost.

Yes, I agree. Unfortunately, that is not the stance of the UMC, which believes in completely open communion (as did John Wesley, I'm told.) You don't even have to be baptized or self-identify as a Christian to receive communion in our church. I have a problem with that.

Wesley certainly didn't believe in "open communion" for Sophie Hopkie. He did believe that justifying grace could be imparted through the receiving of Holy Communion.

My church requires that you be a baptized believer to receive communion. As a mission church, we don't want to place too many restrictions, but we do make provision for those who, at their discretion, wish not to receive the sacrament.

So how do we allow room for people to come in messy, but not stay that way? How do we make room for people who do not have their act together? How do we allow people time and space to grow in grace, while still maintaining a standard of holiness?

"We" don't because "we" can't. Only God can and God does. We must be willing to step back from our tendency to want to control everything that goes on in the church and allow the Holy Spirit to be our teacher and guide in the way of becoming a truly holy people who manifest that holiness through perfect love for all persons, welcoming them as they are into the transforming community of grace which is the true church of Jesus Christ.

[alaurie]

Yes, I agree. Unfortunately, that is not the stance of the UMC, which believes in completely open communion (as did John Wesley, I'm told.) You don't even have to be baptized or self-identify as a Christian to receive communion in our church. I have a problem with that.



I have a problem with it too (Wesley didn't teach this), but have more of a problem with traditions that practice closed communion ...excluding Christians outside their church.

[alaurie]

If they are hypcrites, we should not associate with them. If that means putting them out of the church for the good of their own souls, then so be it. We have relaxed church discipline to our own peril, endangering our effectiveness at reaching the lost.





So how do we allow room for people to come in messy, but not stay that way? How do we make room for people who do not have their act together? How do we allow people time and space to grow in grace, while still maintaining a standard of holiness? I guess that's what I'm asking in my inelegant little way.



"We" don't because "we" can't. Only God can and God does. We must be willing to step back from our tendency to want to control everything that goes on in the church and allow the Holy Spirit to be our teacher and guide in the way of becoming a truly holy people who manifest that holiness through perfect love for all persons, welcoming them as they are into the transforming community of grace which is the true church of Jesus Christ.

So you're saying defining line for church disciple is hypocrisy ...the honest, struggling (all of us!) Christian is welcome at the table?

[AngloWesleyan]

So you're saying defining line for church disciple is hypocrisy ...the honest, struggling (all of us!) Christian is welcome at the table?

The test of "worthiness" to receive the eucharist has more to do with your attitude and actions after receiving the elements, not before. Having confessed your sins and received absolution, do you experience the presence of the Risen Christ as you partake of the bread and the cup and, having partaken, do you rise from the table resolved to walk henceforth in holiness and righteousness after the example of Christ? Or do you just go back to living the same old life of sin which you have just ostensibly renounced?

This is what Paul means when he speaks of partaking of the supper of the Lord in "an unworthy manner." It has less to do with what we have already done (which would make us all "unworthy") and more to do with what we, relying on God's grace and Holy Spirit, will do in response to having experienced the presence of Christ at the table.

As a pastor, administering the sacrament is an act of pastoral care. Thus, there may be times (theoretically, though it hasn't happened yet in actual practice) when I counsel someone to abstain from the eucharist until some particular matter is resolved. Adversely (and this is more often the case), there may be times when I counsel someone who has been abstaining to begin partaking because the longer they abstain, the more they bear an unnecessary burden of guilt over an issue long since resolved.

[contriteheart]

I have a problem with it too (Wesley didn't teach this), but have more of a problem with traditions that practice closed communion ...excluding Christians outside their church.

Me, too.

Why do we as humans find it so hard to walk a middle path in most things, without going off to either extreme?

-Grace

[herev]

Mods, would it be possible to make this thread open to non-Wesleyans? I would really like to continue this discussion with anyone who would like to pursue it here without restrictions.


done

[Aymn27]

The test of "worthiness" to receive the eucharist has more to do with your attitude and actions after receiving the elements, not before. Having confessed your sins and received absolution, do you experience the presence of the Risen Christ as you partake of the bread and the cup and, having partaken, do you rise from the table resolved to walk henceforth in holiness and righteousness after the example of Christ? Or do you just go back to living the same old life of sin which you have just ostensibly renounced?

This is what Paul means when he speaks of partaking of the supper of the Lord in "an unworthy manner." It has less to do with what we have already done (which would make us all "unworthy") and more to do with what we, relying on God's grace and Holy Spirit, will do in response to having experienced the presence of Christ at the table.

As a pastor, administering the sacrament is an act of pastoral care. Thus, there may be times (theoretically, though it hasn't happened yet in actual practice) when I counsel someone to abstain from the eucharist until some particular matter is resolved. Adversely (and this is more often the case), there may be times when I counsel someone who has been abstaining to begin partaking because the longer they abstain, the more they bear an unnecessary burden of guilt over an issue long since resolved.this is a fantastic post and a position I never really considered - coming from a RC background my "examining" was always whether I was worthy from the deeds I had done prior and had I gone to confession and been absolved - this is a new take on I Corinthians for me - and I must say, it fits quite nicely

[Sophia7]

Edited to be in accordance with rules.

[contriteheart]

Thanks, herev, for opening this up for discussion for me.

And Sophia, welcome to the discussion. :)

-Grace

[Sophia7]

MOD HAT ON

This thread has been opened, which means that CF members who do not have Christian faith icons may view it and post here, but only for fellowship purposes. The rules regarding congregational areas still apply, in this case Rule 1.4 (with the exception that non-Christians may post here as well):

1.4 Congregational Areas
You may post in any of the Congregational Forums if you agree with the contents of the Nicene Creed and the Trinitarian nature of God, but you may not argue or debate with members of particular denominations and groups in their congregational areas unless you are a member of that particular denomination or group.

Thus, non-Wesleyans are allowed to post here as long as their comments are limited to fellowship or questions, not debate or teaching.

MOD HAT OFF