The Bible, soon after it talks about forgiveness, talks about a process for confronting someone who has done something wrong. It says that we should talk to them one on one, then with a group of people, then with the whole church, and if they do not respond we should remove them from Christian community.
On the other hand there is a parable about wheat and tares. It says that the wheat are like those that are faithful, and that the tares are like a weed. It goes on to say that if we pull out the weed, we will lose a lot of the wheat too, so we should let God sort out who belongs in Christian community and who does not. Both passages are found in the Gospel of Matthew (Chapters 13 and 18).
How do we resolve this apparent difference between these two passages? How does this relate to the community issues that are dividing the church right now?
Would love to hear some input...
Book Review of the Second Testament by Scot McKnight
The Second Testament: A New Translation By Scot McKnight IVP Press ISBN 978-0-8308-4699-3 Scot McKnight has produced a personal translation ...
-
Ok, so I am remiss on doing any real original posts leading up to this holiday season. With a job change and a new baby on the way, as well ...
-
Book Discussion: The Shack Overview Questions If you were to rank the book: THE SHACK on a scale of 1-5, what would you rate it and why woul...
3 comments:
I believe the first passage refers to those who claim to be a part of the church, and are thus held to the standards of the church. When a believer intentionally and consistently lives in sin, there is a place for the local body to admonish and potentially remove a member.
I think the second passage refers to humans trying to judge who is and who is not saved. The bible is quite clear that we have no business ever doing this. We are not to judge whether a person is or is not saved.
So I see the two guidelines formed by the principle: correct what you can correct, and leave God to the soul. In the first case, we can identify sinful behavior and correct it. In the second case, we cannot identify who is saved, so we should never attempt to purge our ranks of the unfaithful.
-tpy
Thanks for comment Tim. I have heard the passage of the wheat and the tares referred to in light of our present situation in mainline churches with homosexuality. In the meantime I have also read a little on the subject and talked to a few people.
One of the things that has stood out to me is that these passages are more about the kingdom of God than they are about the church as a community per se. In other words, it is possible that Matthew is more describing God's action and rationale than he is prescribing the actions called for in the community of believers. Thus the quote in verse 35 "I will utter things hidden since the beginning of the world". The innability to distinguish true disciples from others is a recurring theme in Matthew. For instance the parable of the sheep and goats in Matthew 25--both the sheep and goats are surprised by what Jesus says.
On the other hand, in a way I read the passage in Matthew 18 in light of the Sermon on the Mount. In other words, I think this teaching is as much about mercy for the individual as it is for purity of the church. I think the traditional interpretation of the church is the latter however, leading many over eager churches to micromanage individual behavior within the community. In context, I think it gives us a procedure for boundaries withing the community--but challenges us to do this with caution. Why? Because Jesus is about the lost one, the two or three that are gathered together, the one struggling in debt and in need of a second chance.
Your distinctions were helpful, but I think that there is a difficult tension that God calls the church to live in between accountability and tolerance, even within a covenant community. And I think that still, these two passages speak to that tension.
I have also heard that (wheat/tares) parable used in reference to homosexuality in the church. I think this may come from a fear/observation that (as one of your earlier posts pointed out, Clint) Christians are more concerned with what to stand against than what to stand for. People (like me) who have difficulty pulling a Matthew 18 accountability relationship when I have sin in my own life, become uncomfortable when we pick "pet" sins to confront as Christians (or as a church/denomination). As Greg Boyd says, now it's abortion and homosexuality, but what if it's your (my) sin next? Would I leave the church if we suddenly decided that fat people couldn't be ministers (biblically)? Probably. Because I'd think I didn't belong there, or that God didn't love me? No. Because I don't like being persecuted and hated? Yes. So here's my question: how is gluttony any different than homosexuality?
I have a cousin who's gay and when I talk about my own difficulties with "living in sin" and struggling against the flesh or sin nature in my own life, it's easier for him to talk about being gay and how he feels about God as a gay man (boy). I understand the Matthew 18 confrontation thing but (and please correct me if I'm wrong) I believe the passage specifically discusses a "sin against you". So, in other words, secret sin or a sin against God is not our place to confront. If a person sins against *me*, then I have a responsibility to pull a Matthew 18. But if a person just sins, or lives in sin, that's God's (or, depending on your theological background, a pastor's) responsibility to confront. Or am I completely wrong?
This is a difficult discussion, I admit. You've hit on a powerful one...
Post a Comment