Question about 1 Cor 5:1-13
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 11:53:26 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Discussion
  Religion & Philosophy (Moderator: World politics is up Schmitt creek)
  Question about 1 Cor 5:1-13
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Question about 1 Cor 5:1-13  (Read 797 times)
anvi
anvikshiki
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,400
Netherlands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: June 27, 2015, 10:00:10 PM »

As a nom-Christian, a former Catholic but a long-time atheist, I have a question about 1 Corinthians 5:1-13.  I sincerely mean this as a question and not an implied accusation.  But I've had this question for a long time--and have mentioned it in posts before.  It comes to my mind whenever I read stories about why some American conservative Christian groups or individuals believe that the state should not sanction homosexual marriages, or that Christian businesspeople or physicians should have the legal right to withhold goods or services from people whose behavior they consider immoral, ect.  So, here 'goes.  And again, please take this in the spirit of a question.  If my interpretation or the implications I derive from it below are in some way fundamentally wrong from a Christian perspective, I would genuinely like to learn why.

1 Cor 5:13 describes a situation in which there is a man in the church community of Corinth who is openly sexually involved with "his father's wife," perhaps his stepmother.  Paul reminds the members of the Corinthian church that he has warned them about all types of sexual immorality, that he has already pronounced judgment on the person in question, and that he advises the church members not just to expel this person from the church community, but not to associate or even dine with people in the church who engage in such immoral behavior.  He reprimands the church members because, not only have they not yet expelled this person from the church community, but they have been boastful about letting him stay. 

However, in the same passages, Paul says that he should not be taken to mean that Christians should stop associating with people outside the church, even if Christians do consider them immoral, even if they are, it would seem, sexually immoral or  the "greedy, swindlers or idolators."  That would require Christians to disengage from the world, which Paul does not advise.  He goes on to say that even he himself has no business pronouncing judgment on people outside the church, for it is expressly God's job to pronounce judgment on them.  Christians can judge, punish and even exclude those from inside the church considered immoral, but not those outside it.

This all seems to me, on reading it, fairly straightforward.  But, if applied in present American circumstances, what would this guidance by Paul entail, and what would it not warrant?  There doesn't appear to be any warrant here for Christians to seek or expect state policy to conform to Church teachings regarding sexual morality.  There also does not appear to be any warrant for Christians to refuse to associate with people in society, even in commercial transactions or provisions of service, outside the church, even if the behavior of such persons would not be tolerated inside the church.  There is even, it would seem, a restriction on pronouncing judgment on people Christians would consider immoral outside of the church community.

If this is correct, than the issue of how Christians following their faith deal with sexual immorality, of any kind, outside of the church community seems fairly specific.  The issue for Paul is *not* whether associating with presumably immoral people outside of the church is tantamount to "condoning" their behavior.  The issue is rather one of jurisdiction.  Christian church communities can decide what is moral and immoral and with whom to associate or not associate inside the church, but they do not have the same discretion outside it.  All of this does not at all entail, certainly, that Christians should not express their views or not spread the gospel as they understand it to people outside the church.  Christ tells his disciples just before rising to heaven to "go and make disciples of all nations."  He tells his disciples on occasion that if a community they visit refuses their message, they should shake the place's dust from their feet and leave.  He and his disciples do tell people what they believe to be moral and immoral and warn believers and non-believers alike about the eternal consequences of immorality.  Paul obviously did his utmost in trying to carry out this commission to convert.  But even Paul, in light of the advice he gives to the church of Corinth, does not appear to have believed the commission of discipleship compelled him to advocate for making state policies Christian, but only to try to persuade others to become Christians, though both words and deeds, and to live their lives according to Christian teachings if they were persuaded.

Obviously, the social and historical circumstances of Christian life in the twenty-first century U.S. are quite different from its circumstances in the first century Roman empire.  Do such changes in circumstances nullify Paul's advice, despite the fact that it is enshrined in scripture?  To get to the heart of my question, I guess, if Paul's advice to the Corinthians in the passages I'm discussing can still be taken as wise guidance for practicing Christians, then should Christian communities understand living a life of faith to compel them to seek to craft state marriage policies for non-Christians, and should they be seeking legal rights to refuse transacting goods and services with people they consider immoral outside their church communities?  If such things should be what Christians do, what is their biblical--or more specifically, their New Testament--warrant for doing so?
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: June 27, 2015, 11:14:41 PM »

First off, I doubt that Paul was under any illusion that Christians in his time could have an affect on state policy, so I would draw no inferences from his lack of advocacy of doing so as to whether or not Paul thinks the Church should try to influence Caesar. That said, keep in mind that the groups and individuals you are referring to think of America as not merely a nation, but a Christian nation, and thus one to which 1 Cor 5 and other passages would imply that there is an obligation for this nation to uphold behavioral norms as dictated by Christian theology. I'd disagree with the idea that our government was established as a Christian government.

I do wish to quibble with one of your points: "It comes to my mind whenever I read stories about why some American conservative Christian groups or individuals believe ... that Christian businesspeople or physicians should have the legal right to withhold goods or services from people whose behavior they consider immoral."  While there are some who hold that, the right that is generally being sought, and one I believe is generally correct to seek, is not the right to withhold goods or services from immoral people but from immoral behavior. Take for example the case of Baronelle Stutzman.  She'd had no problems with selling flowers to gay customers, but when it came to selling flowers specifically for a gay marriage, she did.
Logged
anvi
anvikshiki
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,400
Netherlands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: June 28, 2015, 09:24:53 AM »

Thank you for the reply, Ernest.  I take your point about the distinction regarding behavior.  I also understand the point about the Christians whose positions I am questioning believe that the U.S. was established as a Christian nation, and appreciate your disagreement with that view.

I'll follow up with another few questions, if I may.  I'm sure you're right that Paul did not believe Christians of the first century could influence Roman state policy.  But regarding the specific issue in question, namely sexual behavior considered immoral inside the church, does the mere fact that Christians are now in a position to influence state policy on sexual behavior necessarily--in the absence of the belief that America was founded as a Christian nation--lead to any inferences that they, as a matter of religious conviction, should?  In this passage, Paul makes what seems to him an important distinction regarding the judgment of and association with people inside and outside the church.  Inside the church, Christians may adjudicate terms of inclusion and association on the basis of sexual conduct, but not outside of it, even when it comes to their own lives and business.  As a matter of faith and conduct, does the importance of that distinction simply collapse if Christians do acquire the power to influence state policy?  And if so, again, what is the religious warrant for it?

Note that I'm not questioning at all whether or not Christians have the right, under the American constitutional and legal framework, to advocate for and against laws and policies on whatever grounds they see fit.  As equal citizens, they do unambiguously have that right, and they advocate for or against whatever they wish on the basis of whatever beliefs they hold.  But they have that right precisely as citizens of a democracy, just as other citizens have the same right to advocate for or against laws at their discretion.  My question is a more restricted one--it's specifically a question about whether Christians, on New Testament grounds, have warrant to seek legal prohibition of sexual behavior, which would include the sexual behavior of married couples, they find immoral that should be applied to all citizens regardless of their religious affiliations?   Or does that specific warrant derive, not from New Testament principles, but from the changing circumstances of political power that have accreted through history and those that obtain now in American political society?
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: June 28, 2015, 06:51:41 PM »

The general expectation in the NT seems to me to be that until the parousia Christians would not be in control of government. Indeed, the NT seems to me to dismissive of Christians participating in government. That said, in a democracy, Matthew 5:19 could reasonably be seen as indicating that Christians should at the least not enact laws that sanction immoral behavior. Conversely, Matthew 7:1-5 would seem to be an indication that such behavior shouldn't be criminalized.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.027 seconds with 11 queries.