...work with me to understand what the rational is for rejecting hospitality to hypocrites? And by hospitality I mean basic neighborly love expressed in sharing meal and conversation....
First, I see a great and grave difference between hypocrisy (for which we are all no doubt guilty to in some degree at any given moment) and
this:
...acquaintances who claim to be Christians and yet are involved in gross, public lawlessness.
Second, to expand on the references posted above, consider 1 Corinthians 5:9-13: "I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators: Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world. But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolator, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat. For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within? But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person."
This text covers both sides. Paul appears to be clarifying previous comments regarding separation from the world by stating that we are not expected to go out of our way to avoid sinners or we would often have no place to go in this world. But we are expected to go out of our way to avoid those who are gross hypocrites. I find Calvin
very helpful on this whole passage. Here is his conclusion: "With such an one not even to take food. In the first place, we must ascertain whether he addresses here the whole Church, or merely individuals. I answer, that this is said, indeed, to individuals, but, at the same time, it is connected with their discipline in common; for the power of excommunicating is not allowed to any individual member, but to the entire body. When, therefore, the Church has excommunicated any one, no believer ought to receive him into terms of intimacy with him; otherwise the authority of the Church would be brought into contempt, if each individual were at liberty to admit to his table those who have been excluded from the table of the Lord. By partaking of food here, is meant either living together, or familiar association in meals. For if, on going into an inn, I see one who has been excommunicated sitting at table, there is nothing to hinder me from dining with him; for I have not authority to exclude him. What Paul means is, that, in so far as it is in our power, we are to shun the society of those whom the Church has cut off from her communion." Excommunication is not simply a terminal act from a Church court - it is an ongoing responsibility of the whole Body of Christ.
The difficult issue for me is what to do when the professor is involved in gross, public lawlessness but the rulers who have been given watch over them have either failed to act or are in the process of acting. In the meantime, do we refrain from fellowship in our homes with such brethren even if they have not yet been dealt with officially by the elders? Sometimes the latter drags on more months and even years. This could lead to a situation where I may have to sit next to them at the Lord's Table but not be willing to invite them into my home.
