Separation from so called brother

[exceptyerepent]

Here is my situation I am hoping for some sound input from the Godly men on this forum.

I have a nephew who grew up in our church who now at the age of 22 is living with his girlfriend and has all but stopped attending church. He isn't an official member and hasn't received church discapline, our church isn't very faithful in that Dept., his parents have repeatedly confronted him about his sin but are essentially keeping in close fellowship with him as though everything is fine.

Well we were expected to host Thanksgiving dinner and we were informed by my sister in law that he was planning to bring the girl he is living with. After some prayer and reflection on my current Bible study on Daniel, I was convicted that to have him and his girlfriend in our home would be violating 1Cor.5 instructions to not even eat with a so called brother. This would be compromising my faith.

I informed my brother and sister in law and they were of the opinion that he was never really saved and this instruction to separate didn't apply. Needless to say this stand has wreaked havoc with our relations to my unsaved in laws who heard about it. I now am feeling like Iam surrounded by compromising Christians and our opposing views now hurts our testimony before our unsaved family members.

I just wanted to get some good feedback from some fellow uncompromising brothers. Thanks.

 

[Edward]

Several questions about your post:

my brother and sister in law and they were of the opinion that he was never really saved

How do you do evangelism if you avoid mingling with the unsaved?

He isn't an official member and hasn't received church discapline, our church isn't very faithful in that Dept.,

How would a church discipline a non-member?

"Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? God judges those outside."

 

[Andres]

What did your church elders advise?

 

[rbcbob]

Jonathan, I understand the tension that you are feeling. I have been there. My wife and I lost twenty years with our respective unconverted families wherein whatever light we possessed was withheld from them.

It is helpful to distinguish your church’s responsibility from your private responsibility. Your church, of necessity as the Bride of Christ, must preserve Her purity and identity as the called out people of God. Your elders especially must maintain the distinction between those who are within, and those who are without the covenant community. Yet at the same time the church must passionately and faithfully call sinners to repentance and faith.

You however, in all of your dealings with relatives, neighbors, shopkeepers, co-workers, etc. must actively be salt and light among a crooked and perverse generation. What did our Savior do?

10 Now it happened, as Jesus sat at the table in the house, that behold, many tax collectors and sinners came and sat down with Him and His disciples.
11 And when the Pharisees saw it, they said to His disciples, "Why does your Teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners?"
12 When Jesus heard that, He said to them, "Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick.
13 "But go and learn what this means:`I desire mercy and not sacrifice.' For I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners, to repentance."
(Mat 9:10-13 NKJ)

 

[Mushroom]

Appears to me the teaching of scripture is plain and unmitigated on this subject.

1 Cor. 5:9-11

I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people-- (10) not at all meaning the sexually immoral of this world, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world. (11) 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. (12) For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? (13) God judges those outside. "Purge the evil person from among you."

The man claims to be a believer, and yet is living in sexual immorality. Modern 'civility' dilutions aside, the Word states clearly what a christian is to do in such a case. This is a professor, not Diana worshiper. To follow the dictate of scripture here is an act of love, differentiating between these classifications. The Corinthians followed it and it brought the desired result, restoration of the brother. But we're so much wiser now. Better to not offend the poor fellow or the audience of unbelievers. Besides, to do that is so... unpleasant - surely we can come up with a better way than the Holy Spirit. Like wink at sin and adorn the Gospel with our effete magnanimity.

 

[rbcbob]

The man claims to be a believer, and yet is living in sexual immorality.

Brad you have have just described about 90 million Americans. The ignorant, culturally derived opinions of 21st century Americans ought not be our guide. How many Jews in the days of Jesus "believed" they were righteous? If you cut off most of America by such standards where does that leave them? Are we not compelled by the gospel to live our light before them?

 

[Jack K]

Keep in mind that 1 Cor. is instructing the church corporately. The church has a responsibility to keep itself pure and protect its witness to the world by not allowing those who clearly practice sin to participate in church fellowship as if nothing were wrong. And this instruction can reasonably be seen to extend to individuals within the church IF fellowshipping with those who confess Christ yet live in sin will endanger the church's purity and/or witness.

Jonathan, in your situation you have a dinner gathering that is clearly a FAMILY event. It's neither a church event nor would the typical person see it as a gathering where the main reason folks are together is their shared faith in Christ. No, the main reason for gathering together is that they're family. Even others at the dinner don't consider this nephew a believer. Nor is he even an official church member. And even if nominally he were a "Christian," that decribes half of America. Practically, no one is going to think "shame on Christ's church" if you have your nephew at your house on Thanksgiving. They're going to figure he's attending because he's family, not because he's a believer.

So I think you may take an approach to this nephew that's more like Jesus took with Matthew's friends. I think that by inviting him into your home you will bring honor to the name of Christ (by showing yourself to care for the lost, to love the outsider, to be devoted to your family) rather than shame. It doesn't sound like you have to worry about the nephew spoiling the purity of the church by having him at a family event like you described.

So you MAY invite him. Now SHOULD you invite him? Since at this point your concern no longer has to be for the church, you are able to decide what will be best for your nephew's heart and that of his parents. Your concern about appearing to compromise is a valid one. Perhaps being excluded will help bring your nephew to repentance or help his parents get more serious about presenting the faith to him. But not necessarily. Being included is also a way to get to his heart. I would suspect inclusion to be a more effective witness to the gospel. It's hard to have any winsome influence on people you're shunning. But you will have to make that judgment based on your knowledge of the people involved.

If you are inclined to read a bit, Come Back, Barbara is an excellent little case study book on how a church and Christian family can maintain its purity and witness, and yet keep showing pursuing kindness toward a wayward family member. Highly recommended.

 

[rookie]

As Brian Borgman said it so well, you cannot be a fornicator and a Christian at the same time...and live like there is nothing wrong. You are one or the other, not both....If you conscience is not killing you...you don't have salvation.

 

[exceptyerepent]

I fully agree that he isn't likely saved, but in all the scriptures referring to separation there is no mention of determining the wheat from the tares. If half the people attached to our church are not members do we throw up our hands and allow immorality in our midst and say there's nothing we can do since they aren't a member? Do we just assume anyone who professed faith and was a part of the body for many years and turns to an immoral life was never saved to begin with so just hang out with them and give the impression to your unsaved family members that they're a Christian and occasionally go to the same church as you and everything is just fine.

This could be a big part of the reason people think the church is full of hypocrites. I think it's difficult to decide where to draw the line, I was willing to allow him to dine with us, but the bringing the girl he is living with seemed to me a clear violation of scripture.

I have some family members who are 30 yrs old and have the same scenario who have left church completely and we do regard them as unregenerate and associate occasionally as needed to be salt and light. But this is not as cut and dry.

The story of Phinehas (Numb. 25) sticks in my mind. Phinehas didn't try to determine if the Israelite was part of the true Israel or not, he was jealous for God's holiness and God praised him for defending Him. It seems that if in doubt, God should be honored.

 

[rbcbob]

I fully agree that he isn't likely saved, but in all the scriptures referring to separation there is no mention of determining the wheat from the tares. If half the people attached to our church are not members do we throw up our hands and allow immorality in our midst and say there's nothing we can do since they aren't a member? Do we just assume anyone who professed faith and was a part of the body for many years and turns to an immoral life was never saved to begin with so just hang out with them and give the impression to your unsaved family members that they're a Christian and occasionally go to the same church as you and everything is just fine.

Jonathan, would you have them turned out of the house of God? Barred from the Church of Jesus Christ, the Savior of sinners? Would you not desire them to be under the sound preaching of the gospel of salvation, however long it took for its working in their hearts. Does not the Savior labor long with the hearers of His Word? This is not to admit them to the Table of our Lord, but rather to admit them to the light of the gospel preached in the assembly of the saints which has the special promise of effectuality owing to the presence and power of God.

If we do not care to have the lost, the immoral, the harlots and the thieves come in shall we not better post at the door that they are not welcome among holy people? Is it not the heart of our God toward sinners of every stripe that they would feel their sin and uncleanness and call upon the Lord for salvation?

 

[Jack K]

so just hang out with them and give the impression to your unsaved family members that they're a Christian and occasionally go to the same church as you and everything is just fine.

What I don't understand: How does having them join in a family dinner give the impression that you think they're believers and are fine with their behavior? It seems that rather than speaking ambiguously and harshly through your actions (by excluding them) you could speak with actual words and carefully—"seasoned with salt"—make clear your hope for them that they too find Christ's mercy.

 

[Edward]

If half the people attached to our church are not members do we throw up our hands and allow immorality in our midst

Well, don't worship alone, because then you'd be worshipping with a sinner.

This could be a big part of the reason people think the church is full of hypocrites.

I think you may be a bit confused on this one.

 

[TimV]

As Brian Borgman said it so well, you cannot be a fornicator and a Christian at the same time...and live like there is nothing wrong. You are one or the other, not both....If you conscience is not killing you...you don't have salvation.

I've never heard of Borgman, but he's obviously some sort of sectarian. Of course you can be a fornicator and a Christian at the same time. The Church is full of sinners. Why, I even know a tax evader who's a Christian. And a couple gluttons, as well as several people who take God's name in vain when they're mad or hurt themselves. Oh, and habitual Sabbath breakers.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Jonathan,

Have you communicated at all with your nephew? Does he consider himself to be a Christian or redeemed by Christ? What is your relationship with this young man? Have you spoken with him about the path he is on? Do you love him? I know you have spoken with his parents about this situation. Have you spoken with the Leadership about this young man? Have you seriously spent diligent time praying for this young man?

It seems like there are a lot of blurred lines in this situation. It seems like there is a lot of confusion going on in the family about this. Mostly from your side. You want to know how to react to help this young man see where he stands in relation to his family (which they have already made their decision), his God, and the Church. Even though your seasonal dinners are most likely past and done with you probably need to settle this issue for future reference.

I understand how you feel about having this type of behavior around as it might influence others in the family. It does seem to plant a spirit of antinomianism into the family. At the same time I don't think your shunning him and barring him from family functions is going to help you out in ministering truth and love to him and his girlfriend. There are instances where this should happen. I don't think this situation can be properly discerned here on the Puritanboard because we don't know the relationship status between yourself and everyone else involved.

In a solid Baptist Church that considers the role of the father's headship, the situation might be more discernible. The reason being because there are responsibilities and a connectivity that requires response. From the doctrinal stance of a covenantal paedo-baptist the child is considered a member of the Church. Church discipline and involvement would be more recognizable. The reason for this is because the child has responsibility to God in the Covenant Family and the reigns of loving discipline are spelled out a bit more clearly. The antinomian spirit has a harder time thriving in this situation. In this type of situation the Church would have stepped in already and the Elders would have already given guidance and defined what was to be done and much prayer for this son would have been offered up for wisdom.

The loving thing to do would have been to receive him as his parents do. They do not consider him to be a believer. That in and of itself must burden his parents. It is obvious they do not approve of this sin or lifestyle. It is also obvious that they love him and desire to have his affection. Cutting him off is not going to help him gain any affection for them and the truth in my estimation. It would also be very loving if you just spent time getting to know him and where he is at in his understanding concerning life in general. He has obviously been blinded by Satan and his sinful nature. There is no way you can properly discern this situation without doing this. To place such a harsh judgment upon him the way you are and referencing 1 Corinthians 5 is a bit out of bounds in my estimation since you don't have an ecclesiastical pronouncement in this situation. Even if the Church is lax in this area, that is important. If they don't consider him to be a Christian then there is no reason you should.

As I noted, this type of question here (on the Puritanboard) is not going to give you the necessary insight because the details and relationship status of all involved can not be known. Maybe the best thing to do is let this young man know he is loved. Reproof from someone you know who loves you goes much farther than some harsh cutting off from someone you just consider to be religious does. As Jesus noted....

(Mat 5:44) But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

(Mat 5:45) That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.


(Mat 5:46) For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?


(Mat 5:47) And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so?


(Mat 5:48) Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

And as Paul noted...

(Rom 12:18) If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men.

(Rom 12:19) Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.


(Rom 12:20) Therefore if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink: for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head.


(Rom 12:21) Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good.

I hope you understand what I am getting at.

 

[FedByRavens]

You can be a fornicator and a christian at the same time, but, Borgman said you can't be a fornicating christian "and live like there is nothing wrong" if your saved then you will be highly grieved and you will not be able to continue in it.

1Jn 3:9 No one born of God makes a practice of sinning, for God's seed abides in him, and he cannot keep on sinning because he has been born of God.
1Jn 3:10 By this it is evident who are the children of God, and who are the children of the devil: whoever does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor is the one who does not love his brother.

 

[TimV]

It's important to understanding and teaching from 1 John to know he uses hyperbole. I can quote you just as many verse from the book that say "when you sin" right after "you don't sin". Peoples conscience react at different speeds. And in addition, people love to have a pet sin that they don't partake in which excuses their very real sin. They can look down on a fornicator (read#rn addict) and excuse whatever sin they're currently struggling with.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Tim, I am not sure I am getting what you are saying about St. John using hyperbole. There is a sin unto death in the context later and a sin not unto death. And yes, this is a difficult passage. The sin unto death is rejecting the Saviour out and out if I am understanding John correctly.

I agree we all mature (respond or develop consciousnesses) at different speeds as you put it. But there is a level of confronting sin that is necessary or none of the Saints would have instructed likewise.

 

[Mushroom]

I fully agree that he isn't likely saved, but in all the scriptures referring to separation there is no mention of determining the wheat from the tares. If half the people attached to our church are not members do we throw up our hands and allow immorality in our midst and say there's nothing we can do since they aren't a member? Do we just assume anyone who professed faith and was a part of the body for many years and turns to an immoral life was never saved to begin with so just hang out with them and give the impression to your unsaved family members that they're a Christian and occasionally go to the same church as you and everything is just fine.

Bingo! And thus the admonition. But it's hard. And it's uncomfortable. So since we love ourselves so much, and professing brothers such as this so little, we find theological gymnastics whereby we may comfortably ignore God's word. It applies to 'some other' situation than ours, after all.

Baloney.

The 1Cor. 5 teaching is how God says we are to love such brethren. It's the syncretism of pluralistic 'tolerance' into the Church that has inverted that in the minds of some. It just seems so mean to the worldling mind. But the Lord does not instruct us to be unloving, so that view of this passage is error, and to accommodate a dilution of it is false doctrine - and unloving. God knows how best to effectively love the brethren, not our feeble, cowardly minds.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Brad, do you think that is what is going on in this situation? By all implications the parents don't think the young man is saved and thus I don't believe anyone was trying to pull the wool over anyone's eyes. I don't want to assume that anyone in the situation is trying to heed to some pluralist tolerance in the situation except maybe the unsaved persons. It seems they are trying to figure out how to deal with it. As I mentioned before, we don't know the full story, thus we are outside of the bounds of truly being able to render a good judgment.

I don't want to accuse anyone of being cowardly or measure their feeble attempts at loving the correct way. The scriptures are clear about a brother who is in such sin. Even if it is concerning someone who refuses to properly earn his keep as is mentioned in 2 Thess. 3:14,15.

(2Th 3:14) And if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed.

(2Th 3:15) Yet count him not as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother.

Obviously there are situations where we are to deal with things like this. But this situation is complex and there is not enough information to really know what is going on for us to make this decision. That is why I asked the questions I did and made mention of the leadership of the Church concerning this situation.

That is why this part of the passage is so important.

(1Co 5:10) 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.

(1Co 5:11) 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 idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.

This person by all means according to his parents is not a believer nor a brother. We just don't know enough here. He obviously needs to be admonished and exhorted to turn to Christ. Most likely pushing him away will not accomplish this. Especially if his conscience is hardened. Sometimes this kind of pushing away only makes a statement that you guys think you are better than me and don't want me playing in your sandbox.

 

[exceptyerepent]

Right on Brad!

I would mark your post as helpful but can't figure out how to do that.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

You click on the green thumbs up.

 

[jogri17]

1 Cor. 5:9-11

I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people-- (10) not at all meaning the sexually immoral of this world, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world. (11) 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. (12) For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? (13) God judges those outside. "Purge the evil person from among you."
The man claims to be a believer, and yet is living in sexual immorality. Modern 'civility' dilutions aside, the Word states clearly what a christian is to do in such a case. This is a professor, not Diana worshiper. To follow the dictate of scripture here is an act of love, differentiating between these classifications. The Corinthians followed it and it brought the desired result, restoration of the brother. But we're so much wiser now. Better to not offend the poor fellow or the audience of unbelievers. Besides, to do that is so... unpleasant - surely we can come up with a better way than the Holy Spirit. Like wink at sin and adorn the Gospel with our effete magnanimity.

Bingo! And thus the admonition. But it's hard. And it's uncomfortable. So since we love ourselves so much, and professing brothers such as this so little, we find theological gymnastics whereby we may comfortably ignore God's word. It applies to 'some other' situation than ours, after all.

Baloney.

The 1Cor. 5 teaching is how God says we are to love such brethren. It's the syncretism of pluralistic 'tolerance' into the Church that has inverted that in the minds of some. It just seems so mean to the worldling mind. But the Lord does not instruct us to be unloving, so that view of this passage is error, and to accommodate a dilution of it is false doctrine - and unloving. God knows how best to effectively love the brethren, not our feeble, cowardly minds.

I think you would profit from reading Ryken's book on the Puritans. Puritans were known for being outstanding moral people at the same time for moderation. It seems like you are not allowing room for any nuance or moderation judging my your comments in this thread.

 

[Pergamum]

The purpose of your gathering was because you were FAMILY. This wasn't a church fellowship meal, but a family gathering.

It is very possible that your actions have alientated you from your family for many years to come.

 

[CharlieJ]

I don't recall any passage of Scripture that calls individual believers to decided who is to be separated from and who is not. It is the role of the church to pronounce excommunication. Modern Christian nominalism and and individual judgments thereupon are NOT the subject of any NT passage.

 

[Mushroom]

Brad, do you think that is what is going on in this situation? By all implications the parents don't think the young man is saved and thus I don't believe anyone was trying to pull the wool over anyone's eyes. I don't want to assume that anyone in the situation is trying to heed to some pluralist tolerance in the situation except maybe the unsaved persons.

I'm not qualified to make determinations of another's salvific state. If those who have decided it best to ignore God's word are so qualified, then carry on. But for those of us not so blessed with spiritual x-ray vision, taking the man at his word will have to suffice. If I were to ask him if he is a believer, what will be his answer? From what I've been able to ascertain from the thread it seems his answer would be 'yes'. If that is the case, then the Holy Spirit has given us clear instruction on how to love the man properly. Our world-influenced minds view that as harsh and immoderate. Visions of stern puritans with wagging fingers float through the mind. But there is no biblical warrant for that image to be the way this form of love is to be carried out. I hear Jonathan struggling with it, not gleefully or self-righteously bringing down the rod of law. Doesn't sound to me like it is his desire to alienate anyone (unless the Lord decrees it so) or to set himself up as judge (as those who've decided the man is unsaved have done), but to love him biblically, which logic would dictate would be the most effective way to move him to restoration, rather than devising a personally safer and comfortable route of winking at sin and avoiding confrontation in the confused interest of being 'winsome'.

Love me for real and love me even when it's hard, or don't pretend to love me at all. Keep your 'safe' and 'comfortable' love to yourself. The Church is becoming effeminate and cowardly, because that's what we are, and we don't even see it.

---------- Post added at 08:24 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:08 AM ----------

I don't recall any passage of Scripture that calls individual believers to decided who is to be separated from and who is not. It is the role of the church to pronounce excommunication. Modern Christian nominalism and and individual judgments thereupon are NOT the subject of any NT passage.

Dining and keeping company with are individual acts, excommunication is a corporate act. Intermingling them to hide behind a wall of authority is feeble at best. The individual judgements I see most represented in this thread are those of the man's status as unsaved. If a man who claims to be a brother is living in open cohabitation with a woman, that is not a judgment but a fact.

 

[Wayne]

If you are inclined to read a bit, Come Back, Barbara is an excellent little case study book on how a church and Christian family can maintain its purity and witness, and yet keep showing pursuing kindness toward a wayward family member. Highly recommended.

Excellent recommendation.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

I'm not qualified to make determinations of another's salvific state. If those who have decided it best to ignore God's word are so qualified, then carry on. But for those of us not so blessed with spiritual x-ray vision, taking the man at his word will have to suffice. If I were to ask him if he is a believer, what will be his answer? From what I've been able to ascertain from the thread it seems his answer would be 'yes'.

I have not seen that his answer is yes. I have heard an affirmation of no from his parents.

I hear Jonathan struggling with it, not gleefully or self-righteously bringing down the rod of law.

I agree. I also believe he wants to be be biblical. But all the answers on here that plea for dinning with are not effeminate in my estimation. They are trying to calculate with the information given the best way to pursue this with the very limited information that is given. Now maybe you would call it effeminate or soft but to me it is a hard providence either way.

BTW, I have had to deal with this issue in my family in a much more clearly spelled out way. And to me it isn't that hard let the blame fall upon an overly sinful person. It is actually easier since the offender has caused damage and that damage needs to be recognized. Especially if they are hardhearted and can't see that they are bringing a curse upon all who are attached to the situation. And that curse is very real. For instance just look at Joshua 7:11-26. Everyone in Israel experienced hardship from the Lord because of some secret sin that was harbored.

You might be speaking of the Church in general but I don't think you can lay your charges of effeminacy at the feet of those who are here. The information given is too vague. Out of Jonathan's own testimony it is concluded that this young man might not even claim to be a Christian. I have asked Jonathan some specific questions to which he has refused to reply to up to this point. His nephew isn't even a member of a Church. If he was baptized and confessed Christ in the Church he grew up in then he would have been admitted into the body of the congregation. I am sure that is the way most congregations operate. It seems that there is a disconnect here. So should he be treated as a brother or non believer? The information given is too shallow and we on this board are not close enough to sense the situation as it truly is. And for some reason (and I don't want to speculate why) I don't believe that Jonathan is as forth coming with replying to my questions and admonitions. I have asked him if this person claims to be a Christian. I didn't read a response to that? If you did and it was affirmative then by all means then maybe he has the correct principle to follow in 1 Corinthians 5. I asked him if he has spent any time corresponding with his nephew and knowing him. I didn't get a reply. I asked him if he has spent anytime mourning over and praying because of this persons sin. Still no reply. I hope it isn't a situation where the Lord has to come and start scribbling in the dirt as accusers bring an adulterous woman to him to test him on whether or not he is soft on the law (or maybe effeminate in your terms).

Believe me, I am all for tough love. I am also all for mercy and grace. I have had to practice it a long time now with the goal of always trying to see reconciliation between persons and God.

 

[Mushroom]

Randy, I don't consider what scripture tells us to do to be 'tough love', just love. I think that view of it is affected by the world's mindset. If there is anything tough about it, it is tough on those who are called to break fellowship with people they love. Throughout this thread the thought of actually obeying the pertinent scriptures has been portrayed as harsh, judgemental, and unloving. That's completely upside down, and I'm confounded as to how Christians get to that point. Love is not the smarmy warm fuzzies the world portrays it as, nor is it solely defined as being winsome. It is often heart-rending and messy, as was the epitome of love, the cross of Christ. But we've bought into the 'It's a Wonderful Life' version of things.

I've had to address this very subject recently with a brother I love dearly. He was living in my home. He was engaging in open sexual immorality with an unbelieving woman. He was not a member of the Church, but had been admitted to the table. The last conversation I had with him was another of several discussions of what he thought scripture told me to do in the situation, and how difficult it was for me and my family, especially since he was pretty much a part of it. I asked him what he wanted me to tell my children about his whereabouts on the nights he was gone to spend the night with her. I told him it was a dangerous thing to partake of the Supper without examining himself as to his repentance. Four hours later he was dead at the age of 35. If anyone thinks that kind of conversation is harsh and unloving, you're out of your mind. It was heart-rending. My flesh would have much preferred to look the other way and just been 'nice'. We had sought the advice of our Session, and were told to set a limit and abide by it. I was trying to do that.

This verse - Pro 13:24 Whoever spares the rod hates his son, but he who loves him is diligent to discipline him. - tells us something about true love and how it is actually hatred to avoid the unpleasant parts of it. If this event has taught me anything, it is that I should not stand by and preserve my own comfort by not saying or doing the difficult things love calls me to do. The last thing that nephew might see of Jonathan could be the 'winsomeness' of non-confrontation, and how useful might that be in turning him from darkness to the light?

In rereading the thread I found no direct statement that the young man professed faith, so if I presumed wrongly, I retract my statements concerning his treatment. If I was correct, then I personally would have invited the girlfriend and told the nephew he was unwelcome and why. She's an unbeliever, and thus not subject to that particular instruction of scripture.

---------- Post added at 02:48 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:41 PM ----------

Aah, but now I see that the thread title contains the words "So-called Brother", which may be where I got the impression he professed faith.

 

[Herald]

Throughout this thread the thought of actually obeying the pertinent scriptures has been portrayed as harsh, judgemental, and unloving.

Wrong. We are responding based on the background information given by Jonathan.

1 Corinthians 5 was used by Jonathan to defend his decision not to invite his nephew and girlfriend to his house for dinner. I believe his use of that portion of Scripture was misapplied. The chapter deals with the issue of a gross form of immorality that should have shocked the Church. Paul was writing to the church at Corinth. This was an ecclesiastical issue that the church of Corinth had failed to address. Had the church at Corinth dealt with the issue properly they would have employed church discipline. Paul comes down hard on immorality within the church because of its seditious nature against all that is holy. That is why, in verse 13, he writes, "REMOVE THE WICKED MAN FROM AMONG YOURSELVES." We are not to assume that Paul has commanded that immoral people are not to be confronted and called to repentance. It is only when the immoral person refuses to repent that the Church is to excommunicate them. If the Church has not fulfilled its obligation then the matter becomes more ambiguous.

If you or I were in Jonathan's position would we be sanctioning immorality by allowing this nephew and his girlfriend to have dinner in our respective homes? It depends. If it was just dinner then probably not. On the other hand, if the nephew planned on spending the night and wanted joint sleeping arrangements with his girlfriend, that would be bringing immorality into the house. I didn't read where Jonathan's nephew was asking him to allow that.

In the end this is Jonathan's decision. He has to decide whether his actions were consistent with Scripture and the Christian ethos. As an evangelism trainer in his church he also needs to ask himself whether his actions helped present a Gospel witness towards his nephew and his girlfriend.

 

[rbcbob]

Throughout this thread the thought of actually obeying the pertinent scriptures has been portrayed as harsh, judgemental, and unloving.

Wrong. We are responding based on the background information given by Jonathan.

1 Corinthians 5 was used by Jonathan to defend his decision not to invite his nephew and girlfriend to his house for dinner. I believe his use of that portion of Scripture was misapplied. The chapter deals with the issue of a gross form of immorality that should have shocked the Church. Paul was writing to the church at Corinth. This was an ecclesiastical issue that the church of Corinth had failed to address. Had the church at Corinth dealt with the issue properly they would have employed church discipline. Paul comes down hard on immorality within the church because of its seditious nature against all that is holy. That is why, in verse 13, he writes, "REMOVE THE WICKED MAN FROM AMONG YOURSELVES." We are not to assume that Paul has commanded that immoral people are not to be confronted and called to repentance. It is only when the immoral person refuses to repent that the Church is to excommunicate them. If the Church has not fulfilled its obligation then the matter becomes more ambiguous.

If you or I were in Jonathan's position would we be sanctioning immorality by allowing this nephew and his girlfriend to have dinner in our respective homes? It depends. If it was just dinner then probably not. On the other hand, if the nephew planned on spending the night and wanted joint sleeping arrangements with his girlfriend, that would be bringing immorality into the house. I didn't read where Jonathan's nephew was asking him to allow that.

In the end this is Jonathan's decision. He has to decide whether his actions were consistent with Scripture and the Christian ethos. As an evangelism trainer in his church he also needs to ask himself whether his actions helped present a Gospel witness towards his nephew and his girlfriend.