Hebrews 10:26-31
26 For if we go on sinning willfully after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, 27 but a terrifying expectation of judgment and the fury of a fire which will consume the adversaries. 28 Anyone who has ignored the Law of Moses is put to death without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. 29 How much more severe punishment do you think he will deserve who has trampled underfoot the Son of God, and has regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has insulted the Spirit of grace? 30 For we know Him who said, “Vengeance is Mine, I will repay.” And again, “The Lord will judge His people.” 31 It is a terrifying thing to fall into the hands of the living God.
It is both easy and fashionable for those who call themselves "Christian" to sit around and condemn the world for its sinfulness. That is not to say that such condemnation is unwarranted, after all, unrepentance is a one way ticket to damnation, so it goes to figure. However, it always strikes me as naïve when I hear the Church condemning the sin of the world while not also taking a look at its own moral slide that largely led to the slippery slope of sinfulness now evident in the world.
In the 1930s, it would have been unthinkable for a pastor to condone a divorce for any reason, but by 1960 is was acceptable in cases of abuse, by 1970 it was acceptable for a singular case of infidelity (this is where I fall), and by the 1980s, churches had largely accepted divorce as normal with leadership and deaconate position restrictions being lifted as early as the 1990s.
Does the Bible not say that without the covenant being broken that there can be no true grounds for divorce?
How about pre-marital sex?
In the 1930s you would have been excommunicated if you were discovered to be sleeping together before you were married if you did not immediately rectify the problem by getting married. The "sexual revolution" of the 1960s changed that so that the shotgun wedding part was out, but you would still be removed if you were caught conjugating unmarried. By the 1970s the church had begun to "accept" that they could not stop young people from pre-marital relations, so they begun simply counseling and teaching against it. This led to the Purity Movement of the 1980s and 1990s which largely failed because they had no teeth to them whatsoever.
Now, it is almost a given that young people, even in the church, are having sex outside of marriage and we hold up as singularly virtuous the one who will admit that they are not without any though of guidance, repercussion, or counseling against it on the part of the others.
OH, but while we are on the topic of sex outside of marriage, let us take a moment to consider infidelity!
In the 1930s, an entire family faced excommunication if it was discovered, by the 1960s, they had thankfully limited that to only the offender, and only if a divorce happened. Yet as soon as the 1990s, we started glossing over it if it was (x) number of years ago before the church found out, and now we sometimes ask the offender to find a new church, but only if we feel that their being there truly makes the victim uncomfortable.
NO, No, no, obviously the teaching and community of that church were not enough to keep that person from committing a breach of covenant with their spouse. It is not just that both we and the victim need them out, it is that THEY need to be somewhere else where they will be able to receive the Word of God and repent for their decisions. It obviously did not stick.
If the family stays together, and at the choice of the injured party, they can remain and hopefully through counseling and repentance can change. But again, it is the victim who guides the process, and if they ask for the removal of the offender from the fellowship, then it is the right thing for the church to do so.
Some may think I am being quite harsh, and others are going to say that I should be careful in case I ever fall victim, but in the end, the standard is the standard, I do not set it, I only do all that I can to follow it.
And therein we find the slippery slope that the world just continued for us. I mean, if divorce means nothing, than how bad can infidelity be? After all, the worst that can happen is divorce. And if infidelity is ok, so long as it does not disrupt the church too much, then why should we worry about it, because if we find it, then we have to deal with it, so let us all just keep it hushed up.
If infidelity is ok, then surely pre-marital sex is ok, after all, no one is hurt by it since no one has made any kind of promise or commitment to the other.
And if pre-marital sex is ok, then who are we to deny "sexual needs and rights" to those who have a different sexual orientation, after all, everyone "needs" sexual gratification.
And if same sex orientation is ok, then all the Biblical standards on sexual behavior are out the window and Pandora's box is officially open.
We, in the church, can sit around and blame the world for their sinful and reproachful sexual behavior, but we need to remember that we are the ones who let the standard slip, little by little, to appease church members, and usually good tithers. It is truly funny how much those people are allowed to get away with...
If we in the church want to regain any form of moral high ground in society when it comes to sexual sin, we have to begin by policing ourselves. When the divorce rate in the church is no lower than the world, there is a problem. When the unwed pregnancy rate is the same in the church as in the world, we have a problem. When we refuse to let the homosexual couple sit in the pew but allow the unmarried couple living together to come and listen, we have a problem.
All sexual sin is sin, and as such, it must be treated that way.
We need to repent, do better, and lovingly call out our own, and then the world, to uphold the Biblical standard as it was in the beginning. This is, after all what Christ said and did.
One man, one woman, in a covenantal relationship bound by God Himself.
This is how it was always supposed to be.
Comments