To Reverend Christmas and the congregation of Grace Community Church -
I read with interest your plans to reveal the sins of one of your former members to the congregation you lead. While I do not condone the sins of Ms. Hancock, I find it absolutely hypocritical of you and your leadership to resort to such humiliation.
Let me ask a number of questions of you.
1. When Ms. Hancock met with a mentor to share the details of her relationship, did the mentor tell Ms. Hancock that she would share those details with others? In one news account, Ms. Hancock expressed surprise that other people were aware of her indiscretion, so I expect the answer to be no. And yet the mentor shared the details with a number of other women, without the consent of Ms. Hancock. I do believe the Bible takes to task those who gossip (See Paul's words in Romans 1, 2 Corinthians 12, and these words in 1 Timothy 5:13 - "And not only do they become idlers, but also gossips and busybodies, saying things they ought not to."). Are those women going to be publicly humiliated for their sins?
2. Are other sinners being brought before the congregation? How many of your congregants live as Paul describes in Galatians 5:19-21? "The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God." I would imagine many have feelings of hate, jealousy, selfish ambition. Is it because Ms. Hancock trusted someone and shared her struggle that she is to be humiliated, while those that keep their sins secret get a pass? Who is more honorable - Ms. Hancock for her honest disclosure of her sins, or the hundreds of secret sinners that sit in your pews? Who is casting stones - because Jesus said only those without sin could do so?
3. Where is your grace? You are focusing on the law, on the sin Ms. Hancock committed, and yet, we are called to forgive, and to live like Christ. Yet Paul says that while sin increases, grace is to grow disproportionately. "The law was added so that the trespass might increase. But where sin increased, grace increased all the more, so that, just as sin reigned in death, so also grace might reign through righteousness to bring eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord." Sadly, I see no grace in your actions.
4. Your context of Matthew 18:17 is erroneous. Read carefully the words of Jesus. He states if a brother sins against you. How did Ms. Hancock sin against you? Her sin is immoral yes, but in no way was she sinning against you, or your congregation. And yet you have decided that the best way to deal with this is through humiliation? That is disgraceful. In fact, continuing on in that chapter, Jesus tells Peter he should forgive seventy-seven times. My guess is that you have not forgiven once, let alone seventy-seven times.
How sad that a sinful, broken people of God, as you profess to be, acts as Pharisees. Please read your Holy Scriptures. Some words of wisdom, from Jesus our Lord: "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of dead men's bones and everything unclean. In the same way, on the outside you appear to people as righteous but on the inside you are full of hypocrisy and wickedness."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
>> 
John Piper >>
>> 
*****
Erwin McManus >>
>> 
>> 
>>
*****
Rob Bell >>
>> 
>> 
*****
Donald Miller >>
*****
Dan Kimball >>
*****
Brian McLaren >>
*****
Tony Jones >>
*****
Doug Pagitt >>
3 comments:
The reason for exposing her sins to the entire church body wasn't that her sins were greater. It was because she refused to acknowledge that it was a sin and she refused to "put to death the works of the flesh", which Paul tells us is a mark of a believer. 1 Corinthians was written because of a man in the church of Corinth who was sleeping with his mother-in-law, the man refused to acknowledge his sin or turn from it. Therefore, Paul told the church to regard the man as an unbeliever. In 2 Corinthians, Paul then explains how to accept the, now penitent, man back into the church and how to disciple him. Part of the Church's role is to hold its members accountable, another part is to protect the Church from habitual sin. Paul did not want the Church of Corinth to be corrupted by this one man, therefore the man was excommunicated. This church in Jacksonville sees that this woman is continuing to sin without acknowledging it as sin, therefore she is being dealt with in a biblical way, reminiscent of 1 Corinthians.
Andrew
Thanks for taking the time to share your thoughts. I truly appreciate it.
I do not disagree with your Scriptural references, however I do believe there are some assumptions being made, and some issues carefully left out of your reply.
I disagree she did not acknowledge the sin; it is why she enlisted the guidance of a mentor. Did she "put to death the works of the flesh?" I would concur with you she has not.
And yet the broader issue remains: she is being singled out when the entire congregation - not some, not a large percent - continues to sin. This is grandstanding by the Reverend. Is he calling out the sins of greed? Tell me there are no people in the congregation that are driving BMWs and Mercedes' that are also not tithing. Is he calling out the sins of hate? Please tell me no one in the congregation hates another, whether Muslims, President-elect Obama, President Bush, or their drunk son.
The focus of my post, and my letter to the church, is that the church is acting in a hypocritical manner. As I expressed a couple of times in my post, I am not condoning her behavior. But, like Jesus stated on many occassions, I think we have to be careful when judging another flawed human being.
Let me ask - how willing do you believe the members of Grace will be to share their struggles in the future, based on the activity of church leadership in this situation? I don't think I am taking a leap to suggest that more will decide to keep their failures to themselves in the future, which not only doesn't allow that person to be ministered to, it may well cause more harm to the church. So how is the church (Grace, as well as the greater Body of Christ)served in this manner, when more will decide to hide their sins and thier struggles?
Finally, I do believe the Reverend is taking out of context the passage in Matthew 18. But I also find it interesting that many who tend toward a legalistic perspective of Scripture turn to Paul, where Jesus' words and behavior are often ignored. In John 8, after asking if anyone was without sin and finding no one, Jesus told the adulterer that he did not condemn her. But, he also said to her to leave her life of sin. I think it is important this woman repents, but I don't believe the church is acting in a manner that Jesus would find loving. See, like Jesus, I don't think breaking God's laws condemns us; I think sin breaks our relationship with God. And Jesus was more concerned about that, about restoring our relationship with his and our Father than he was concerned about condeming broken people.
Without sharing anything you are uncomfortable sharing, can I ask if you are a member of the church in question?
Again, my thanks for your well thought out reply.
Peace,
Tom
I am in deed a member of this church and a friend of the woman's son and her daughter. In the church, (which is a small church so we are blessed in that we don't struggle too much with problems of living luxurious lives while neglecting God) when we become a member of the church we affirm that we will both administer and receive admonishment for sin. As brothers and sisters in Christ we need to look out for each other and help each other deal with sin. If someone is unwilling to accept that sin, then Paul tells us that the church needs to regard that person as an unbeliever because of their habitual sin. It is meant to both protect the church from corruption and to help each other in our walks with God. When I became a member of the church, I was clear that as a young teenager I had an alcohol and pornography problem. I know that if a problem arises with alcohol or pornography that the church will admonish me and I accept that because I need the admonishment of my brothers and sisters. Also, at the church we were not going to mention her specific sin. Instead, after the service was over all of the members would gather in the sanctuary and we would be informed that because of a habitual and continual sin in Miss Hancock's life that she is not to be regarded as a Christian, I am sure that we would have been told that we are to be in prayer for her. Our church was careful to keep this a private matter that would only be dealt with by Miss Hancock's fellow members of the congregation. The intent of this assembly is not to cast stones at Miss Hancock, it is to restore her to Christ. If she is under the false pretense that it is not wrong to be continually going against God's Word and living in sin, then James, as well as multiple passages in Paul's letters, tells us that she does not have the fruit of salvation. Salvation does not mean that you no longer sin, instead it means that you hate your sin and you are warring with it. If we do not hate our sin and we are not at war with it, then the Holy Spirit has not worked in our life.
Also on some of the sidenotes, after the election we had several sunday school and main messages about trusting God's sovereignty and praying for our leaders, regardless of who they may be. We were told to be loving towards Obama and pray for both him and his family. The pastor has also been upfront about his past life, which consisted of alcoholism. We have dealt with issues in the congregation before, and we have always dealt with them in the same way, however it has never reached this stage of the process. Usually, what happens is a brother or sister in the church will confront the two who are having a problem or the church leadership will confront the problem and the problem is dealt with. In this instance, Miss Hancock refused to acknowledge that a problem existed.
(by the way, newspaper reports have been contradictory about whether she had revoked her membership in the church or not. in fact, she had not formally spoken or written to the pastor that she had left instead she left without saying anything)
I appreciate your letter to our church and your response. I am glad to see that you are taking this under the thoughtful light of scripture and that you are trying to help us in our process of church discipline.
Post a Comment