Extramarital heterosexual sex

[jasoncran]

How are we to look at this portion of Scripture then... as something archaric and better ignored... or should this be something that the Church practices?

It is actually reported that there is immorality among you, and immorality of such a kind as does not exist even among the Gentiles, that someone has <SUP class=crossreference value='(A)'></SUP>his father’s wife. <SUP class=versenum>2 </SUP>You <SUP class=crossreference value='(B)'></SUP>have become arrogant and have not <SUP class=crossreference value='(C)'></SUP>mourned instead, so that the one who had done this deed would be <SUP class=crossreference value='(D)'></SUP>removed from your midst.
<SUP class=versenum>3 </SUP>For I, on my part, though <SUP class=crossreference value='(E)'></SUP>absent in body but present in spirit, have already judged him who has so committed this, as though I were present. <SUP class=versenum>4 </SUP><SUP class=crossreference value='(F)'></SUP>In the name of our Lord Jesus, when you are assembled, and I with you in spirit, <SUP class=crossreference value='(G)'></SUP>with the power of our Lord Jesus, <SUP class=versenum>5 </SUP>I have decided to <SUP class=crossreference value='(H)'></SUP>deliver such a one to <SUP class=crossreference value='(I)'></SUP>Satan for the destruction of his flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in <SUP class=crossreference value='(J)'></SUP>the day of the Lord Jesus.

<SUP class=versenum>6 </SUP><SUP class=crossreference value='(K)'></SUP>Your boasting is not good. <SUP class=crossreference value='(L)'></SUP>Do you not know that <SUP class=crossreference value='(M)'></SUP>a little leaven leavens the whole lump of dough? <SUP class=versenum>7 </SUP>Clean out the old leaven so that you may be a new lump, just as you are in fact unleavened. For Christ our <SUP class=crossreference value='(N)'></SUP>Passover also has been sacrificed. <SUP class=versenum>8 </SUP>Therefore let us celebrate the feast, <SUP class=crossreference value='(O)'></SUP>not with old leaven, nor with the leaven of malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.

<SUP class=versenum>9 </SUP>I wrote you in my letter <SUP class=crossreference value='(P)'></SUP>not to associate with immoral people; <SUP class=versenum>10 </SUP>I did not at all mean with the immoral people of this world, or with the covetous and swindlers, or with <SUP class=crossreference value='(Q)'></SUP>idolaters, for then you would have to go out of the world. <SUP class=versenum>11 </SUP>But actually, I wrote to you not to associate with any so-called <SUP class=crossreference value='(R)'></SUP>brother if he is an immoral person, or covetous, or <SUP class=crossreference value='(S)'></SUP>an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or a swindler—not even to eat with such a one. <SUP class=versenum>12 </SUP>For what have I to do with judging <SUP class=crossreference value='(T)'></SUP>outsiders? <SUP class=crossreference value='(U)'></SUP>Do you not judge those who are within the church? <SUP class=versenum>13 </SUP>But those who are outside, God judges. <SUP class=crossreference value='(V)'></SUP>Remove the wicked man from among yourselves. 1 Corinthians 5

Is there ever a call to excommunicate anyone anymore? I'm sure that most would rush to get rid of a guy sleeping with his father's wife... but what about the covetous (especially in light of the covetousness that is often preached from many pulpits)... a drunkard? A reviler? We're told to remove the wicked man from ourselves... do we do it?

what about that sweet lady that dresses her cats funny. that is utterly poisonoius and a sacrilidge

 

[Seeker]

Here are my thoughts on the matter - choose to care / agree / disagree as you please

1. Fornication (intimate relations while unmarried) and adultery (intimate relations with other than one's spouse) are extremely serious, soul-damaging, society-damaging deeds. This is not to say things like lying, backbiting, etc. are not wrong, but - to be perfectly blunt - would you rather marry somebody who has told a lie or somebody who has cheated on you? There is something instinctive in knowing that one is much more grave than another, and - at present - I am not going to delve into "classification" so to speak.

2. Between a person and God, however, there is always the door of forgiveness.

3. Religious leaders should be those who best understand and best exemplify the teachings of their faith. It goes without saying, then, that they should be free from extremely serious crimes such as extramarital relations. However, if there is a clear turning point in their life - e.g. they were in a really rotten state and suddenly turned to faith - then I, personally, believe that what preceded is not to be considered. If they do such a thing AFTER taking the role, however, then they should immediately be dismissed. What kind of example is that to set their congregation? ("If my religious leader, e.g. Jimmy Swaggart, did xyz, then who am I to not fall into sin?") If it is not publicly known, then it is a more complicated matter as I do NOT think confession is a good idea unless it solves more problems than it creates, though the way I see it conscience dictates they step down.


A bit of a tangent, but I find it extremely bizarre that the UK/USA legal systems are so relaxed about adultery and having mistresses, but cry bloody murder if a man chooses to take legal responsibility for that partner and any offspring - namely, to take a second wife.

 

[DarkHorseRising]

A bit of a tangent, but I find it extremely bizarre that the UK/USA legal systems are so relaxed about adultery and having mistresses, but cry bloody murder if a man chooses to take legal responsibility for that partner and any offspring - namely, to take a second wife.

Your first three points were well said and I tend to agree.

This final tangent however is really nothing more than bigamy, when you get down to it.

 

[Pard]

1. Nobody who has engaged in extramarital sex is permitted to hold church office or be in a leadership position.

2. Anyone suspected of heterosexual sex outside marriage is to be denied access to any church group until they repent and undergo extensive corrective measures.

3. People who have experienced heterosexual sex outside marriage (or who have felt such temptations) mus confess them to the congregation and ask for forgiveness before both the congregation and God.

To the first point, I must agree. The position of leadership in the body of Christ is one that ought be held by mature Christians who have already crossed such bridges that would lead here. I think this is really something to highlight in regards to youthful pastors (such as these kids but a few years older than me who are just out of seminary and going on to pastor an entire church!). A pastor ought to be like a well weathered tree. He needs to have many years beyond the greenhouse. His roots need to be deep in Christ and he needs to be strong enough to bear the great winds that will be targeted at him. The devil has special schemes to attack such men who are in a place of leadership, they need to have more than a lambskin and a number of years in intense Bible study, they need real life trials.

To the second point, I must both agree and disagree. If one is in a state of habitual sin (such as the general case of extramarital relations) then surely they need the help of their church members more than anyone of us who is not in a state of habitual sin. Exemption from their brothers and sisters will only further drive them from God. We must love them, despite their sin. This means making sure that they come to fellowship as often as fellowship is had.

But I did say I agree as well and I do, in part. You see there is also a place for accountability among brothers and sisters and someone in the state of habitual sin, unless they have repented before God and seek help from both Him and their fellows, does not have a place of trust among such accountable people and so they must be shunned from these circles until the time comes when they do repent and seek help, and at this point we need to usher them back into the circle of accountability because they need it the most of all.

And to the third point, I must generally disagree, though I do agree in small part. Sexual sin is unique in that it is a sin against your own body. It corrupts your body and is against only yourself and God. As such there is no need or place for forgiveness before the congregation, but before God of course! If someone was hurt, such as a spouse, then they to must be sought for forgiveness, but beyond such a case there is no need to go before the whole of the congregation.

Now you also mention confession. To this I agree in part. Confession before God, of course, and before at least some brothers and sisters in the congregation I'd say of course as well. Though getting before the entire of the congregation to confess is something that ought to be saved for a time when they are back on their feet and ready to courageously share their testimony of how God restores His elect.

And now that I think I did forget that there is a need for the seeking of forgiveness among the entire body, or among certain parts of the congregation in another unique instance. If the person who commits the habitual sin is in this state and yet still preaches and chastises other believers this is a time when forgiveness must be sought because they did this in a state of hypocrisy and this is wrong.

 

[GojuBrian]

I'm curious as to why we aren't doing more in Christianity to stop this. It's far, far more prevalent than homosexual sex, and yet we turn a blind eye to it. I think we need to get serious about it and enact the following changes in our churches:

1. Nobody who has engaged in extramarital sex is permitted to hold church office or be in a leadership position.

2. Anyone suspected of heterosexual sex outside marriage is to be denied access to any church group until they repent and undergo extensive corrective measures.

3. People who have experienced heterosexual sex outside marriage (or who have felt such temptations) mus confess them to the congregation and ask for forgiveness before both the congregation and God.


Just ideas, not necessarily mine, but I'm looking forward to PAGES and PAGES and PAGES of discussion and passionate debate about this prevalent topic.

It use to be illegal, but no more. Why not? Because of the moral decline of our society.

I agree with what you are saying, but a lot of churches have turned emotional. They have turned to 'feel good' songs and sermons. Where's the FEAR??