Search
Close this search box.

When Did Churches Stop Confronting Sin Among Their Own?

When Did Churches Stop Confronting Sin Among Their Own?

As promised, let’s pick back up on a critical issue we addressed in passing last week – Conformity.  Just as telling one white lie requires more lies to cover the first one up, not following one biblical principle has led churches to break a couple others.  Enticing non-believers to join a worship service that shouldn’t be designed for them has led churches to look much more like the world than they should – both in how they operate and behave.  Those adaptations to accommodate non-believers (and retain members) have been costly, both monetarily and morally.  In other words, as a consequence of those first two breaches, churches have sacrificed the holiness and purity Jesus expected of His Church.

What the Bible Says…

Throughout the Old and New Testaments, rooting out sin among God’s people and removing it from their presence was a consistent, recurring theme:

Old Testament

  • Commanding Israel not to intermarry with godless nations
  • Destroying everyone and everything belonging to conquered, pagan peoples
  • Using only unblemished, spotless animals for sacrifices
  • Washing all items involved in religious rituals meticulously
  • Quick retribution for those who turned to false gods

New Testament

  • Jesus overturning the tables of the merchants in the temple
  • Jesus’ reserving his greatest condemnation for hypocritical religious leaders
  • God striking down Ananias and Sapphira for lying at the first church at Antioch
  • John listing out the sins and issuing calls to repentance to each of the early churches in the Book of Revelation
  • Paul insisting that evil people be removed from the body in his letters to churches

Yes, Jesus spoke much more gently to those outside the church who were guilty of sin (e.g. the woman at the well and the woman caught in adultery) than He did to those defiling the church from within.  His parables about the Pharisees:

  • held them accountable for the sins of multiple generations
  • accused them of persecuting the prophets and killing the Son of God
  • said that unchurched Samaritans, who they reviled, had more compassion
  • called them “whitewashed tombs”, clean on the outside but filthy on the inside
  • exposed their arrogance, saying those they looked down upon “went home justified”
  • implied there’s a special corner of Hell reserved just for them

The Lord wants sin out of the Church.  In addition to the Old and New Testament examples above, Ephesians 5:25-27 spells out clearly that Jesus expects His Church, His bride, to remain “without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless”.  Matthew 18:15-17 outlines the process for keeping churches “holy and blameless”.  Church leaders are commanded to deal directly and unapologetically with sin among churchgoers.  First, a fellow church member or leader should confront that individual, then if necessary bring along one or two other “witnesses” to make the case to that person.  If none of that works, their sin should be shared publicly with the whole church, and failing that the member should be removed from the church body.

What We Do Now…

All Christians know John 3:16 but few are as familiar with the verses that follow, like v. 20 “Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that their deeds will be exposed”.  Are churches today allowing sin to remain hidden and entrenched rather than exposed and eradicated?  Have you seen a church that consistently follows the Matthew 18 process?

Pastors envision the likely consequences of taking Matthew 18 literally, wondering how quickly it would empty the pews.  Current church growth models strongly discourage invoking the Matthew 18 process:

  • Asking congregations to invite non-believers to worship services and advertising “the perfect church for imperfect people”, seeking to maximize the number of unrepentant sinners within the “4 walls”
  • Hesitating to discuss sin directly from the pulpit (at a “corporate” level) for fear of bringing the collective church ”down” versus building it up, making non-believers feel unwelcome, or facing accusations of preaching “fire and brimstone”
  • Being careful not to offend non-believers, new believers or even “mature” Christians (at an “individual” level) who continue in life choices that are contrary to God’s word because crossing the wrong person could cause a split and fracture the body

For reasons we’ll discuss in the next section, church leaders rightly assume that few churchgoers are willing to confront another’s sin or be confronted about their own.  What pastors and Christians do today instead is to confront sin that happens:

  • OUTSIDE of their church, railing against those in other parts of the country undermining or questioning Christian values
  • OUTSIDE of their city, careful about getting involved in controversial morality issues too close to home for fear they might be ostracized or vilified in the media
  • AGAINST their church, eager to root out any recalcitrant “lone wolves” among the body with a poor attitude infecting the rest of the congregation (the subject of many articles and books)

In other words, churches are more inclined to tolerate…

  • …sin inside their church than sin outside the church (despite Paul’s emotional appeal to do the opposite and even though “outsiders” don’t consider themselves subject to God’s law)
  • …sin among their Christian friends than among those they don’t know
  • …sin against the Lord than sin against their religious institution (i.e. church)

What Jesus, David, Paul and John all shared was a righteous anger against professed believers who sinned against God and corrupted His holy Church.  They hated all sin but saved their most forceful words for those who brought sin into the church.  Why do pastors and Christians now seem to redirect nearly all of their “anger” toward those outside the church, rarely looking internally to take the “log out of their own eyes”?

What Changed…

I am often the target of that anger from those defending institution-building.  I question the status quo – the prevailing redefinition of “church” and its intended, biblical “customer”.  I’m considered a rabble-rouser for turning over the proverbial “tables” at churches seeking growth by catering and clinging to members (rather than challenging and equipping them to reach the lost in their community).  I’m not opposed to church growth of course, but only how it’s being pursued today.

In fact, the Matthew 18 process has historically stimulated church growth, not diminished it.  As members took responsibility for their sins, corrected one another through discipleship, and reflected Christ’s love and compassion to a watching world, the body of Christ was strengthened and blessed.  However, in an environment today where “church” is defined as a place to go on Sundays and the responsibilities of attenders have been reduced to inviting friends to a worship service, the Matthew 18 process has become far too personal and demanding for American churchgoers.  With sin left largely unchecked and discipleship waning, the Church is no longer growing – in size, impact, influence or public perception.

The reluctance of church leaders to hold members accountable for their actions is further evidence that churchgoers are increasingly treated as “customers”.  No longer seeing them as the embodiment of “church”, but redefining “church” as the institution itself, is why few churches…

  • …deal directly with personal sin, particularly in the family of a patriarch or matriarch
  • …risk the financial consequences of following Matthew 18 with significant contributors
  • …offer intensive, personalized discipleship
  • …still have “accountability” groups

The “customer is always right”, so they’re never questioned or insulted.  Yet customers can complain and criticize when they don’t get what they want.  Likewise, pastors no longer feel at liberty to confront churchgoers personally about sin, yet readily accept criticisms from them (and even heap praise on them when they lift the slightest finger to serve inside or outside the church).

It’s Your Turn…

Wouldn’t God’s plan for purity and remedy for sin among His children – confession, repentance, forgiveness and restoration through Jesus Christ – be more pervasive if the Matthew 18 process were followed by more churches?

Tags

12 Responses

  1. Question: This all sounds good, but in your approach, who is actually practicing the holiness? Also, define the state of being from which the goodness present performs the holiness.

    1. Paul – There is no holiness and no goodness apart from Christ. No one can practice or perform holiness, it is a gift from God to those who have surrendered their lives to Jesus. However, the Bible is clear that the Lord wants His followers to avoid sin and to confront each other about sin – the latter is not common in today’s churches.

  2. There are so many ‘Christians’ now who look like and live like the world…i’m afraid they may be in for a big surprise when they leave this world. That’s why Pastors Must do as scripture calls them to do so those fooling themselves might be saved.

  3. do u actually consider the Jewish leaders part of the church? Romans 5 kills that idea. we are to confront sin in the body but you do need to revise some of the statements because they are truly misinterpreted

    1. Bruce – I understand your point, but please try to understand mine. In Luke 2:49 and John 2:16 Jesus clearly refers to the temple (that the Pharisees were defiling) as “My Father’s house”. In other words, why I bring up the Pharisees in the blog post is that Jesus saw the temple as the Lord’s house and was upset that they were corrupting it. Now, the Christian church is the Lord’s house and many pastors are corrupting it by not confronting sin within His house. I don’t see any misinterpretation.

  4. What sin specifically do you believe churches are refusing to address and root out? My interpretation from reading this article leads me to believe that you are preaching against homosexuality or premarital sex, neither of which Jesus Himself said were actual sins.

    I was left dumbfounded when I read that Matthew 18 thesis and antithesis, because much of the stuff in it is precisely what conservative churches are guilty of: covering up sexual scandals, not doing enough to help the poor, making a show of piety while secretly harboring hate, alienating younger members and converts and non-believers by refusing to change their rhetoric and by preaching that church is only for good people.

  5. With respects your comment that Jesus did not condemn homosexuality reveals either disingenuousness or ignorance. Mark‬ ‭7:20-23‬ ‭KJV‬‬, states
    “And he said, That which cometh out of the man, that defileth the man. For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, Thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness: All these evil things come from within, and defile the man.”
    The word translated “fornications” is the Greek word “porneía” which is properly translated:
    1. illicit sexual intercourse; including:
    * adultery, fornication, homosexuality, lesbianism, intercourse with animals etc.
    * sexual intercourse with close relatives; Lev. 18
    * sexual intercourse with a divorced man or woman; Mk. 10:11,
    2. metaph. the worship of idols
    * of the defilement of idolatry, as incurred by eating the sacrifices offered to idols

    I have observed this coercion towards political correctness when discussing biblical values on Western forums like this. What has the main discussion have to do with “homosexuality”? You simply want to force the writer to single out homosexuality out of the sinful acts just to be “correct”. Well, Jesus condemned porneia as well as covetousness and other sins. ALL are SIN including HOMOSEXUALITY.
    However, just as God receives the repentant THIEF, ADULTERER OR BLASPHEMER, so also He receives the repentant Homosexual.

    1. Sean a very appropriate, insightful and most important it was a biblically founded response. In every discussion about marriage Jesus only identifies two entities, male and female because those are the only Divinely appointed entities for marriage. Hear Jesus in Matt. 19:4-6, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.” So Jesus interpretation has always been (both in the Old Testament & New Testament) God’s intended marriage only you be between a male and female otherwise it is sin. But Jesus knows that all are born in sin and shaped in iniquity, so He calls for us to be born again in order that we might be delivered from our natural proclivities. Sean you’re also right, the main discussion had NOTHING to do with homosexuality, but because coercion it needed to to be addressed in all off it’s perversion and deception. God bless! BTW, what an insightful and challenging article, “When Did Churches Stop Confronting Sin Among Their Own? Thank you Jim Morgan for allowing the Holy Spirit to use you, I will share this at my church!

  6. “So, Islam is now an ‘ethnic group’?”The Finnish word in the penal code is &#a082;k2nsanryhmä”, which includes ethnic, religious and other groups. In practice, the law only protects minorities. You can say anything about ethnic Finns or Christians. This has also been proven in court cases.Muslims are the kind of group the law refers to, even though muslims are not an ethnic group.

  7. I just received this article from a friend. I thanked him and I thank you for writing it as well as the commentators. The only item I would rebuff is the statement “the customer is always right” found towards the end of the article. Coming from the service industry I can tell you that old trope is a sure way to find yourself out of business. If the customer is a pedophile I think you might want to keep him away from you lambs. And as Matthew 8:6 quoteths our Lord, “If anyone causes one of these little ones—those who believe in me—to stumble, it would be better for them to have a large millstone hung around their neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea“. God bless you all and keep you.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

sixteen − 3 =

The 5 Steps to Revitalize Your Church

Subscribe to the Blog and Get the Free eBook!

The 5 Steps to Revitalize Your Church

Subscribe to the Blog and Get the Free eBook!

Root cause for the Church's decline & its path to Revitalization

“Any organization not focused on its customers, or focused on the wrong customers, cannot succeed.” – Jim Morgan