Shades of Gray with the Community

What is the proper response of the church to the moral decay in our culture or community?  We might find that a simple answer is not so easy.  It is entirely possible for two godly leaders working in the same context, community, and time to come up with two very different answers to that question. 

In post-exilic Jerusalem, two leaders received news of the same moral failure, but they reacted very differently.  The problem was the Jewish people were intermarrying with the heathen population in Canaan.   Note the two radically different reactions of Ezra and Nehemiah.

Ezra 9:3: When I heard about this matter, I tore my garment and my robe, and pulled some of the hair from my head and my beard, and sat down appalled.

Nehemiah 13:23&25:  In those days I also saw that the Jews had married women from Ashdod, Ammon and Moab….So, I contended with them and cursed them and struck some of them and pulled out their hair.

In the same situation these two leaders had radically different reactions to the same sin.  Ezra the tenderhearted teacher begins by expressing repentance on behalf of the people.  Nehemiah the dynamic civic leader begins with a less pastoral approach.

This continuum is not so much about life in the church as it is how the church relates, responds, and reacts to the local community.  Not every unchurched person in the community will visit the church, but the church is still a witness to those people.  So, non-engagement is not an option; we must be involved.  The church must, therefore, intentionally think about its role in its community and how it relates to that community, specifically, in regard to sin.  The correct location on this continuum may be a most difficult position to find.  And in our politically correct age, even the most ideal position will likely not be popular.   Additionally, there is no one location on the spectrum that will equally serve the church on every issue the church will have to face.  Let’s consider the two ends of this spectrum. 

The Church as the conscience of the community

The church’s role in the community is to offer a prophetic warning to the community about the consequences of their sins.  The church confronts the sins of the community with clear and direct teaching of Scripture, bringing clarity and truth to confused people.  As the conscience, the church will be a source of discomfort for an immoral society.  It should expect opposition.  The church can, and in some cases ought to, become engaged in the arena of political action as far as allowed by law.  The church should take a highly active and visible stand on the moral issues in the local community, offering the warning of God’s wrath should people fail to repent.

The Church as the witness of healing in the community

The church’s role in the community is to bring the healing of grace to broken and hurting people.  People trapped in sin are the victims of the attacks of the evil one and are in need of loving-kindness.  The church must never forget that the sinners are first and foremost victims of both their fallen nature and their fallen world.  The church’s role is to bring mercy to those suffering the consequences of sin.  As the only agent of God’s grace and mercy, the church brings comfort and, thereby, bears witness to the Savior.  Confrontation of the individual is contrary to the needs of the victims or sin.  They need council, inner healing, and sympathy. 

If taken to one terminus, it is possible for the church to become a symbol of angry and unloving protest, even violence.  This is equally a problem for churches on all points of the theological spectrum.  On the left and the right, extremists can come across as hate-filled radicals, being the opposite of what Jesus called His church to be.   It matters little if the angry voice mimics those of Westboro Baptist Church leader Fred Phelps or a Liberation theologian like Ernesto Cardenal.  When the church begins to focus its energy and message primarily on the real or imagined ills of society, it enviably drifts away from the gospel of grace and its mission. 

The church is capable of drifting to the extreme in the other direction.  If the church is unwilling to confront sin, it will lose its ability to have any impact beyond that of a social services agency.  Without a moral compass of biblical righteousness the church will be lead only by the emotions generated by circumstances.  It may feel terrible about the misery caused by sin, but will be incapable of addressing the root cause of the misery.  Inner, emotional, or personal healing can deteriorate into the shared bemoaning of wrongs suffered without a call to repentance.  The “Law of the Lord” quickly degenerates into the “suggestion of the big guy”. 

Somewhere between acts of terror attempting to end some form of evil and the other extreme in which sufferers are coddled and any behavior is justified by their victim status, the church must find her place in some shade of gray.  There must be both a public and a private call for repentance.  There must be both a public and a private expression of compassion and mercy and hope in the power of the cross. 

For a final illustration:  It is equally ineffective to yell at an alcoholic, tell them they are destroying themselves and are going to hell, as it is to tell them they are the victim of a world that simply never cared for them while offering them a beer.  But remember, when working with an alcoholic, finding the perfect response is no guarantee of success.  We must warn and we must love, but we must not assume that we will always succeed. 

We see in this continuum, as in the others, the answer is somewhere in the vast middle.