Update: Joe Carter at EO has posted a response to Challies’ article below, and I have inserted the 9th comment ————————————-
Tim Challies has a nice article, and a good reference post discussing the principles around judgment vs. reproof and rebuke. Very timely, seeing our discussions here. Have fun reading The Obligation to Assume, and even better, The Ultimate Human Judgment.
On Judging Yourself
Paul acknowledged this when he wrote, in 2 Corinthians 13:5, "Examine yourselves, to see whether you are in the faith. Test yourselves. Or do you not realize this about yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you?-unless indeed you fail to meet the test!" Paul knew that some who professed to be believers were not and thus he encourages each of them to continually test their hearts. One terrifying aspect of the final judgment is that there will be many going to hell who sincerely felt they were believers….
On Believing that Others are Believers Profession of Faith
When a person has made a profession of faith and is a member in good standing of a true church, as defined by these three marks: the preaching of the Gospel, the administration of the sacraments and the exercise of church discipline, I believe that we are under an obligation to assume that this person’s faith is genuine….
This is important, for we have affirmed that a person can be involved in ongoing and unrepentant sin and still be assumed to be a believer, provided that he is within the context of a local church and is receiving necessary discipline.
In the Specific Case of Andrew Sullivan
As I understand it, then, because of Sullivan’s unrepentant behavior, and because he has deliberately avoided placing himself within a true church, the proper context for all believers, I feel that we have no obligation to assume that he is a true believer.
What I like about (Some) Christians is the way in which they draw great big lines between themselves and fellow Christians. In this case, the author separates himself from gay Andrew Sullivan, presumably because he is gay (unrepentant). It doesn't matter that Sullivan professes to believe in Jesus Christ, or accept him, or do whatever it is that makes Christians Christian. Nope; what matters is that the author is uncomfortable with the existance of Christians that aren't familiar to him, so he simply casts them from the fold.
In much the same way that Seeker pretends that pro-slavery Christians simply "weren't Christians." Even though they were, certainly by every measure recently discussed on this very website. Controversy can't be avoided by simply pretending that the controversial people don't count. People that look for ways to avoid debating Sullivan clearly don't have enough intellectual capacity to do battle with him. The same goes for Seeker when he acts as though Christians who supported slavery weren't Christians. It's easier doing that than figuring out how Christians could possibly endorse slavery.
Actually, I believe 1 John 1 and 2 would draw that line for us. I actually like a lot of what Sullivan has to say about many things, but if you read 1 John Cp 1&2, it is clear that persistent and unrepentant sin are cause for walking in the darkness. It is a common error for some to call Christians judgemental on an issue that the Lord has already made a clear Judgement.
As for slavery, they were wrong, but recall that until the late 18th century, NO ONE was telling them any different. When Witherspoon and others made a move toward emancipation, it actually came rather quickly in historical terms. Remember that at the time, most of the world operated from the assumption of slavery and 6-8 thousand years of slavery as an economic standard and well as a form of (wrongheaded) justice for criminals. Try reading Christianity on Trial http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1893554155/104-8… for a good historical read of slavery and Christianity. It does not make excuses, but lays out some historical perspective and shows how it was Christianity helped abolish slavery. ps- Islamic nations still have slavery, like Sudan.
The difference is, when the church spoke against slavery, it ended in the west, when it speaks against homosexulity, it is called bigoted and narrowminded. So thanks for the paralell, should the church treat homosexuality as it did slavery??