“Faithful are the wounds of a friend, but the kisses of an enemy are deceitful.”
– Proverbs 27:6
The sin of complicity refers to being involved in or condoning the sinful actions of others, either through direct participation or passive consent. The Bible warns against this behavior, emphasizing personal responsibility and the moral obligation to oppose wrongdoing.
A month into my last pastorate, I was approached by a young female member who was engaged to be married. She wanted to set up an appointment so I could meet with her and her fiancé to discuss their wedding plans, which had been scheduled with the previous pastor for just a few weeks later. Of course, I responded positively to her request for the three of us to get together.
Things were fine until she told me that if I needed to contact them, they could be reached at a particular address where they had been living together for over a year. With that little tidbit of info, I had to gently but firmly let her know that I would not be participating in their wedding plans with that sort of living arrangement. What made matters worse was the fact that the address she gave me was that of a deaconess of the church who was knowingly allowing them to live under her roof. I told her that I would perform the wedding, but only if she agreed to move back home with her parents until that date.
This understandably upset her, but she was young. What was disappointing was the number of older people in the church who took issue with my position and with what I was requiring of her before I would participate any further. As the news got out, opposition to me and support for her and her fiancé grew. Of course, a couple of liberal pastors in the area let it be known to members of my church that I was being legalistic and Pharisaical and knew nothing about the mercy of God. My honeymoon with the church was officially now over.
Opposition among members of the church and their friends in this rural community grew to the point where a special congregational meeting had to be held to discuss whether I would be allowed to remain as the pastor. I took the first few minutes to explain the biblical reasons for my stand. I included the point that I didn’t want to give younger members of the congregation the impression that I believed it was acceptable to live together outside of marriage.
I knew what I was requiring was in keeping with the Bible and with the newly endorsed by-laws of the church, which, apparently, some members never bothered to read before voting in favor of them. Of course, no one tried to oppose me on those grounds. Instead, a handful of people stood up to denounce me personally without addressing the issue itself.
After that attempt fell flat, roughly twenty of the one hundred or so members in attendance walked out, never to return to the church again. Not surprisingly, the wedding took place on the original date scheduled but at the Methodist Church up the street with the Methodist pastor presiding.
To be honest, I was neither shocked nor dismayed to see twenty people walk out never to return. Given their behavior at the meeting and their actions leading up to it, I saw no hope of being able to make much spiritual headway in the church with that many members unable to accept clear, biblical teaching on marriage. I viewed their decision never to return as a blessed subtraction necessary for the church’s future spiritual health.
The eventual positive result was that over the course of the next few months, former members who had left the church in previous years, mostly due to the actions of some of those who had walked out, returned and got very much involved in the church once again. In the long run, just as many returned to the church as had left due to the position I took with the young couple.
What surprised and truly disappointed me was that during the meeting, not a single elder stood up to support my position or defend me personally. I was literally out on a limb by myself throughout the entire meeting.
The Current Lack of Accountability
Since that event many years ago, I have witnessed and experienced several situations where Christians failed to address blatant sin in which other people claiming to be Christians are participating. In most of those, it is sexual sin that is taking place outside the bonds of marriage. Not surprisingly, with the growth of megachurches, it has become much easier for couples to live together outside of marriage while regularly attending an evangelical church without members or anyone involved in leadership knowing. Also, with the growth of many parachurch organizations, individuals living in this manner are able to participate and present themselves as sincere Christians while avoiding accountability.
The Test of True Friendship
Given these circumstances, accountability can only come from Christian friends who take it upon themselves to be honest with someone they claim to care about who may be living this way. This is where friendship is truly tested. Will the Christian friend care enough to address something a friend living in sin needs to hear? Will they risk losing that friendship for the sake of their friend’s spiritual welfare? Will they be willing to undergo rejection or even open hostility from others who won’t understand why they would choose to interfere in another person’s personal relationship? Will they set aside their own personal comfort to help their friend grasp the negative, spiritual consequences their sinful lifestyle has on others closely connected to them?
Unfortunately, in an era where the acceptance of alternative lifestyles is paramount, the answer to each of these questions, even for Christians, is, in most instances, no. It is far easier to remain silent, and thereby sidestep discomfort, friction, or even wrath, than to enter a conversation that may produce all three. It is much easier to try and pass off one’s unwillingness to confront a friend living in sin as loving tolerance, sensitivity, and patience rather than a lack of sincere love for that person that it truly is.
For those Christians who choose to walk away from what God has called them to do, honesty is not the best policy; maintaining one’s own personal comfort level is.
Two Types of Complicity
Clearly, a Christian is complicit with sin when they actively participate in the sin of another person. However, there is also the passive form of complicity that is also sinful. Though it is seemingly difficult these days for many Christians to accept, keeping silent when a fellow Christian is clearly sinning is, itself, a passive form of participation. The active form is a sin of commission, while the passive form is a sin of omission. Both forms are serious offenses against God, and in many instances, both are found closely knit together in stories found in the Bible. In fact, more often than not, the passive form of complicity eventually leads to the active form.
An example of this is found in Genesis 3:1-8 during the original fall of man:
“Now the serpent was more cunning than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made. And he said to the woman, ‘Has God indeed said, ‘You shall not eat of every tree of the garden’?’ And the woman said to the serpent, ‘We may eat the fruit of the trees of the garden; but of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God has said, ‘You shall not eat it, nor shall you touch it, lest you die.” Then the serpent said to the woman, ‘You will not surely die. For God knows that in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.’ So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree desirable to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate. She also gave to her husband with her, and he ate. Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves coverings.”
After Eve sinned by failing to obey God’s clear command, Adam sinned also. However, his first sin was not that of eating the fruit of the tree. His first was the sin of complicity when he failed to correct Eve for her disobedience. Instead of confronting her, he listened to her reasoning, which was based on what the serpent had told her rather than what he knew God had commanded. By this action, he made himself passively complicit in her sin. This sin of omission then led to his second sin of commission, whereby he too participated in active disobedience against God. This shows that not only are both forms of complicity sinful, but passive complicity can easily lead to active complicity.
Another example of both types, along with the consequences being closely tied together, was the sins of Ananias and Sapphira found in Acts 5:1-11.
“A certain man named Ananias, with Sapphira his wife, sold a possession. And he kept back part of the proceeds, his wife also being aware of it, and brought a certain part and laid it at the apostles’ feet. But Peter said, ‘Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and keep back part of the price of the land for yourself? While it remained, was it not your own? And after it was sold, was it not in your own control? Why have you conceived this thing in your heart? You have not lied to men but to God.’ Then Ananias, hearing these words, fell down and breathed his last. So great fear came upon all those who heard these things. And the young men arose and wrapped him up, carried him out, and buried him. Now it was about three hours later when his wife came in, not knowing what had happened. And Peter answered her, ‘Tell me whether you sold the land for so much?’ She said, ‘Yes, for so much.’ Then Peter said to her, ‘How is it that you have agreed together to test the Spirit of the Lord? Look, the feet of those who have buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out.’ Then immediately she fell down at his feet and breathed her last. And the young men came in and found her dead, and carrying her out, buried her by her husband. So great fear came upon all the church and upon all who heard these things.”
In this story we find two people in the act of sinning, one who is outright performing the sinful act while the other is aware of it but says and does nothing. Hours after the consequences of Ananias’s actions fall upon him, Sapphira is put on the spot and goes from being passively complicit to actively complicit by repeating his lie. In so doing, she ends up suffering the same fate. This was not a case where a non-sin led to an actual sin, but rather a sin of omission leading to a sin of commission.
Of course, it doesn’t always happen that one leads to another. However, it is more likely than not that at some point, the one claiming to be a Christian while living in sin will request something that forces the Christian friend to act in such a way that gives the appearance of showing support for their lifestyle. When a Christian acquiesces to such requests, it is viewed by all those involved and all those witnessing it as condoning sin. At that stage, the Christian friend will begin to share in the spiritual consequences of the sinful brother’s conduct by committing sin themselves.
What can be clearly seen in such stories and similar passages is that sin, and its consequences, inevitably spreads, affecting an ever-increasing number of people. The longer an open and obvious sin goes unaddressed by those who have the opportunity to confront it, the farther its consequences spread, harming more and more people, including those who choose to remain silent.
Paul Demands Sexual Sin Be Confronted
In 1 Corinthians 5:1-13, the apostle Paul addresses a situation within the Corinthian Church where sexual sin by a member is known to the congregation and is being openly tolerated. As the church’s founder and overseer, Paul gives clear directions on how the church should handle the situation. He wrote:
I can hardly believe the report about the sexual immorality going on among you, something that even pagans don’t do. I am told that a man in your church is living in sin with his stepmother. You are so proud of yourselves, but you should be mourning in sorrow and shame. And you should remove this man from your fellowship.
Even though I am not with you in person, I am with you in the Spirit. And as though I were there, I have already passed judgment on this man in the name of the Lord Jesus. You must call a meeting of the church. I will be present with you in spirit, and so will the power of our Lord Jesus. Then you must throw this man out and hand him over to Satan so that his sinful nature will be destroyed and he himself will be saved on the day the Lord returns.
Your boasting about this is terrible. Don’t you realize that this sin is like a little yeast that spreads through the whole batch of dough? Get rid of the old “yeast” by removing this wicked person from among you. Then you will be like a fresh batch of dough made without yeast, which is what you really are…….
I wrote to you in my epistle not to keep company with sexually immoral people. Yet I certainly did not mean with the sexually immoral people of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world. But now I have written to you not to keep company with anyone named a brother, who is sexually immoral, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or an extortioner—not even to eat with such a person. For what have I to do with judging those also who are outside? Do you not judge those who are inside? But those who are outside God judges. Therefore, “put away from yourselves the evil person.”
Paul chides the members of the Corinthian church for being proud of themselves when they really should have been “mourning in sorrow and feeling shame.” What might their reasons have been for feeling proud of themselves? Had they been proud of themselves for refusing to deal harshly with their Christian brother? Had they been proud of themselves for maintaining a relationship with this man rather than removing him from the fellowship? Had they been proud of themselves for showing such great tolerance and patience toward someone whose conscience was simply less developed than theirs?
Perhaps it was one of these or all of these. However, according to Paul, thinking and operating in this manner was not a reason to be proud of themselves but to be ashamed of themselves. They should have been thinking of what best represents Christ’s character and the character of his followers to a sinful world. They should have been considering what was best for those closely tied to this man. They should have been taking active steps to banish him from the church and to “hand him over to Satan so that his sinful nature would be destroyed and he himself would be saved.” Instead, they were openly tolerating sin and considering themselves virtuous for having done so.
This same tolerance of sin is what we see being touted in every mainline denomination as the highest possible form of virtue. Unfortunately, it is also the sort of tolerance manifested by some within evangelical circles who have allowed the false values of our current culture to have a wrongful impact upon their own way of thinking and acting toward professing Christians participating in sexual sin.
This was the mindset held by those members of my last church who, along with the local liberal pastors, believed I was intolerant and un-Christlike toward the young couple when I was actually seeking to lead them both to repentance and genuine faith. When it came right down to it, though they failed to realize it and probably still do, I was actually being a genuine friend by speaking the painful truth, while those supporting them and their lifestyle were operating as their spiritual enemies by encouraging them to continue living in sin.
The Corporate Nature and Effect of Sin
The manner in which those claiming to trust in Christ for salvation avoid being confronted while living in sin is by failing to officially join a Bible-believing church where they would be held accountable. Again, given the size of the megachurches that exist in so many regions, it is now very easy for such people to attend worship services each week along with their children, as do the actual members of the church.
While those utilizing this approach may think they are lessening the wrongfulness of their lifestyle, they are actually causing their sin to be far more egregious and harmful to the children living within their household. What is so insidious about this additional behavior is that it gives the children of the household, as well as their children’s friends, the impression that sexual sin is perfectly acceptable, as long as church attendance is maintained.
What these immoral adults are failing or refusing to grasp is not only the serious negative effects that their sinful lifestyle is having upon the children in the home but also the serious consequences they are bringing upon themselves. What they are choosing to ignore is the stern warning Jesus himself gave to his disciples when he stated in Luke 17:1-3, “It is inevitable that stumbling blocks will come, but woe to the one through whom they come! It would be better for him to have a millstone hung around his neck and to be thrown into the sea than to cause one of these little ones to stumble. Watch yourselves. If your brother sins, rebuke him; and if he repents, forgive him.”
The consequences are even more severe when not only a couple’s own children are being wrongly influenced, but other people’s children are being led astray as well. Everyone connected to this kind of situation needs to understand that judgment will eventually fall not only on those directly responsible for the sin, but also on those who fail to stop children from being misled.
As with Achan in Joshua 7, who defied God by keeping some of the spoils of Jericho for himself, the whole Israelite community suffered defeat and heavy loss at Ai because of one man’s sin. In the same way, sin in the New Testament carries corporate effects in both its results and its consequences.
Again, it is not as though those who refuse to address sinful behavior are guiltless, since the sin of complicity, though not seemingly as wrong as the one participating in sexual immorality, is a sin nonetheless. This is why Jesus, in verse 3, ended his warning to his disciples by commanding them not to tolerate such behavior but rather to confront it, stating, “Watch yourselves. If your brother sins, rebuke him; and if he repents, forgive him.”
Passing the Test
There will be times in every Christian’s life when they face the challenge of either avoiding the uncomfortable thing that God commands or following through with what he commands despite the discomfort or anguish it may create. For the Corinthians, that meant confronting the man living in sin, banishing him from the fellowship, no longer spending time with him socially, and allowing him to experience the pain that eventually comes to those who choose to rebel against God’s commands.
For the Christian faced with having to confront a brother living in sin, the type of discipline exercised within a church context is not possible. However, this does not mean nothing can or should be done. At the very least, the Christian friend should be honest with his brother. To avoid doing even this by declaring neutrality in response to what is clearly wrong and sinful is to be passively complicit and, therefore, to respond to sin by sinning themselves, a sin of omission but a sin nonetheless.
Beyond that, the influence of the brother living in sin on others should be curtailed as much as possible. Whatever access the immoral brother has to Christian children on a spiritual level must be strongly opposed, and steps taken to prevent them from representing themselves as a faithful Christian when they are clearly not acting as one.
Though seemingly harsh, steps must be taken to prevent children from being given the impression that living in sin is not only acceptable, but virtuous under certain circumstances. Preventative measures need to be taken not only for the children’s sake, but also for the sake of the immoral brother who wrongly believes he and his partner will face no consequences for their behavior.
Both individuals living in sin and actively complicit in each other’s sin need to understand that “causing the little ones to stumble” can, at any moment, result in swift, harsh consequences. Also, those who choose to say or do nothing under the guise of being “neutral” must understand that to remain neutral is to be passively supportive and, therefore, complicit, which the Bible reveals, and God views as being participatory. There can be no neutrality when it comes to open and blatant sin, especially when it is negatively impacting those who are the most vulnerable.
The Christian life has its tests that are seldom, if ever, requested. Yet they come nonetheless. Some are fairly easy while others are much more challenging. Then there are those that are downright painful to have to endure. In the end, how a Christian responds to such a challenge will inevitably determine whether they will end up spiritually stronger or spiritually weakened.
