u/FakePhillyCheezStake

This is Paul talking about not associating with brothers or sisters who live immorally:

“But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother or sister who is sexually immoral or greedy or an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler. Do not even eat with such a one.”
‭‭
I ask because I came across an ACNA church with an interesting stance on sexual ethics, and I’m trying to understand their view better.

They have a big page about how they hold to a traditional sexual ethic. It’s honestly pretty well written and you can tell they thought a lot about it.

However, they also say that people who disagree with them on this can still participate in the church, become members, and take communion.

BUT they very explicitly state that someone who disagrees on this CANNOT be leaders in the church.

On one hand, I really understand where they are coming from, and I think they are admirable for being very open about their position right on their website for everyone to see (since this is such a contentious issue). It’s well thought out and they offer a lot of resources to back their traditional ethics stance.

But on the other hand I don’t see how you reconcile their stance with 1 Corinthians 5:11.

Since I’m not an Anglican, I was wondering: is this approach consistent with how Anglicans typically understand membership and participation in the church more broadly? And if so, could someone help me understand how 1 Corinthians 5:11 is reconciled with this?

I’m not coming here to be combative. I’m genuinely trying to understand, because 1 Corinthians 5:11 does seem very strict. But also, most churches don’t go around with a magnifying glass confirming whether every brother or sister is sexually immoral, greedy, an idolator, etc…