I've placed an addendum at the bottom of this post.

I’ve been wrestling with some scripture tonight. Not wrestling with the validity of it, just the application of it. All these passages have been in my head today, and all I need to do is share them and you’ll see how they relate.


From 2nd Samuel, chpt 12:
1 And the Lord sent Nathan to David. He came to him and said to him, “There were two men in a certain city, the one rich and the other poor. 2 The rich man had very many flocks and herds, 3 but the poor man had nothing but one little ewe lamb, which he had bought. And he brought it up, and it grew up with him and with his children. It used to eat of his morsel and drink from his cup and lie in his arms, and it was like a daughter to him. 4 Now there came a traveler to the rich man, and he was unwilling to take one of his own flock or herd to prepare for the guest who had come to him, but he took the poor man's lamb and prepared it for the man who had come to him.” 5 Then David's anger was greatly kindled against the man, and he said to Nathan, “As the Lord lives, the man who has done this deserves to die, 6 and he shall restore the lamb fourfold, because he did this thing, and because he had no pity.”
7 Nathan said to David, “You are the man!


From Mark, chpt 6:
18 For John had been saying to Herod, “It is not lawful for you to have your brother's wife.”


From Matthew, chpt 18:
15 “If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. 16 But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses. 17 If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.

Also
Matthew 19: 3-9; Matthew 5: 31-32; 1 Corinthians 6:12; 1 Corinthians 7: 10-11 & 39; Galatians 5: 13-17; Galatians 6: 7-8


To name it & confront it, or not – that is my question.
A partial acceptance of these scriptures occured before, but they are presently perceived to no longer apply; I would argue otherwise.
Should I even try to convince this person that the civil authority and cultural norms are not the highest authority, for the person who asserts faith in Christ and intends to remain in the church?
I would also assert that the words of grace do not constitute a message of permission.

addendum:
in the situation I was wrestling with, above. I decided not to confront, because I'm too close to the situation to be perceived as an objective commeter. Also, what I would have said has essentially been said, it was nothing new.
While I advocate the practice of Matthew 18: 15-17, again, I think I'm actually too close -- the critique or confrontation would be perceived as 'sour grapes' rather than a legitimate attempt at correction.

Also, some times you just have to realize that you can't really argue about whether the sky is blue, when the sky really is orange in the other person's world -- as seriously as it is blue for you and me. You can hope/expect that one morning the person's going to walk outside and say "Son of a bitch! It's blue!!" But when that happens or how that happens is outside our control.
You get to verse 17 because a lot of the time a person's sky stays orange regardless of what people say -- even respected people. So you wait and pray.