Text: 1 Cor 5:1-5, Title: Cry Me A River, Date/Place: NRBC, 9/5/10, AM
A. Opening illustration: Erika’s reaction to my engagement proposal – unexpected—laughter?
B. Background to passage: However surprising it may seem in our more cerebral age, Paul appears more ready to tolerate “a mixed church” which includes those who have doctrinal problems about the resurrection than to allow persistent immorality of a notorious kind to compromise the corporate identity of the community. Since Paul is coming to see them, and ensure that his instructions and warnings are being heeded, he proceeds to continue those instructions and warnings. And the next item up for bids is immorality in the church, and the church’s reaction to it. This three part message will examine restorative accountability, and it’s purpose, practice, and rationale; so make sure and be here all three Sundays so you will get the full picture, and so you don’t hear me say something that I am not saying. All of Paul’s warnings to the church indicate that these are serious issues, and must be dealt with accordingly. And that membership in the body of Christ is a serious and grave thing.
C. Main thought: in the text we will see three aspects of Paul’s outrage about the sin in the church.
A. The Sin in Question (v. 1)
1. The sin in question where was a sin that was not even talked about among unbelievers, nor tolerated! There was a man who was carrying on an incestuous relationship with his father’s wife. Note the tone of disbelief. There was even in the pagan culture clear denunciation of this kind of thing. His mother was probably dead or divorced. And since adultery specifically is not mentioned (the word used here is porneia which means any sort of sexual sin), it had probably caused the divorce between his dad and step mom. And since no discipline is called for upon the woman, she was probably not a Christian.
2. Lev 18:7-8, Matt 18:15, 2 Thess 3:6-11,Tit 3:9-11, Rom 16:17, 2 Tim. 2:17-18, 1 Tim. 1:20, Rev. 2:20-24
3. Illustration: cultural attitude: “Mistresses we keep for the sake of pleasure, concubines for the daily care of the body, but wives to bear us legitimate children” –Demos, 1st century writer, “Sin is serious! And open sin in the church is like a rattler in the crib w/ the baby! Sin is a maniac w/ a knife loose in a nursing home! Sin is the very element which nailed Jesus to the cross…it’s time the church take sin seriously!”
4. So obviously sexual immorality is not welcome in the church, and is an offense that brings about restorative accountability from the church. Reminder, sexual immorality is anything other than monogamy in a committed marriage. Therefore any sex, with others than your spouse, with yourself, with your computer, with a magazine, with your minds, is sexual immorality. But the question that this really raises is: what things are issues that necessitate some restorative accountability? Paul indicates any fault in Galatians 6:1-2, and if you think about it, if we are close enough to one another relationally, when things begin to go into the sinful realm, we can have short loving talks. The principle for what things require discipline is: open or known sin in the body of Christ. But specifically, the NT disciplines for problems between members, disorderly conduct/laziness, divisiveness, and false teaching.
B. The Attitude of the Church (v. 2)
1. As horrified as Paul was with a man sleeping with his step mom, he was more horrified at the attitude of the church! In fact, most commentators rightly note that this is the principle cause of his outrage. He says that the church is proud of the fact that they have a man with the liberty to be saved, and go and do as he pleases, and the church not judge him. He said, rather than pride, you should be mourning, a word that means to experience great sadness because of the condition of someone. He says that they should be saddened b/c one of their brethren has been overtaken in a great fault. The implication here, and later more explicit, is that there is great offense, great harm, great cause for alarm b/c someone who says they are a believer is involved in this type of sexual immorality, and that the church is accepting of it. Sorrow that a believer is being destroyed, shame over Christ having an impure bride, brokenness that God has been violated, offended, and blasphemed b/c of this incident.
2. Num 25:6, Ezra 9:4, 2 Cor 2:7, 21, Rev 2:19-20, Gal 6:1-2, Ps 119:136,
3. Illustration: the affirming of gay members/clergy has or is splitting every major denomination except SBC and RCC, “A church that does not mourn over sin, especially sin within its own fellowship, is on the edge of spiritual destruction.” –JM, church reaction to Lori’s being brought before the church in Maine,
4. Just btw, this demonstrates the possibility (unless he is not really saved) and unacceptability of sinners exhibiting no change in their lives after Christ. We should be horrified at sin in the lives of other believers. This doesn’t mean that we are to go around looking for these sins, nor that we should consider ourselves the self-appointed judges of everyone, but that a godly sorrow should arise when we see our fellow church members becoming entrapped in a sin. We must understand the seriousness of sin, and the seriousness of Christ’s church. Without depth and passionate understanding of those two truths, we will tend toward apathy rather than outrage. He says don’t be proud, and I think he would say, “don’t look away.” We must be broken over sin, mourn over its victories in our brethren. Sorry that God is displeased, that Christ has an unfaithful wife, and that His name is being trashed because of it. And in humility and love, always with a readiness and anticipation to reconcile, we can go to them and plead with them to see and repent. In all of this, we must be committed to God’s Word and His standard to protect us from pride, excess, and laxity.
C. The Judgment of Paul (v. 3-5)
1. Note the end of v. 2 about how they should have expelled him from the congregation. But then he uses some strange terminology that we must explore. He says that he has already judged this individual, and that as a church they should too, when they are gathered together in the name of Christ. He says to the end that the person might be turned over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh. This means that there is a form of protection from the vulnerability to Satan for believers who are striving to follow Christ. And for those that persist in sin, and refuse to repent, there is suffering prepared. God will turn the floodgates of Satan loose on them. And of course, the text says that he may die, even though his spirit be saved. The Lord is more concerned about the good of the church than the life of an individual. God may remove individuals to protect the church. But they are still saved, just dead. He will move them to the Sunday School class of “those that died in the Lord.”
2. 1 Tim 1:20, Heb 12:8, 2 Thess 3:15,
3. Illustration: "This person can no longer be treated as a spiritual brother or sister, for they have forfeited that position. They can only be treated as one outside the church, not hated, but not held in close fellowship." –Weirsbe, tell about Alice’s husband and his conversion, service, anger and apostasy and the string of health issues he had before his death,
4. We will get to the fuller discussion of removal of a member later. Gathering in the Name of the Lord Jesus probably means in the worship service/Lord’s Supper. This is another reminder to us of the seriousness of sin in the body. It also teaches the authority of the local church. Note that there is no mention of the elders and deacons in this passage, because it is the church that has the authority. Of course the leadership will guide the process, but the church must carry it out. If one can continue to be unrepentant, be removed from the fellowship, and experience no discipline from God, it is a good indication that they were not true children of God in the first place. Always remember the admonition of Paul to continue to treat them as a brother and not an enemy.
A. Closing illustration: Ulysses S. Grant was a 4 star general of the union forces during the Civil War and became the 18th President of the United States. John A. Rawlins was Grant’s friend and fellow general, who became Grant’s chief of staff. During the Civil War, no one was closer to Grant than Rawlins.
Ulysses S. Grant had a drinking problem, but he made a pledge to Rawlins that he would abstain from intoxicating liquors during the war so that he could carry out his duties. On one occasion when Grant broke that promise, Rawlins pleaded with great earnestness that Grant refrain from strong drink, "for his own sake, and the nation’s great and holy cause." Rawlins’ advice was heeded, and Grant was not impaired by drink when his decision-making was critical.
Wounds from a friend can be trusted! There stands today, in front of the Capital in Washington, a magnificent monument to General Grant. He sits upon his horse in characteristic pose and is flanked on either side by stirring battle scenes. At the other end of the mall and a little to the south of Pennsylvania Avenue is Rawlins Park. There stands a very ordinary statue of Grant’s friend, John A. Rawlins.
There might be no monument to Grant had there not been the admonition of a faithful friend. It was Rawlins, and his admonition, who kept Grant on his horse.
