Introduction
“How Not to Attract Visitors to the Church” would make a fine essay title critiquing the three part sermon series we are in. Consider the titles: Discipline by Admonition, Discipline for Restoration, and Discipline for Purity. It is doubtful that people looking up our notice in the Saturday paper are being inspired to hear these sermons.
Why then preach the series? Because these verses are in my way. I can’t get to the rest of 1 Corinthians without going through them. This is the dilemma for preachers who preach through books of the Bible. We don’t have the luxury of “letting the Spirit inspire us” for our topics. Instead, we have to deal with what he has written!
Last Sunday we considered the type of discipline identified as admonition. That was the easy form to accept compared to what is presented to us now. Chapter five presents an instance of a man being excommunicated, the most extreme form of discipline.
Text
It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that is not tolerated even among pagans, for a man has his father’s wife.
A specific sinful activity is publicly going on within the church body. A church member is guilty of incest with his “father’s wife.” The expression indicates that the woman is not his biological mother. We don’t know the details, but it is difficult to imagine that the father is alive. The phrase indicates that the man is in an ongoing relationship, most likely living with the woman. Even in ancient pagan society, in which the sexual mores easily match those of our modern secular society, such a thing was taboo.
Certainly Paul is aghast at such behavior, but the real scandal is not the man’s sin but the church’s response to it. The scandal is that the church is not scandalized by this man’s behavior.
2 And you are arrogant! Ought you not rather to mourn? Let him who has done this be removed from among you.
The Corinth church, not only does not bemoan the sin, it somehow endorses the behavior. It is unclear exactly what is taking place. Is the church actually condoning the behavior as something good? Perhaps it is showing indifference, simply ignoring the irregular relationship. The believers do not seem to be upset or embarrassed about it and have no problem with the man remaining in good fellowship. (Since Paul makes no judgment against the woman, it is likely that she is not a member of the church.)
Paul makes clear what ought to be done: Let him who has done this be removed from among you. He is not merely passing on his opinion. As he demonstrates next, he is proclaiming judgment according to his authority as apostle and father of the church.
3 For though absent in body, I am present in spirit; and as if present, I have already pronounced judgment on the one who did such a thing. 4 When you are assembled in the name of the Lord Jesus and my spirit is present, with the power of our Lord Jesus, 5 you are to deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord.
Note the three parties involved in the judgment process – Paul, the congregation, and the offender. First, consider Paul. He is exercising his authority to pronounce judgment and is joining with the congregation to render action. They are to consider him as being present for the judgment. Then there is the congregation. They are not mere messengers for Paul, but are to be as involved in the process. They are to carry out the verdict. Then, of course, there is the offender who now becomes the subject of discipline. He, undoubtedly, is dismayed by the letter’s instructions.
These three verses are grammatically complex, composing one sentence in the Greek. It is unclear, for example, if the congregation is to assemble in the name of the Lord Jesus or that Paul has rendered judgment in the Lord’s name. Is it Paul or the congregation or both who is delivering the person over to Satan?
Two phrases are difficult to understand. What does it mean to hand someone over to Satan? What is “destruction of the flesh”? Does Paul mean physical harm, even death, as some commentators believe? He does believe that some believers have died for abusing the Lord’s Supper (cf. 11:29-30). Acts 5:1-10 records the deaths of a couple for lying to God. At the least, Paul means for the church to excommunicate the individual, i.e. to remove him from the fellowship of the church. Is he then thinking that the Lord will render some kind of physical affliction? Perhaps.
Some question how, one, physical suffering saves the soul? Either the person is already saved by grace or he’s not. How does physical discipline produce salvation? The other question has to do with the meaning of flesh. Does Paul mean, literally, the person’s body? Again, then, how does the body’s destruction result in his spirit’s salvation? Does Paul mean, as interpreted by the NIV, his sinful nature? If so, how does handling one over to Satan produce a purging of one’s sinful nature? Satan is not in the business of purifying anyone’s nature.
However we may interpret specific phrases and grammatical structure, the following is clear. One, the individual is to be disciplined by removing him from fellowship and the oversight of the church. Two, this excommunication will bring some kind of suffering. Even if the Holy Spirit does not render affliction, being cast back into the world (Satan’s domain) should bring its share of troubles. Three, the intent of the discipline is the spiritual welfare of the offender. Most likely the idea is for the individual to be moved to repent and return to the church.
Application
With this example from the Corinth church, let’s continue our exploration of church discipline. I am going to refer again to our book of church order. It states three reason for discipline: to maintain “the glory of God, the purity of his Church, and the keeping and reclaiming of disobedient sinners” (27-3).
Note the first reason given: to maintain the glory of God. In verse 1, Paul wrote, It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that is not tolerated even among pagans, for a man has his father’s wife. Even pagans do not tolerate the behavior exhibited by a member of Christ’s church. This man is scandalizing the name of Jesus Christ. This is a concept many Christians do not give thought about. To profess faith in Christ is to profess identity with him and his Church, which is his body. Each of us by default becomes a representative of him and his Church, including the local church body to which we belong.
Whether we understand this or not, those outside the church do. The reason many reject the claims of the gospel is that they point to us and say, “If a person can ¬¬¬_____ like that and claim to be a Christian, then I don't want any part of it.” Others laugh at our sins, happy to see that we are no different from them. Thus the glory of God and the honor of Christ are belittled. Because we know only too well that sins still beset us as Christians, all the more reason we need mutual accountability to guard our sins from publicly bringing shame to Christ; or should they become scandalous, there should be means for correction and repentance. How important is this? Well, how important is the integrity of Christ’s name?
We will consider the second reason for discipline – purity of the church – in the next text. The third reason is for the restoration of the sinner. It is clear in verse 5 that the welfare of the man’s soul was intended. Our book of church order emphasizes this role of discipline:
The power which Christ has given the Church is for building up, and not for destruction. It is to be exercised as under a dispensation of mercy and not of wrath…. In this it acts the part of a tender mother, correcting her children for their good, that every one of them may be presented faultless in the day of the Lord Jesus” (27-4).
What has been said so far should seem reasonable to everyone. Certainly no Christian will contend that he can live any way that he pleases regardless of the shame brought to Christ’s name, and surely most Christians agree that we all need some form of accountability, seeing as no one is perfect. It is the practice of discipline that creates controversy. “Easier said than done,” as the cliché goes.
Why is discipline difficult to practice well? Why is church discipline as likely to foment discord as its intended purpose to promote restoration? We will take time to consider them, since we cannot fix the problem without understanding what is causing it.
We need to admit at the outset that the very nature of who we are is part of the problem. Our sinfulness can lead to abuse in practicing discipline. Anytime anyone is given authority to discipline, he must beware of pride and the influence of power. Many well-meaning, devoted servants of the Lord have succumbed to arrogance, oftentimes precisely because they have served well. It is then easy to discipline without having listened well, without giving a fair hearing.
Our weaknesses can lead to poor discipline. Listening well is a skill that is essential, but often missing, not only because of the sin of pride, but simply out of not developing the skill. The tendency for leaders is to think ahead before understanding fully the situation, because they are expected to make ready decisions. That leads to faulty decisions. Listening well also includes listening not only to words but to other things such as tone of voice; it also includes observing well – body and facial language. It includes understanding underlying dynamics such as how men and women relate, how circumstances impact the problem, how the appearance of the leaders affect the people talking to them. To make judgment is difficult and requires developing the skills to understand.
What also makes discipline difficult has to do with the values of the times. I alluded to this last week. We have been trained in our time to distrust authority and reject discipline. “Question authority” is our motto. We disavow any form of judging and reject the attempt of any institution to take on that role, especially a religious institution. Who but God has the right to judge us, and, evidently, who but we can determine how he judges?
And here we are getting to the real value of our times – the all-importance of the individual. No circumstance is more important to us than our independence; nothing takes higher priority than our self-fulfillment and happiness. How can we be independent and submit to authority? How can we pursue our self-fulfillment and happiness and yield to discipline? How can we pursue a fulfilling relationship with God when we’ve got a busy-body church interfering with our beliefs and behavior?
Fortunately, the modern church has adapted to these concerns. Many simply do not exercise discipline, even doing away with membership. If there are no members, there is no one to discipline and everyone can feel accepted and safe. We have also created many different churches, enough so that if any one church should try to practice discipline, people can easily move to another that will be more “understanding.” Religion has kept up with the times and provided the essential element demanded in our society – options.
Where would we be without options? If we have enough, we never have to adapt, never have to conform to anyone else’s expectations, which is what discipline is about. With enough options we don’t have to answer to anyone. We can take what we want, give what is convenient. And if we feel too bothered, we can turn to something else.
This has become our view of the church. It has become little more than a service provider. When it gives us what we like, we stay. When it doesn’t, and especially when it tries to correct us, we leave. It is not a community to which we make a commitment, at least not when it aggravates us.
If the church is merely a service provider, that makes its officers mere functionaries – persons present to render services that the customers decide are important. I certainly do not appreciate when sales people try to lecture me about what I ought to buy. It irritates me when a sales person expects me to defend my reasons for not buying his product. I have no responsibility to submit to his opinion, even if his opinion is right. We take this same attitude to church. The sermon is regarded as an opinion not to be treated any differently than any other person’s thoughts on scripture. No matter that the minister is ordained by the church to proclaim God’s Word. Who do the elders think they are to tell us what we ought to believe and how to behave? Who are they to say what may or may not be done in the church? No matter that they have been ordained to office. They are here to comfort us when needed and take care of business, and that’s it.
We, the people of God’s kingdom, have become (or rather, remained) like the people of the world, adapting the same values and perspectives of our society and carrying them into the church. As shown, these values do not take well to discipline.
But just as church leaders have trouble exercising discipline due to sin and weakness, so we have trouble receiving discipline for the same reason. Regardless of the culture, we don’t like to be corrected because it hurts our pride; it shames us to be judged wrong and makes us feel vulnerable. To receive discipline well requires humility; that is a hard commodity to come by. It requires a willingness to submit to others, a difficult thing to possess along with our pride. We like being right and having others recognize we are right. We like being looked up to, not down upon. We like getting our way, the very thing discipline denies us.
The result of all these factors is that discipline is a mark of the discipline that has become an almost invisible one. The time it becomes visible is when the church is rocked and divided over it being exercised. What is lost? What is lost is often the very thing intended to achieve – restoration of the sinner.
If I am not disciplined, I never have to confront my sin. Because the church always accepts me as I am, then I don’t have to deal with the hard commands of the Bible. I don’t have to bear a cross or follow Jesus. I can just enjoy what I want to get out of him and God’s Word, which I can make “My Word.”
Should the church actually try to discipline me, and I exercise my option to go elsewhere, I again do not have to wrestle with my sin. Why be restored to a church body, when the one down the street will accept me? If I leave, I also do not have to do the hardest work of all – be reconciled to my brothers and sisters. I can keep my pride and nurse my resentment, all the while pretending that I’ve put my grudges behind me.
I can pretend that everything is fine between God and me, even though they are not between his children and me. I can pretend that everything is okay with God, even while I refuse to listen to what his shepherds and his church say about his Word; even though I insist on interpreting scripture the way I like. I can pretend Jesus is my Lord, even though I will not submit to those he has given responsibility for me.
Discipline is for our good, to restore us to the church body, but even more, to restore us to God. None of us have an extra filling of godliness or wisdom. We make mistakes; we sin. That is a fact of life and a fact of doctrine. We need discipline in the church. We may make mistakes and be clumsy with it, but all the more reason we need to work at doing it well, not doing away with it.
