Biblical vs Romanist Approaches to Celibacy
(Presentation given at annual AFEC conference)
When I was first assigned this topic, several questions occurred to me, the answers to which form the heart of the following message. I trust they are your questions too.
Question ONE: What is celibacy, and what does GOD say about it?
Answer: Celibacy is the deliberate abstention from the married state and its physical privileges. Through His holy apostles and prophets, God has quite a bit to say about it.
Genesis 2:18-24. Here the state of marriage is established. From this time on, marriage will be the norm, for the reasons given. There is no matching Scripture establishing a state of celibacy. The unmarried man or woman is considered the exception to the norm.
Classic examples of Biblical celibates are Daniel, Jesus, and Paul. Daniel was made a eunuch by men. Jesus was empowered by the Father to overcome this desire. We are not sure of the nature of Paul’s “gift.”
Matthew 19:8-12. Jesus here responds to his disciples’ shock about a victimized partner of marriage with a radical statement about not only celibacy, but castration. Those contemplating the single holy life should consider the extreme to which Christ may call them.
Celibacy without self-control is disaster. The “gift” referred to later by Paul may be lack of sexual desire, or it may be the “grace” of lacking necessary equipment.
I Corinthians 7:1-2, 7-9. Paul’s classic treatment of the subject praises celibacy only for those who “can receive it”, those who are so gifted. He does not imply that it is for everyone, as well-meaning as one might be. He also does not exclude leaders on the basis of their decision, only implies that leaders will have less time to spend on matters of the flock if they are married.
I Timothy 3:2, 12 . Married “bishops” (elders) are the norm, as are married deacons.
I Corinthians 9:5. Yes, even among apostles, having a wife was the accepted practice.
Hebrews 13:4. Marriage is to be held in high esteem by all. Already the apostle seems to be aware that there will be a mentality that will enter the church one day that will suggest that marriage , at least for some, is a scandal, and not an honor.
I Timothy 4:1-3. Yes, there will come a time of departure from the faith. People will depart because they will listen to doctrines that come from Satan’s camp. These are people who have lived in sin for so long that they no longer have a conscience, and are willing to accept a form of godliness, rather than deal any longer in the power of God that emanates from His Word and His Spirit.
One of the lies they will hear and pass on is that marriage for the leaders of the people of God is somehow inferior, and to be avoided if at all possible. That lie is with us to this day, and we can see its demonic origin by looking at the fruit it has produced and is producing.
The Scripture then is clear. Let’s see what Rome says.
Question TWO. What does ROME say about celibacy?
Answer: (Much of this material is quoted or at least suggested by our brother Richard Bennett in his latest work on the subject at hand.) Sadlier’s Catechism of the Catholic Church 1994, p. 395:1579: “All the ordained ministers of the Latin Church, with the exception of permanent deacons, are normally chosen from among men of faith who live a celibate life and who intend to remain celibate ‘for the sake of the kingdom of heaven’.
Called to consecrate themselves with undivided heart to the Lord and to ‘the affairs of the Lord’ , they give themselves entirely to God and to men. Celibacy is a sign of this new life to the service of which the Church’s minister is consecrated; accepted with a joyous heart celibacy radiantly proclaims the reign of God.”
They have taken Jesus’ words regarding eunuchs and applied them to celibates of all kinds. And they have taken Paul’s words of suggestion and invitation and applied them by rigorous law to all men who would lead the flock of God. These are enticing words, but they lead to no good.
Austin Flannery’s Vatican Council II, 1975, pp 892-893 , Presbyterorum Ordinis, Dec 7, 1965 . 16. “Perfect and perpetual continence for the sake of the kingdom of heaven was recommended by Christ the Lord. It has been freely accepted and laudably observed by many Christians down through the centuries… It is true that it is not demanded of the priesthood by its nature… ...There are many ways in which celibacy is in harmony with the priesthood...By preserving virginity or celibacy for the sake of the kingdom of heaven priests are consecrated in a new and excellent way to Christ. They more readily cling to Him with undivided heart….They are less encumbered in their service of His kingdom…
By means of celibacy, then, priests profess before men their willingness to be dedicated with undivided loyalty to the task entrusted to them, namely that of espousing the faithful to one husband and presenting them as a chaste virgin to Christ.
For these reasons...celibacy, which at first was recommended to priests, was afterwards in the Latin Church, imposed by law on all who were to be promoted to holy Orders. This sacred Council approves and confirms this legislation…
Here is a classic example of the Babylonian “mixture”, the witch’s brew of truth and error in one pot. It is freely admitted that the early church did not enforce celibacy. But for reasons of her own, holy ones she says, Rome arrogantly stands against the Word and the practices of that early church and does her own will. God have mercy on Romanists who do not hear the call to come out of her.
Sacerdotalis Caelibatus is an encyclical of Paul VI on the celibacy of the priest, 6- 24, 1967 “. (75) We do not wish to fail to pay homage to ... Our well-loved immediate predecessor, whose memory is still fresh in the hearts of men all over the world.
During the Roman Synod, he spoke as follows: ‘It deeply hurts Us that . . . anyone can dream that the Church will deliberately or even suitably renounce what from time immemorial has been, and still remains, one of the purest and noblest glories of her priesthood. The law of ecclesiastical celibacy and the efforts necessary to preserve it always recall to mind the struggles of the heroic times when the Church of Christ had to fight for and succeeded in obtaining her threefold glory, always an emblem of victory, that is, the Church of Christ, free, chaste and catholic’... , the Church of the West cannot weaken her faithful observance of her own tradition. Nor can she be regarded as having followed for centuries a path which instead of favoring the spiritual richness of individual souls and of the People of God, has in some way compromised it, or of having stifled, with arbitrary juridical prescriptions, the free expansion of the most profound realities of nature and of grace.”
Earlier in this address, Paul gives lip-service to the original New Testament teachings, but immediately moves to Roman tradition. In the above sampling he boldly sets up his “predecessor”, and some of his favorite church fathers, along with all of Roman tradition against the revelation of God. In the last paragraph he as much as says, “It is impossible we could have been wrong all these years!”
From the Canon Law Society of America, The Code of Canon Law p. 928. Canon 1394: “...a cleric who attempts even a civil marriage incurs an automatic suspension; but if he is given a warning and he does not have a change of heart and continues to give scandal, he can be punished gradually with various deprivations, even to the point of dismissal from the clerical state.”
Here the gloves come off, and the “beauty” of celibacy is seen in its true light. Law. Punishment. Pressure. And that which Hebrews says is honorable has become in Rome a scandal.
Question THREE: What is the history of celibacy in the Roman Church?
Answer: "Religious celibacy was being practiced in Buddhism long before Christ. In Jesus’ day the temples of pagan Rome housed the vestal virgins. The Stoics advocated it in Greece. The Essenes in the first century were often vowed to abstention from marriage. And in days of extreme persecution, Paul and later church leaders warned about the problems of marriage at such a time.
"Apart from holy motivations, there was also a teaching that had gotten into the church that declared sexual relations to be unclean. Even Jerome and Augustine fell for this idea, claiming that women were inferior, that sex was a necessary evil, and part of our dark side.
"Peter Damien, much later, called clerical marriage in particular, a heresy. The Lateran Decrees of 1123 and 1139 made wives mere concubines and children illegitimate. When Gregory VII said priests could not marry, there was the necessary by-product of a growing tolerance of clerical homosexuality.
"In opposition to Luther and others calling for a married clergy, the Council of Trent pronounced anathemas on those who would dare to say 'that the married state surpasses that of virginity or celibacy or that it is not better and happier to remain in celibacy than to be united in matrimony.'
“The Council of Elvira in Spain (about 306 A.D.) forbade all bishops, priests and deacons from having wives. This practice then began to apply to the whole of the Western Church through various Papal decrees from Pope Damasus I onwards. Damasus regarded sexual intercourse as 'defilement' (a legal impurity rather than a sin, along the lines of the Old Testament Jewish laws.
“The 'Dark Ages', however, saw a decline in priestly morale and discipline as society itself fell into turmoil. About 1018, Pope Benedict VIII responded against this decline and brought in stronger laws to support clerical celibacy and made it impossible for the children of priests to inherit property (which had often been church property in the first place). This move was strongly supported by Pope Gregory VII (1073-1085) and his application of existing rules is regarded as the first effective enforcement of clerical celibacy.
“The Second Lateran Council in 1139 seems to provide the first written law that made it impossible for a cleric to get married. Later, after the Protestant Reformation of the 16th century, the Council of Trent (a meeting of the bishops of the Church, held in North Italy) reaffirmed the tradition of celibacy in 1563. Yet, despite arguments from some of the bishops present, the Council said that it was not a law that came from God but a Church tradition that could be changed. It said, too, that the Church's position on celibacy in no way minimized its high regard for marriage: the two callings were quite distinct and had their own distinctive demands.”
[From L Loeffler’s website, since removed]
“ ‘Canon 3. We absolutely forbid priests, deacons, or sub-deacons the intimacy of concubines and of wives, and cohabitation with other women, except those with whom for reasons of necessity alone the Nicene Synod permits them to live, that is, a mother, sister, paternal or maternal aunt, or others of this kind concerning whom no suspicion may justly arise.’ (Densinger, p. 360)
“Catholic apologists will be quick to point out that celibacy is not a doctrine of the RCC but a discipline and, therefore, any modification of the requirement does not constitute a change in cult doctrine.”
The following man is married and feels called to the priesthood at the same time. He is Raymond Grosswirth, he has degrees from St Bernard’s Institute in Rochester, New York, and he was read online at a website that now is absent: www.angelfire.com/ga2/religious/celibacy.html. His is a Catholic take on the history of celibacy:
“When one looks at the history of celibacy in the Catholic Church, it soon becomes apparent that this state of life became mandatory due to financial considerations, not because priests were supposed to emulate Christ by remaining single. When one focuses more specifically upon the medieval period, we can clearly see that church property was donated by kings and princes in exchange for faithful service. A controversy arose when married priests in turn left this property to their heirs. celibacy soon followed as a requirement for ordination, so as to prevent such property transactions between heirs. (There was nothing theological in the celibacy directive.)
Dave Hunt, A Woman Rides the Beast 1994, p. 78 “ The Roman Catholic Church...has insisted upon celibacy even though many popes...as well as millions of cardinals, bishops, archbishops, monks, and priests throughout history, have repeatedly violated such vows. Not only has celibacy made sinners of the clergy who engage in fornication, but it makes harlots out of those with whom they secretly cohabit. Rome is indeed a ‘mother of harlots’. Her identification as such is unmistakable… There are famous sayings that mocked the church’s false claim to celibacy and revealed the truth: ‘The holiest hermit has his whore’ and ‘Rome has more prostitutes than any other city because she has the most celibates’ are examples. Pius II declared that Rome was ‘the only city run by bastards’ [sons of popes and cardinals]”
Ralph Woodrow, Babylon Mystery Religion 1966, p. 109 “When Pope Paul V sought the suppression of the licensed brothels in the ‘Holy City’, the Roman Senate petitioned against his carrying his design into effect, on the ground that the existence of such places was the only means of hindering the priests from seducing their [the community's] wives and daughters.”
And today we would add, their sons.
Question FOUR: What is the current situation?
Right away we must add some parameters.
Yes! There are sincere priests.
Yes! There are men and women who are virgins and who try, though it seems to us, in vain, to please God with their celibacy.
Yes! There are fornicators and pedophiles in other professions, and in other religions.
Yes! There are men who seek the priesthood because they are sick, and not made that way by Rome.
But there is a basic fact of life and some simple words from God that must be kept in perspective:
The opposite of marriage, unless you are very gifted or physically impaired, is burning, according to Paul. It is NOT good that man be alone. When man is alone, mischief can follow. A desire which can never be fulfilled legally will be fulfilled illegally. This is common knowledge, and easy Bible fact.
Sociologist David Greenberg: “The more the church suppressed priestly marriage, the stronger must have been the homosexual drive it aroused within its ranks.”
Let’s look at the situation as it is. Let’s believe the Word and use common knowledge about life.
Much of the following information is borrowed from Jason Berry’s Lead Us Not Into Temptation, Catholic Priests and Sexual Abuse of Children , 1992, Doubleday.
Perhaps up to half of American priests do not honor their vow of celibacy/chastity. Anywhere from 20% to 40% of priests may be homosexual, in orientation if not in practice. This, compared to perhaps 10% in society at large.
In the 1970’s, homosexuals began pouring into seminaries and orders. From 1983 to 1987, 200 priests/brothers were reported to the Vatican Embassy for sexually abusing teenagers. One accusation per week for 4 years. How many were not reported?
In 1988 the National Catholic Reporter claimed that many religious orders were requiring HIV tests of applicants.
From 1982-1992 400 priests were reported to church or civil authorities for molesting youths.
By 1992 the Roman System had lost $400,000,000 in victims settlements, legal expenses, medical treatment for clergy etc.
In 1997, the Diocese of Dallas paid $119,000,000 in punitive and compensatory damages to eleven victims. In the Archdiocese of Boston, John Geoghan abused approximately 130 children as the archdiocese shuttled him from parish to parish.
Already 80 other priests in Boston have been removed from their posts due to concerns about past allegations.
The Arizona Daily Star has called for the resignation of Tuscon’s Bishop Manual Moreno because of secret settlements totalling $10,000,000 for sex abuse cases involving four priests and 11 victims.
Pedophilia, a fixation on children before they reach the teen years is one of many sexual disorders among Roman priests. Perhaps 2%-4% of priests are pedophiles.
Though pedophilia represents a minority of the priesthood in its performance, it represents a majority of bishops and priest leaders in its response: cover-up.
Eugene Kennedy, specialist on sexuality and the priesthood, in Newsweek: “The church reacts as institutions often do –as Enron did– and that is to deny, to delay, to dissemble, to fool themselves into thinking that all was well.”
In response to the Vatican statements of early March, 2002, that gay men should not be ordained as priests, A W Richard Sipe, former priest and psychotherapist said it would mean “the resignation of at least a third of the bishops of the world… many saints had a gay orientation, and many popes… Discriminating against orientation is not going to solve the problem.”
Rev. Donald Cozzens, former rector of a Catholic Seminary in Ohio: “At issue at the beginning of the 21st century is the growing perception, one seldom contested by those who know the priesthood well, that the priesthood is, or is becoming, a gay profession.”
Kennedy: “We have always had gay priests, and they have often been models of what priests should be. To say that these men should be kept from the priesthood is in itself a challenge to the grace of God…”
Archbishop Sergio Obeso, “The church always recognizes civil authority, but it is not up to us to hand over our sons, the sons of the church, to civil authorities. It is up to us to try them according to our own laws.” [Double talk!]
When asked whether molesting priests ought to be kept in their parishes, an auxiliary bishop for Mexico City said recently, “It depends on the circumstances.”
That is the situation in which Rome finds itself today. In defiance of God’s simple word that it is "better to marry than to burn", she continues to lift up her tradition as superior, and forbids to marry.
Because of this denial of one of life’s basic needs, and denial of God’s command, priests are forced into more denial as their lusts cannot be contained. Their actions target the young and innocent, the vulnerable. Families are devastated. Boys grow into men forever marked by an episode with a hungering priest. For some it will mean a permanent exit from all things Christian. For others, psychological damage that will affect married life and parenting.
For yet others, a life lived in guilt and bitterness. And Rome, caring for her reputation and her priests far more than these broken lives, will sweep as much as is possible under the Scarlet Rugs of the Vatican.
May this untold evil encourage us to flee to Christ for our own cleansing, and to intercede for Catholics still bound in this evil system.
50. Things You Need to Know About Mary
There are at least two Mary’s in the world. The Bible Mary, and the Roman Catholic Mary. There is probably a third, a make-believe Mary that even Rome denies, but we will direct our attention to the first two. And let us begin at the beginning:
The Bible’s Mary, according to Luke 3:23 and Matthew 1:16 is descended from David, and as all humans, is conceived in sin. Rome’s Mary is immaculately conceived, based on human logic, and doctrines gained by “piety of the people”, and a connection to the Babylonian traditions of Semiaramis and others.
In Luke 1:26-38, the announcement and response: “Hail,” a common greeting, as in James 1:1. It simply means happy or blessed. “Full of grace” means endued with honor, as Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord. That grace has been extended to all of God’s people, as in Ephesians 1:6. But in the Roman version, Mary is being praised! Mary is sinless, in a near-God status.
Luke 1:39-56 tells of the incident of her visit to Elizabeth. “Blessed are you among women,” says Elizabeth. But see Judges 5:24, in regards to Jael, the heroine of the Deborah-Barak story. Same words! She was blessed! But Rome says Mary is super holy and to be honored above all others. Jesus never did or said such a thing.
The Bible’s Mary is further called “mother of my Lord.” That Lord is Jesus, fully a man because of Mary. Fully God because of the Father. Mary was a willing servant, carrying Jesus. Truly to be honored and revered in our memories. But Rome says Mary is the Mother of GOD, near Deity herself, and to be honored constantly for her actions.
Matthew 1:18,20 tells us of Jesus’ birth, a true immaculate conception. The seed of the
woman made holy by the Spirit of God overshadowing her. Matthew 1:23, A virgin shall conceive and bear a son… In Rome this is rightly called the virgin birth but should also be known as the virgin conception, the only one recorded in Scripture. A conception of a child without a human male present. Strangely enough, when Rome speaks of an immaculate conception, it is talking about Mary’s birth, not Jesus’!
Luke 2:8-20 tells of the shepherds who came to see Jesus on that wonderful birth night. Nothing in the speech or conduct of shepherds points to Mary. Whenever they are together HE receives the glory! While all are marveling, Mary is pondering. So it should be today. Only Jesus is to receive the glory. But is it that way in Rome?
Luke 2:25-35. Simeon gives his blessing. Joseph and Mary are equal in their marveling. But the words are spoken to Mary, since Joseph is not a parent. “A sword will pierce your heart.” An obvious reference to the crucifixion of Christ, and Mary losing her Son in His prime. An awful thing to be sure, multiplied in its awfulness because of Who He is. But in Rome arises the whole “sacred heart” devotion, along with mythical stories accompanying. Mary’s heart was broken, indeed. But Mary’s heart is not Divine.
Matthew 2 and Luke 2 record how Jesus is taken with His mother to Egypt, then Nazareth, all by age 2. 10 years pass. Luke 2:41-51. Jesus is in the temple. She doesn’t know He’s gone. She is anxious and worried. She doesn’t understand what “the Father’s business” is. In other words, she is an ordinary young mother caught up in something eternal, who struggles like the rest of us to figure it out.
Matthew 1:25. Joseph did not have sexual relations with Mary until Jesus was born. But the relationship did proceed as planned after that. That’s the record. But in Rome they say Joseph did not have sexual relations with Mary, ever. So what do we do with the brothers and sisters of Jesus, 2 of whom (James and Jude) gave us Scriptures? If you’re Roman, you cover by calling them cousins, or just relatives. But there’s a word for cousin, anepsios, as in Colossians 4:12. The word for Jesus’ kin is adelphos. Yep, it’s in there.
In John 2:1-12 there is a wedding in Cana. Mother is there. That is all we know about her connection to the wedding party. Jesus and His disciples are invited. Somehow Mary has picked up on her son’s connection to God. When the veiled request, “They have no wine,” comes out of her lips, His immediate response is that it is really not time to push Him into the unveiling of God’s plan. The Father allows the change of plans based on Mary’s faith, a faith which was further demonstrated by her comment to the servants, “Whatever He says to you, do it.”
Matthew 12:46-50, Mark 3:31-35,Luke 8:19-21. The first synoptic story of Mary. Here is Jesus’ chance to glorify her! He is teaching when she comes and needs to talk to Him. But at the mention of “mother” and “brothers” His response is that His true family is
A. whoever does the will of my father! and B. whoever hears the word of God and does it!
What Jesus never does, Rome does a lot. Mary is above Jesus for all practical purposes. She takes people to herself, lifts herself up. “Build me a shrine. Listen to and repeat my messages. Build statures to me. Pray rosaries to me.” Big mother, little baby. This is not the Bible’s Mary.
Matthew 13:55, Mark 6:3, John 6:42. The second Mary reference in the Synoptics. The Jews are astonished at His works, and begin to ask, Who is this Jesus? His mother is Mary! His brothers are James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas. His sisters….Oops. There’s no hiding behind the word “cousins” here. Jesus really had brothers and sisters. Mary did have other children. The Bible’s Mary did.
John 19:25-27. At the cross Mary is told that John is her new son. (Look at your son.) He’s to care for her now. Jesus’ real brothers did not believe yet. Her husband is gone. John’s home is a good and safe atmosphere of faith. Very reasonable explanation and in keeping with the best traditions of what actually happened, starting with the context itself: From that day, it says, John took her to his home. Rome doesn’t care for this interpretation one bit. Rome has Jesus saying, Mary, look at me, your poor son. John, Mary is to be the mother of the church. You decide what makes more Biblical sense.
Matthew 27:56-61. Mark 15:40-47. Mary is not mentioned at the funeral attempt on Sunday morning. Mary Magdalene, and a Mary who was the mother of James & Joseph. Jesus had two such brothers, but it would seem odd to call Jesus’ mother the mother of James and Joseph! Can it be that John and the other apostles are laying low! Mary is of course staying with John, and under his advice stays away?
Acts 1:14. With the apostles, Mary received the Spirit like the others, as one of many new believers. Then she understood. And here the sword wound begins to be healed. That she continues to grieve and wants us to pray to her along those lines is a bit iffy, to say the least. No special honor is afforded to her by the historian of Pentecost. That same writer, Luke, was generous in his attention to her when her part of the story was central. By Pentecost, it is not central any longer. How did it come back to center I wonder?
Here ends the Biblical testimony. Unfortunately, Rome’s testimony does not end here. In Romanism, Mary not only received the Spirit but was in a unique way, by some Catholic theologians and historians, the very source of that Spirit for the apostles.
She becomes the queen of heaven, from a faulty interpretation of Revelation 12. That picture of a lady there brings one back to Genesis 37:9. The lady in the context of Revelation, is none other than Israel. But Alas! There is one called “queen of heaven” in the Bible, in Jeremiah 44:17. She is the pagan goddess of the Babylonian religion.
Her ascension is also taken from paganism. No clue of such in Sacred Writ.
Later she is called co-redemptrix, co-mediator. These titles only belong to Jesus. But it is claimed that because of her willingness to bring Jesus into the world she shares in His office and glory. One could argue more Biblically that all who are willing to carry Jesus into their world share in the victory of the Redeemer. But only Jesus is God. And only God gave His blood for the life of the world. Let no human try to share this glory. It is the Supreme Sacrifice of Jesus that so pleases the Father. No one else did it. No one else could do it.
Then Mary is the intercessor. But only the Son and the Spirit intercede with the Father. All human intercessions must be in accordance with the interceding that God Himself is orchestrating.
In the words of Mary we end this search. “Whatever He says to you, do. Perhaps
some of the greatest wisdom in Scripture from her mouth, indeed. But He says nothing about prayers to His mother, elevating her, having days and months set aside to her. He
does tell us not to pray to the dead, not to have anyone before Him, and that anyone who loves God’s Word is on a par with His mother. Let us follow Mary only in that in this one occasion she pointed men to her Son.
51. How the Church of Jesus Became Romanized
I owe the following organization of thoughts to a leading evangelical speaker and writer. His material, though, is common to us all: the book of Mark.
In chapter 9:28-39 is a series of events that is very telling regarding how the Christian Church has progressed through the years.
First the disciples are rebuked for their lack of Holy Spirit power. They cannot even cast a devil out! Imagine it, walking with the King of Kings every day, but not enough power to say "Boo!" to a demon. In our day the Western church seems similarly powerless. In so many fellowships the life-transforming power of Jesus is not evident. There is a club atmosphere instead. We go, pay our dues, listen to the lecture, and then eat and play. Routine. Ritual. No life. No power.
That's when the other kind of power kicks in. In that same account by Mark you see the disciples beginning the argument about who should be numero uno. Who gets to be in charge? Andrew could claim to have been among the first disciples and the one who brought the natural leader in.
Peter, the natural leader, could also claim first rights, as perhaps he had been a successful businessman, and was able to lead just by his character.
John might have argued about his defense of the faith or his growing compassion.
Powerless groups usually turn to political struggles to keep them interested. "At least when I come to church, people will recognize me and make me feel worth-while," they reason.
What's left now but excluding all the other "groups" except the one which I lead? That happens later in Mark. They see some other folks actually casting out demons, the very thing they cannot do, and they assume that those groups have no business being in business.
My group, with me at the head, now there's the "true" church. All else is shaky at best. Thus came the Roman beast, and all the little beasts we call denominations today. Lacking true power, we begin to seek human power.
God calls us all to repentance, and a humble seeking after Him that will bring once more the transformed lives against which the world will have no argument.
52. Correcting Rome's Abuses of Church Discipline
Church leader, what do you do when you discover that one of the members of your group is in an obvious and unrepentant sin? If the examples given us in Scripture are observed, it’s plain that that group will be making no progress until the sin is confronted and ejected. And sometimes the sinner has to go with the sin.
Israel was stopped cold after its huge victory at Jericho when just one family of Israel, that numbered 3,000,000 souls at the time, disobeyed the Lord. The sin and sinners were exposed, the punishment delivered, and Israel was free to move on. It would not be the last time the Israelites were halted by one man’s foolishness.
The church had similar purges, the first of which was recorded in the book of Acts. Two deceiving church members were brought before the entire assembly, made to confess, then taken out of this world by a God who wanted a holy place in which to live and would not tolerate evil.
Today’s leadership seems a bit more hesitant to expose such things. Some would go so far as to use Scripture to justify their lack of action. Parable-rich Matthew 13 is brought in to support their case. It is the famous parable of the tares.
Here a farmer plants good seeds in his field, and his enemy plants bad seeds. Both grow. When the weeds are discovered the question is asked as to whether they ought to be pulled up, and right now. The answer: no! For in pulling up the bad, the good that are attached to them in some way might also be damaged. Wait until harvest, is the mandate. Everything will be taken care of at harvest.
Jesus thankfully tells his disciples and us exactly what He meant in this parable. Those willing to analyze His words discover that the field here is the world, and not the church or the Kingdom. Jesus has planted His Kingdom people, He says, in the world, and the enemy has likewise sown some evil men. Should we get rid of evil men, now? Oh my, no! That is not our task! Let evil men alone, and let all the sorting out be done at the harvest, the coming again of Christ. For men of the Lord to set themselves up as judges of the world is to cause them to risk their own salvation.
The clear difference in the parable’s message from the problem at hand, church discipline, is spelled out in the way the apostles and early church lived out Jesus’ teaching. In regards to the parable, observe that the early church never came against political powers, the evil nature of many of which is well known: Herod, Nero, etc. On the contrary, see Paul’s self defense before various rulers and note the clear respect with which he treats them.
Further, the apostles are united in their admonitions to the Christians of that day to honor the king, to obey all the ordinances of men. There is no post-resurrection teaching that would ever lead a Christian to believe that rebellion against the government is something to be sought. Perhaps I Corinthians 5 is the best summary of this teaching.
In the final two verses of that chapter, Paul makes it sufficiently plain to the wise at heart that believers are not to judge “outsiders”, that is, those outside the church of God. What the world does governmentally is not our concern. Period.
But in making the statement Paul also says that judgment of fellow believers is indeed something in which we must participate. “Put away from yourselves that wicked person,” is the standard he raises for all time.
Earlier in the chapter we have a solid example of the kind of person Paul meant, and the action that must be instituted. A man in the Corinthian church was having a sexual relationship with his mother-in-law. Paul is aghast. Even the “Gentiles”, or the non-church world in this context, could not boast of such evil.
The remedy is clear. This man must go. Not go from this world, unless the Lord so deems by His own methods, but go from the church. Rome had it half right during those evil ages it ruled: ex-communicate one who is evil. Deliver them from the Spiritual protection of the Body of Christ, “to Satan”, even if that means the enemy has access to killing him now. This severity will often drive a man to repent, so that whether he lives or dies in the flesh, his spirit will be saved in that day. Clearly Rome was in error in delivering them to the “secular arm”, the civil government, for immediate execution.
Even if repentance is not forthcoming, the church is purified, and the message goes forth to the community that God’s church is holy.
I say Rome had it “half right”. Perhaps 50% is too high a percentage here. Often those in charge of the proceedings were themselves not born again. And often those they sent out of the world by beheading were righteous men simply having discovered truths of the Word of God. Definitions of evil get turned on their heads when evil men rule.
Paul is not the only one to identify situations and even name names. Among others who did so is John, who tells the church of the evil ways of Diotrephes. And, unknown to us, but known to the first century Christians was a whole class of evil teachers known as “Nicolaitans” and the infamous “Jezebel.”
It is proper and necessary for proper authorities in the church to take from leadership and even membership those who are threatening to bring shame to the House of God. Being “nice” at times like this, believe it or not, is not a Biblical mandate.
Yes, bringing others into a place of judgment in the church carries with it a heavy weight of responsibility. Is your own life pure before God? Can the enemy, who will be waiting to pounce on this, find anything about you that needs dealt with? Better to deal with it first, confess it, get rid of it, before approaching that wayward member.
And of course, those who are spiritual will be looking for and hoping for and praying for, perhaps fasting for, the soon restoration of the separated brother.
May God give us wisdom and true humility in dealing with this issue. Amen.
53. A Word About "Separated Brethren"
It hit me again this morning. I was praying in preparation for our weekly Bible study. I'm supposed to be in I Peter, but my mind and heart were led over to the Book of Revelation. There's a curious truth hidden there that many Protestants need to hear.
Since our happy exit from Romanism lo these many hundreds of years, we protest-ors have been dividing and re-dividing and sub-dividing until we are more known for our splinters than our solid wood. We love to think of ourselves as "separated" when many times all we are is separate. There's a huge difference.
A truly separated, or holy brother, stands out in a crowd. And that's the point. He has to be in the crowd to begin with before he can stand out. He stands out not because he leaves but because God has filled Him and He is different.
Too many of the brethren are just out-standing, not standing out! Imagine a guy going to a picnic and spending the whole time sitting under a tree thinking nasty thoughts about the picnickers. Some of us are like that. Everyone else is enjoying Jesus, while we sit back and "spy out their liberty", just knowing that they couldn't possibly be real.
God never called His church to walk alone. Once we have come out of Babylon we are to come together in Zion. We are not called to be loners, judges, monks. The calls to one-mindedness as in I Peter 3, are not calls to doctrinal purity but calls to the compassionate mind of Christ, the brotherly love of believers, tenderheartedness, and the like. These things we can experience. Doctrinal unty will not happen until we are all made perfect with Him.
One does not reject his infant child because the child lacks understanding and "agreement" intellectually. So in the churh we do not exclude those with whom we disagree. If they are born again, eventually one or both of the 2 arguing parties will see things exactly the same. Eventually.
But I was talking about the Book of Revelation. You remember the seven churches. Consider, and weep with me when you do, because I have spent much time at the "church picnic" sitting under my tree of judgment, that not once does God tell believers to leave the churches that are described. And some of them are pretty bad.
One is lukewarm, one is corrupt, one is actually dead! But the command is to repent, to hold fast, to continue on, not to walk out! Leaving a church dooms it, if perchance you are the
last hope that church as.
If at all possible, stay with your congregation. Lay down your life for it. Offer your gifts and your prayers and your finances and whatever you have. More importantly, avail yourself of all the giftedness that is available to you in that fellowship. When you stop seeing all the faults God will open your eyes to your own great needs, and to a member of that body that has the answer for them.
