SERIES: Christ is the Answer When the Church Is in Crisis
How to Handle a Scandal
Introduction: I doubt if there has ever been a time since the Middle Ages when scandal has been more public, more common, or more devastating to the Church of Jesus Christ than during the past several decades. High profile individuals, like Jim Bakker, Jimmy Swaggart, Robert Tilton, David Hocking, Gordon MacDonald, Henry Lyons, Mike Trout, and many others have succumbed, and those are all professing evangelicals. If you add in the scores of Catholic priests, Mormon leaders, and mainline clergy who have also been tainted, the problem is astounding.
Late-night entertainers and the secular media have had a field day over these revelations. They eagerly take advantage of any opportunity to expose religious hypocrisy, especially when it occurs on “the religious right.” Listen to the comments of one well-known newspaper on the scandal surrounding Mike Trout, who was James Dobson’s right-hand man until it was discovered that he had had an extramarital affair:
“The spirit is willing, but the flesh seems to be mighty weak over at the breast-beating, hymn-singing, gay-bashing, Bush-backing, Clinton-hating, card-carrying hardcore Christianite political faction known as Focus on the Family.” [i]
Now is that fair? Of course not. It’s yellow journalism at its worst. Michael Medved, well-known Jewish radio commentator (who defends Christianity more enthusiastically than many Christians), contrasts the falls of Mr. Trout and Bill Clinton, whom the same newspaper defended vigorously during his impeachment:
“Mike Trout acknowledged his sin and resigned; Focus on the Family then accepted his resignation. Mr. Clinton lied, and admitted making a mistake only when an investigative glare and DNA evidence gave him no choice; he then refused to resign, and the U.S. Senate refused to fire him. ‘Owning up manfully … and accepting the consequences,’ Mr. Medved explained, ‘can affirm that religious standards do mean something.’”[ii]
Here’s the point: if the media are expecting Christians to be perfect and never make mistakes, even serious ones, then their expectations are unrealistic and their complaint (when Christians don’t live up to those expectations) is illegitimate, particularly when that person acknowledges his sin and steps down from ministry. But when they can point to those who, while living in gross sin, remainmembers in good standing in the Church, then I think they have a point. And that is exactly what was going on in our Scripture text for today–1 Cor. 5.
The passage before us provides the biblical justification, indeed, the biblical mandate, for the church to discipline its own members so their actions do not become a public scandal. And this applies not just to clergy but to all members of the church, for the individual Paul fingers in this passage was not a pastor but a layman.
Please turn with me in your Bible to our Scripture text this morning–the 5th chapter of 1 Corinthians.
It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that does not occur even among pagans: A man has his father’s wife. 2 And you are proud! Shouldn’t you rather have been filled with grief and have put out of your fellowship the man who did this? 3 Even though I am not physically present, I am with you in spirit. And I have already passed judgment on the one who did this, just as if I were present. 4 When you are assembled in the name of our Lord Jesus and I am with you in spirit, and the power of our Lord Jesus is present, 5 hand this man over to Satan, so that the sinful nature may be destroyed and his spirit saved on the day of the Lord.
6 Your boasting is not good. Don’t you know that a little yeast works through the whole batch of dough? 7 Get rid of the old yeast that you may be a new batch without yeast–as you really are. For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed. 8 Therefore let us keep the Festival, not with the old yeast, the yeast of malice and wickedness, but with bread without yeast, the bread of sincerity and truth.
9 I have written you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people– 10not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. 11But now I am writing you that you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler. With such a man do not even eat.
12What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? 13God will judge those outside. “Expel the wicked man from among you.”
Professing Christians are capable of gross sin. (5:1)
This proposition is not likely to receive much rebuttal from an honest Christian audience. Most of us know our own hearts only too well to argue for the idealistic notion of sinless perfection, even in the most committed believer or in the most godly of congregations. But if we had any doubts, they are readily dispelled by the first verse of chapter 5: “It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you.” The phrase “sexual immorality” translates the Greek word, porneia, from which we get our English word “pornography.” It is a broad term which includes any kind of illicit sexual behavior. In this case Paul goes on to specify what kind of illicit behavior it is, namely a case of incest. The phrase “his father’s wife,” is an unusual one, and most scholars believe it refers to the man’s stepmother rather than his biological mother.
Several things bother the Apostle about this particular deed. First, it is, of course, sin, and he is always bothered by sin. Second, this incident has become public in the community, thus bringing disrepute on Christ. And third, this sin is particularly gross, for even pagans considered it totally unacceptable behavior. Yet here it is being done openly by a member of the Corinthian church, who professes to be a Christian.
I choose the words “professing Christian” carefully, for my assumption is that he is not a genuineChristian. In v. 11 the term “so-called brother” is used to describe him, casting doubt on his actual spiritual condition, and in v. 5 Paul expresses hope that this man’s spirit may yet be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus, presumably after thorough repentance. So my conclusion is that he is not a true believer.
Of course, it is clear from such examples as Abraham, Moses, David and Peter that even a true believer is capable of serious transgression of God’s law. Yet the Bible makes it clear that a true believer’s life cannot be characterized by gross sin. It’s one thing for David to fall in a fit of lust and then repent when confronted. It’s quite another for this man to be openly engaging in a persistent lifestyle of immoral behavior over a period of time without repentance.
In the very next chapter Paul warns us not to be deceived about the seriousness of sin: “Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God”(1 Cor. 6:9-10). Certainly he is not saying that anyone who has ever committed one of these acts is eliminated from the Kingdom, for then Heaven’s population would be very small indeed. Rather I believe he means anyone whose life is characterized this way cannot inherit the kingdom.
Not only is it true that professing Christians are capable of gross sin, but it is also true that …
Tolerance of gross sin in the Church is grossly sinful as well. (2a,6a)
Having put his finger on the sin in this church member’s life, the Apostle continues, with amazement in his voice: “And you are proud! Shouldn’t you rather have been filled with grief?” Paul perceives an arrogant attitude and a boastful spirit in the church, something this church was known for. Now I simply can’t believe they are proud that they have a case of incest in their congregation–that’s beyond my imagination. More likely they are proud of their open-mindedness and tolerance. This man has made a personal choice–a choice, mind you, that they wouldn’t make themselves, but then who are they to tell him what to do? Live and let live.
Frankly, this attitude is not unlike the church leaders today who are so proud of their tolerance of homosexuality that they have church celebrations of gay marriages and even invite the press to witness them. After all, they ask, isn’t that what Christianity is all about–loving everybody, even sinners?
For a long time I wondered how the Corinthian Church could ever develop such a tolerant attitude toward sin. But then, just as I was about to give up at ever understanding it, I got a letter from a friend of mine who has been doing archeological work in the ruins of ancient Corinth. Lo and behold, he had just discovered what purports to be the minutes of some church committee meetings dating from A.D. 52-54. He sent me copies of these priceless manuscripts, and after a hasty translation from the Greek I discovered that one of these documents is of particular import to our present passage. It is entitled:
Minutes of the Elder Board’s Sub-committee on Church Discipline
of the First Apostolic Evangelical Fundamental
Church of Corinth
Date: Ides of March, A.D. 53
The chairman called the meeting to order at half past the 9th hour. All members were present except for Andronicus, who is suffering from Asiatic flu. A brief prayer was offered for his health.
Old business included the discussion of how to finance bail money for Deacon Julius. His arrest for mail fraud fortunately might turn out to the benefit of the church, for he has agreed to increase his tithe to 15% if the committee will allow him to continue as a deacon. It was moved, seconded and passed that the censure motion against Julius made at the last congregational meeting be tabled.
The only item of new business involves the church’s paid tenor soloist, Demetrius. Someone overheard him at the Four Carnations Tavern last Saturday, bragging about a sordid relationship with his stepmother. A reporter at the Corinthian Gazette has called the church office for further details.
The chairman first of all asked for an airing of all the facts in the case. It seems that Demetrius’ mother died when he was 12 and his father remarried a woman much younger than Demetrius’ mother. Several months ago, his father joined the merchant marines and has not been heard from since. The stepmother is a worshiper of Aphrodite and once even served a stint as one of the temple prostitutes. No one seems to know how long this relationship between Demetrius and his stepmother has been going on, but apparently for several months at least.
At this point the chairman asked for alternative solutions in dealing with Demetrius. One committee member suggested public reprimand and offered a resolution to that effect. However, another member objected that such a harshly worded resolution might result in Demetrius’ refusal to sing in the Easter Cantata, in which he has two lead parts. After considerable discussion it was decided that whatever action is taken, the committee must be careful not to offend Demetrius, for his is the best tenor voice in the church.
When the committee member who suggested reprimand objected to the soft handling of such a serious matter, he was reprimanded himself for not having a loving attitude. Appeal was made to the fact that Jesus Himself was a friend of sinners and once told a sinful woman at Jacob’s well, “Neither do I condemn you.” It was also suggested that he who is without sin must cast the first stone, and that all members of the committee have shortcomings of their own. Urbanus quoted a proverb to the effect that “Judge not that ye be not judged.” And a number of others seemed persuaded by the argument that “what he does in his private life doesn’t concern us. We need to get back to the people’s business.”
A motion was made to ask Demetrius to stay out of the Four Carnations Tavern and to clean up his act until after Easter, at which time the committee will look at the matter again. The motion was seconded, but during the discussion of the motion, Aristobulus asked what Paul would say about the whole thing. Narcissus responded that Paul was getting old and crotchety and didn’t seem to understand what Jesus taught about loving one another. Besides he shouldn’t even find out, since all committee decisions are supposed to be confidential. The motion passed.
Another motion was made, seconded and passed to sue the Corinthian Gazette if they print anything further about Demetrius.
There being no further business, the sub-committee adjourned for refreshments and the chairman offered a prayer, thanking God for unity on the sub-committee and asking a blessing on the food.
Respectfully submitted,
Tertius, Secretary
Now if the foregoing seems to you to be slightly sacrilegious, good. For sacrilege is the mildest possible term to describe the attitude of these Corinthian believers and, I might add, the attitude of a great many Christian people today, toward the matter of church discipline. Paul seems to be just as concerned, if not more so, about the sin of tolerance in the Church as he is about the man’s action itself.
Let me just pause for a moment before going on to my second point and ask a tough question: Are you involved in some sin that, if revealed, would devastate your loved ones and destroy any ministry you have? OK, maybe you haven’t done what this man did, but are you involved in internet pornography, or an emotional affair at work, or the greedy pursuit of wealth, or gossip that could destroy someone else’s reputation. Whatever it is, stop today! Get into an accountability relationship. Begin practicing the spiritual disciplines of prayer and Bible study. And listen carefully as we talk about God’s remedy this morning. It is not an easy remedy; it’s one of those pay-now-or-pay-later things, and the later payment is a lot tougher.
Let’s move to our third point:
Discipline in the Church is mandatory, but it must follow an orderly procedure.
Paul begins his discussion of the subject of discipline at the end of verse 2 where he suggests that this deed should have brought mourning as for a dead person, and it should have resulted in strong disciplinary action. In fact, Paul has, spiritually speaking, already passed judgment on the man from several hundred miles away!
However, I believe that if we are going to get the overall picture of what the Bible has to teach about church discipline, we can’t start with 1 Cor. 5, for this passage is dealing with an extreme case and one that has already become public. There are other passages of Scripture which indicate that discipline, when possible, should start quietly and personally, not publicly. If the individual has an official position in the church, discipline cannot always be handled privately, but in most other cases it should at least start that way.
Step #1: The sinning Christian is first to judge himself. (1 Cor. 11:31) This truth comes from the principal NT passage on the Lord’s Table, 1 Cor. 11. After describing the institution of the Lord’s Supper, the Apostle warns believers that if they take communion in an unworthy manner, they bring judgment upon themselves. In fact, he says, for that very reason, many among them were weak and sick, and a number had actually died. Then he adds in v. 31: “But if we judged ourselves, we would not come under judgment.” Self-discipline, including confession and repentance, is the first step any believer should take when his conscience convicts him of sin.
Of course, if we all practiced self-discipline, there would be little need for church discipline. Unfortunately, the ideal is not always the actual, and there are times when a sinning Christian fails to judge himself rightly. What then? Do we immediately blow the whistle on him in front of the church? No.
Step #2: If self-judgment doesn’t take place, a mature believer is to confront the sinning Christian and seek to lead him to repentance. Matt. 18:15 reads, “If your brother sins against you, go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over.” I am convinced most disciplinary problems in the local church could be handled satisfactorily in this manner. Unfortunately, Christians frequently violate this procedure by just ignoring the sin or by going to others in the church and sharing the sin, often ostensibly to get prayer support. But the passage says, “go and reprove him in private.” He may listen to you and repent; and if he does, he will certainly be grateful to you for keeping the matter between just the two of you.
Now I know this passage speaks of someone who sins “against you” (though these words are missing in some versions), and the argument could be made that the immoral man of 1 Cor. 5 wasn’t sinning against any individual in the church. But as a matter of fact, he was. He was sinning against everyone in the church, the same way Achan sinned against the children of Israel when he disobeyed God in Joshua’s day and brought judgment upon the whole nation. (Joshua 7)
Certainly, I don’t think one should use Matt. 18 for every fault we see in anyone’s life, but neither should we excuse ourselves from confronting fellow believers just because their sin isn’t directed particularly at us. I might also add a very important principle from Gal. 6 to the effect that it is the mature Christian who is to confront, and he must do so gently and with great care that he doesn’t succumb to temptation himself. Remember, “Let him who thinks he stands take heed lest he fall.” (1 Cor. 10:12)
But suppose you go to a sinning brother to confront him, but he denies everything or refuses even to listen to you.
Step #3: If that doesn’t work, the mature believer is to take one or two others with him and again confront the sinning Christian. (Matt. 18:16) The passage in Matthew goes on to say, “But if he will not listen, take one or two others along so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’” The reason for the witnesses is that when you start dealing with a person’s sin, he often becomes very defensive, and he may start looking for any means he can find to avoid the squeeze you’re putting on him. He may try to twist your words, lie his way out, or even start making accusations against you. That’s why it’s important to have someone else with you. Furthermore, the presence of other mature believers may provide extra incentive for him to face his sin.
Step #4: If that doesn’t work, the Church is to be informed of the situation, presumably leading to excommunication. Matthew 18 goes on to say (verse 17), “If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church.” Some people leave you no choice but to make their discipline public. They may be rebellious, unrepentant, or haughty. They may say to the church leaders, “I don’t care what you do, I’m going to live my own life.” God says, “OK, tell it to the church.” The purpose is not to embarrass them, but rather to help the rest of the Church understand that such behavior cannot be tolerated within the spiritual family. Such action, I presume, entails, at the very least, removal of the individual from any area of service and from the Lord’s Table.
But there is even one more step beyond excommunication, as I see it.
Step #5: If that doesn’t work, social isolation is to be imposed. Jesus says in the middle of verse 17, “And if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.” The Jews refused to have any social interaction with pagans. They did business with them, as was necessary, but they didn’t fraternize, and they didn’t have meals together. I see this as a step of discipline that goes even beyond excommunication. A person who is excommunicated might be allowed to attend church, but without the privileges of membership. But the one with whom this final step is taken is not allowed to attend, nor are members even to play golf with him.
Social isolation, or shunning, as it is sometimes called, is the ultimate discipline the church has in its arsenal. If we had any doubts about whether Paul is really contemplating such serious action here in 1 Cor. 5, those doubts should be erased by taking careful note of the language he uses:
(v.2) “Shouldn’t you have put out of your fellowship the man who did this?”
(v.7) “Get rid of the old yeast.”
(v. 11) “I am writing you that you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler. With such a man do not even eat.”
(v. 13) “Expel the wicked man from among you.”
It should be obvious Paul is not talking here about a mere public censure, a mere removal of the person from public ministry, or even merely taking away his membership privileges. No, he’s saying that the sinning and unrepentant person must be isolated or shunned.
There is one phrase in v. 5 which deserves special attention. It is the phrase, “Hand this man over to Satan, so that the sinful nature may be destroyed and his spirit saved on the day of the Lord.” What in the world does that mean? I can more readily tell you what it doesn’t mean. It is not equivalent to sending someone to hell. We don’t have the authority to do such a thing, nor does the last half of the verse allow for such a meaning.
Interpretations of what the phrase does mean are so many and varied that I feel it is impossible to be dogmatic as to its exact significance. But it must at least mean expulsion from the Church, for the region where Satan holds sway is the world, not the church. Paul is perhaps anticipating that when the man loses all Christian fellowship and discovers that Satan’s realm is really lonely, he will wake up spiritually, go to God in repentance, and his sinful nature will no longer control him.
Now the fourth point I want to share is that . . .
The goal of church discipline is twofold: (5-8)
It is designed to bring about the restoration of the sinning member. In verse 5, where the Apostle orders the ultimate disciplinary action, he also expresses a positive goal: “that his spirit may be saved on the day of the Lord.” If church discipline is not corrective, redemptive and remedial, then it is not discipline at all–it is punishment. Paul is not interested in punishing this man but rather in seeing him come to salvation. Paul isn’t desirous of turning him away from Christ but rather drawing him to Christ and restoring him to fellowship in the church. The means of bringing that about are, admittedly, drastic. But it is the man’s only hope.
There is a second goal in church discipline besides restoration.
It is designed to maintain the purity of the Church. (6-8) To explain this point the Apostle uses an illustration right out of the everyday experience of first-century Jews. Yeast or leaven was frequently used by God as an object lesson of the pervasive effects of evil, since it only takes an ounce of yeast to permeate a large quantity of dough. If sin is not dealt with, it too will permeate the whole church and corrupt its testimony.
If we were looking for a household illustration of the same truth today, we might use apples. If you put a rotten apple in the bottom of a box of apples, you don’t find the good apples turning the bad one good, do you? Instead the bad one turns the good ones bad, and so it has to be removed. Or we might use the example of cancer. Just a few cancer cells can spread and infect the whole body, and normally they must be removed, or at least destroyed, if the body is to survive. Sin is a cancer. Allowing even one sin of the nature and degree this man had committed to go undisciplined would inevitably affect the whole church negatively.
Allow me to make one final point this morning:
Discipline is not reserved exclusively for sexual sins. (11)
I think this is important. We tend to put sexual sins in an “unpardonable category.” No question, they are serious, but they are not alone in their seriousness. Paul mentions six different sins here in verse 11: we are not to associate with the sexually immoral, the greedy, idolators and slanderers, drunkards or swindlers. I think it’s safe to say the church as a whole has not been very consistent here. How many times has a greedy person been excommunicated from an evangelical church? Frankly, I’ve never heard of it, perhaps because greed is more often than not considered a virtue in our society, and the church is reticent to buck society. But make no mistake about it; God considers greed to be a sin.
Do we discipline the alcoholic, the one who gossips (often involving slander), the one who worships at the altar of materialism, the one who divorces his or her spouse and remarries without biblical grounds, which Jesus called adultery? The mistake the mainline churches have made is to say,“We’re all guilty, so none are.” Paul says, “We’re all guilty, and if we persist in our sin, the church must speak and act so that purity can be restored.”
Now we’re not finished with 1 Cor. 5. We’re going to see next week that the Church responded to Paul’s rebuke and did indeed discipline this man, and thankfully the discipline resulted in full repentance. But the Church then messed up by not forgiving and restoring the man. If there is anything the Church neglects more than biblical discipline of sinning members, it is perhaps the full restoration of those individuals when they repent.
My message next Lord’s Day will be, “Restoring Fallen Brothers and Sisters.” That will be a very important balance to today’s sermon.
Conclusion. There’s an important truth here in 1 Cor. 5 for each of us today. First of all, for the unbeliever: you may not be a member of any church, and therefore you are not under any church’s authority or subject to any church’s discipline. That may be just fine with you, especially after hearing this sermon. But friend, the last verse of our chapter makes it clear that you are not off the hook. If the Church’s judgment is severe, what do you think God’s is going to be like? 1 Peter 4:17-18 tells us: “For it is time for judgment to begin with the family of God; and if it begins with us, what will the outcome be for those who do not obey the Gospel of God? And, ‘If it is hard for the righteous to be saved, what will become of the ungodly and the sinner?’” The only way to avert God’s judgment is by placing one’s faith in Jesus Christ.
Second, there’s a message here for the church member living in sin. Maybe you haven’t been caught yet or perhaps a brother has come and privately admonished you, but you haven’t yet repented. Nowis the time to correct the situation, before public shame is brought upon you and your loved ones, and before God steps in with His own chastisement, which He will.
Third and finally, there’s a message here for the believing Church. Discipline of fellow members is unpleasant and painful, but God’s Word demands it–for the good of the Church, as well as for the good of the sinning member.
Friends, the Church of Jesus Christ has power only in proportion to its purity.
DATE: DECEMBER 3, 2000
Tags:
Church discipline
Scandal in the church
Tolerance
Excommunication
Shunning
Restoration
[i] Quoted in World, November 11, 2000, 21
[ii] Michael Medved, quoted by Lynn Vincent, “Here We Go Again,” World, November 11, 2000, 21.