New Thoughts (06/17/17-06/21/17)
The Nature of the Issue (06/18/17)
The immediate context for this reminder of Paul’s is the issue of this young man and his incestuous relationship. This is being tolerated in the Church! Society, corrupt as it is, would never condone it, but here he is in your gathering, and nothing is said. It’s beyond scandalous. The apparent fact that Paul wrote to them about this already just makes it worse. I will grant that there is debate as to whether Paul refers to a prior letter or to an earlier point in this letter, but I find the argument for that latter position pretty tenuous. Whether this earlier letter consists of the first portion of 2 Corinthians, if that portion is indeed a fragment from some earlier letter, or whether it refers to an entirely different letter of which we have no trace doesn’t really matter for what is before us. Look at the flow of this and let the shock of it register. I wrote to you about associating with immoral people, but I wasn’t talking about those out in the world, I was talking about those in the Church.
Calvin sees this and is rightly offended. You need to be reminded about this? You already had instruction on what to do and you still haven’t done it? Any possible reason for boasting recedes further and further from view. For all their gifts, they couldn’t even handle so obvious a case for discipline. Where are these great teachers of theirs when it’s time for active application? Nowhere to be found, apparently.
But, I think it’s worse than that. He had sent the instruction, and they had taken it as a call to separate from society. They had taken an instruction for in-house discipline and turned it into a call to monasticism. Is this what happened? I cannot say with certainty. It is but a theory. It is, however, a theory that explains the interjection of this discussion regarding those outside the church. If the subject hadn’t come up, I don’t think Paul would be diverting his attention from the serious matter at hand. Since he has brought it up, I think it reasonable to suppose that something in their letter had made it clear that they either misunderstood or simply twisted his meaning. So, he must be clear. I’ll have more to say on that later, Lord willing.
Theories aside, there are things we do know about the city. Adam Clarke points out that fornication – here referred to by immorality – was ‘not only the grand sin, but the staple’ of Corinth. It was so prevalent as to be ubiquitous. The specific nature of this young man’s behavior may have been beyond the pale for them, but it would have been one of the few things that were. Loose morals and easy access to sexual gratification were not just the norm, they were business – big business. The temple up the street thrived on the sex trade, and by proxy, so did the rest of the city. As such, the city fathers, such as they were, went to great lengths to recruit prostitutes for the temple. Why not? Even if they didn’t tax the trade (which they may well have done), they would profit from the traffic in town. It’s rather like what we see around oil fields in that regard. There is an influx of people, come for the work, but they have other needs as well, and other businesses will spring up to provide for those needs. Restaurants will be established, along with other, less seemly places of trade. Throughout history, this would be true of a major seaport, and Corinth was that.
So then, this church forms out of a society steeped in sensuality and immorality. What sort of people do you suppose formed the church? Was it the few holdouts in town who were morally offended by what they saw going on around them, or was it townspeople so habituated to this sin that they didn’t really even see it anymore? Imagine! No, you don’t really need to imagine. To some degree it is absolutely inevitable that the church will reflect the nature of the society around it. But, to a greater degree, it had best be the case that the Church demonstrates a far better course of life.
Take the specific case, though. All your life you’ve been taught that this is normal. This is just how it is. Bring it present-day. Everybody looks at porn. What else is a computer for? Of course, it’s acceptable to pursue pretty much whatever sexuality you prefer. This has come to define the whole point of college life, hasn’t it? Come for the textbooks, stay for the sex. From childhood, society is informing its newest citizens that anything goes. Oh, there may remain a few taboos, but we can expect those to fall off in time. Take somebody raised in this atmosphere and drop them into a church setting. Now, they are hearing that you are not under the law, but under grace. You’ve been set free! But, understand: They are still sinners. Their natural response to hearing of grace without having received grace is going to be to relinquish whatever slim restraints still held them back. Doesn’t that rather sound like the situation in Corinth? Having been set free and declared righteous, they felt no particular call to change, to become holy. Rather, they blithely decided that whatever they were doing, or whatever they felt like doing in future, must necessarily be OK with God, because God called them His kids. Just look at the gifts! He MUST be pleased.
Here is the blindness that sin induces. We become so habituated to the sins common to our society, and to ourselves, that we barely even notice them. We can’t imagine why this would have anything to do with being holy. It’s just something we’ve always done. It’s who we are. Deal with it. And so, sin enters the house, and our family, being from that same corrupt society, don’t notice the issue, either. They say nothing. Well, they’ve been at this longer than you have, so if they don’t care, why should you?
But, take the blinders off, and what do we discover? It’s not just that grand, staple sin of Corinth. It’s everything. Look at the list Paul gives us in verse 11. The JFB points out that this list includes sins against self (for sexual sins are those which attack the self), sins against neighbor (in the case of coveting reviling, and swindling), and sins against God (in the case of idolatry). And every one of these was active in Corinth. Every one of these, I say with dread, define the society from which we have sprung. Every one of these define us. These are the places where our own blindness is likely to leave us misled as to the depths of our own depravity. Is there a one among us, I wonder, who could look honestly at himself in light of this list and not find cause to excommunicate himself?
I will note one other characteristic of Paul’s list, though: These are all outwardly observable actions. These are not matters of thought life and imagination. These are deeds done, lifestyle decisions. That’s the issue Paul is getting at. He’s not advising that anybody who has contemplated such actions must be removed. First, how would you know, or who would expel himself? If they’re sinners, they’re unlikely to self-identify, wouldn’t you think? It would be unenforceable foolishness, and Paul is not given to foolishness when it comes to the governance of the church.
No, this is the evidence of daily life. If your propensity for these behaviors is public knowledge, if your indulgence of these sins define you more than your weekly attendance at church, there’s a problem. We all suffer the thoughts of sinful flesh. We all have our moments of relapse into old ways. But, this is more than momentary relapse. This is commitment. If you are what you eat, you most assuredly are what you most often do. Here’s the question: Which is in ascendency, the old man or the new? Which has your approval and that of your companions?
Tacit Approval (06/18/17)
I’ve already touched on the issue, but let’s explore it a bit. Actually, it’s been explored at length in the preceding study. We’re back at the leaven. What’s the issue? Aren’t we supposed to love the sinner? Jesus ate with sinners, after all. Shouldn’t we? But, that question is a deflection from the point. We will answer it in its place. The issue isn’t dining with sinners. The issue is hypocrisy. The issue is accepting a lie, promoting a lie. We are dealing with those who claim to be believers in Christ, followers of Christ, but who, by their consistent actions demonstrate that they follow another leader entirely.
Let’s take the least offensive case first. Suppose that, like the Corinthians, your church has been tolerating a known reprobate as a member. We’re not talking about the so-called seeker who is wondering if maybe the Lord is the God for him. We’re talking members, accepted parts of the church family. And yet, their actions are known to all, not just in the church but in town generally. That guy? He’s part of your church? Well, comes the new believer – let us accept that a seeker has been found. He’s young in the faith, barely even started, and he comes to your church. He sees this fellow is part of your congregation, and what does this tell him? It tells him that what this man does is acceptable. After all, our young man is just starting to read the Bible. He has great cause to mistrust his own understanding and accept the wisdom of those who have been in the church for long seasons. We’re big on mentoring, after all, aren’t we? And this mentor, and the accidental mentoring of the church as a whole, tells him that sin – at least this particular sin – is not so sinful after all. It tells him that sanctification is perhaps optional. Maybe Christianity is really nothing much more than a philosophical system, a set of ideals to appreciate, but not necessarily emulate.
That’s reprehensible, that we would allow such a situation. But, it’s only a portion of the problem. For our purpose, we can consider the relatively recent difficulties in the Catholic Church. Look what they allowed! They didn’t discipline the sins of their own staff, and those sins led to terrible, awful abuses not just of themselves, but of those they were supposed to be shepherding. Now, we Protestants could write that off as the obvious result of corrupt Catholic teaching, but that’s too easy. We are too prone to the same sins. We are not immune. But, if you have watched the results, you see how awful it is when the Church will not exercise right discipline. Those who have rejected the church that allowed such things to happen have not just rejected that one congregation, by and large. They have imbibed the spirit of the age and rejected the Church writ large. They have written off organized religion, and quite probably even personal faith.
How can we allow this? How can we fail to see what’s happening? The wicked man, by being tolerated in the church, has brought the devil in with him. So long as we indulge this wicked man, we grant Satan to maintain his own kingdom in our midst, when we are called to stand as the embassy of heaven! When we expel such a one, we are not being judgmental, although that’s almost always the first defense raised. We are not being condemnatory of the man. We are, however, expelling Satan from the church as we expel him who serves Satan by his deeds. We are doing so in hopes that this ‘so-called brother’ will in time become brother indeed.
We dare not allow the church to be seen as a ‘patron to the wicked’, as Barnes describes it. The Church must be kept pure. God is Holy. Oh! But, we need to understand the powerful significance of that statement. God will not be mocked. He will not allow the Church that bears His name to continue indefinitely in sinful misrepresentation of His Truth. He will not allow the individual to do so either. Understand that to ‘lovingly tolerate’ such a sinner is in fact to desecrate the Church, and it is to allow that desecration to happen at the hands of those who claim the church as their own. It’s not that the building is the thing that matters. We are not issuing a cry of, “The Temple, the Temple!” We are not going to riot against this false brother, as the Israelites were wont to do should an unbeliever come to temple.
Look: If the church is tolerating this sort of thing, the disease is already far worse than might be evident at the first. Go back to the image of the leaven. If the corruption of the lump has become so thorough that things like this are visible on the surface, plainly to be seen by one and all, what remains hidden? The Church is infected. It is cancerous. If we will not treat the issue, it will spread. It will spread not just like cancer, which after all only impacts the host body. No, it will spread more like the plague, infecting and destroying not only the local body, but every other body by association. This must not be allowed. The Church must be held pure and holy to serve God who IS pure and holy. We cannot do this if we maintain ‘familiar fellowship’ with unrepentant sinners and call them brothers.
Explicit Rejection (06/19/17)
The extent of separation called for here is severe, or at least strikes us as being so, doesn’t it? Don’t even eat with such a one! While there is some attempt to associate this command with the love feasts of the church, I don’t think that’s what Paul is getting at. No. He is calling for a complete break of fellowship, but sacred and secular. Is this the old Pharisee coming out in Paul? No. It is the same message we hear from John in his letters. Don’t even greet him! Yes, John is dealing with visiting false teachers where Paul is dealing with a resident member. But, the issue is the same. I’ll take Clarke’s reaction. “Let the world see that the church of God does not tolerate iniquity.”
That is exactly what is at stake. The Church claims to worship and serve a perfectly holy God. The God we lift up before the eyes of the world around us is One who, by our confession, cannot so much as abide the presence of sin. If He were otherwise, much of our message would be pointless, and there would be no need for the Gospel. If all He was doing was giving us advice about a preferable way of life, He could be safely ignored. Sin wouldn’t matter. No punishment would be forthcoming, and no redemption necessary. But, that’s not the message we bear. Rather, the call of the Church is ever, “Repent and be saved.” How can we issue that call in any meaningful way if the result we demonstrate hasn’t saved anybody from anything?
Now, all of this argues well for discipline within the church, and we could probably build a reasonable case for excommunication. But, extending it to civil life, or as Matthew Henry suggests, even to ‘familiar conversation’? Isn’t that a bit much? In plain point of fact, no, it is not. Calvin echoes the sentiment. “No believer ought to receive him into terms of intimacy with him.” Why? Because, to do otherwise would encourage contempt for the authority of the Church. Once this is pointed out, it’s rather obvious, isn’t it? If we accept that this person must be expelled from the church, and yet continue to associate with him as boon companion, what are we saying about the church? At best we are saying it doesn’t matter all that much. It’s just a social club with rules for admittance, but outside of its meetings we can continue to do as we please.
If we bear in mind that every member of the church – which I will say includes not only those who may be part of some official membership, but also those who we might refer to as regular attenders as well – represents the church, and as such represents God, we see the seriousness of this matter. We dare not, by our desire to appear tolerant, allow one who is living in blatantly unrepentant sin to put forth that they are Christians, and that we accept their claim. Obviously, we cannot stop them from making the claim, but we can assuredly demonstrate our rejection of said claim. We don’t need to go picketing outside of that one’s house with signs denouncing him as a non-Christian. We don’t need to take to Facebook and Twitter with bold declarations that this one is a son of the devil. But, we do need to stand together as rejecting this one from the family of faith until and unless there is demonstrable repentance on his part.
In the meantime, if this couple or that decides to invite them over for dinner in spite of the injunction, if somebody else joins them for a night at the opera, or what have you, how does this serve to stir up repentance in that one’s heart? He has lost little enough, in that case, hasn’t he? If he, by his actions, has already demonstrated the falsity of his claimed Christianity, the hour or two regained by not attending church aren’t going to be much of an issue, are they? And if that’s the extent of it, don’t expect to see him coming back; especially in a day and age when he can find a welcome in another church that’s just as convenient for him.
But, with fellowship cut off entirely, with all prior social contact removed, perhaps, just perhaps, we might get somewhere. Do we understand the case, I wonder? What are we doing? Are we just strutting our own purity of heart? No, far from it. Are we just defending God’s house and name? That’s part of it, but if that were all, it would be unnecessary. God is perfectly capable of defending Himself, should there ever arise a need to do so. Frankly, He doesn’t need to. No, what’s at stake here is the very person we are putting under discipline. The hope is for repentance, not eviction. We discipline in the full hope of restoration. Our prayers follow where our fellowship cannot. We have turned this one over to the ruler of this world in hope. Our hope is that, having been subjected to that tyrant, repentance will come, and this soul can become a true member of the family of God, rather than just a ‘so-called brother’.
Turn that around. What happens if we let discipline slide? If we cease from judging those who are within the church, we are in fact condemning them to that judgment which befalls those who are without the church. By turning him out, we make repentance possible whereas had we kept him in, the need for repentance would never appear to him. By turning him out, there is at least the chance that he will become a real member of the family, but until such time as this is evidently the case, we cannot go on pretending that he is.
We must also recognize the limits of repentance. What do I mean by that? Well, for one thing, God is not going to call upon us to do the impossible in repenting. If He is calling for it, it is possible. It may require – rather certainly will require – His Spirit and His power to achieve, but it is possible. Repentance can happen. Secondly, God is not going to require by way of repentance an action which would result in harm to self or harm to others. While we should do everything in our power to repair the wrong done to another, there are limits.
I looked at the case of David and Bathsheba previously in this regard, because it is one of the clearest depictions we have available. David repented of his sin. There is absolutely no doubt of that in anybody’s mind – certainly not God’s. And yet, there was a dead man. How is that to be repaid or made right? It cannot be done. And yet, here is Bathsheba still wed to David, and no evidence that he ceased from having relations with her on the basis of his repentance. To divorce her in this instance would have been her condemnation. Even without David’s position her future would be over. As a wife of the king, though? There was nothing for her. No man could have her, nor could David permit it. We see that powerfully demonstrated in the tale of Absalom. To have even the king’s concubine was to effectively take the throne. How much more the wife, even the ex-wife? No. To ‘make things right’ in such a way would only have made them more wrong.
Now, to be fair, David did pay a particularly heavy price for his sins. It’s not as though sin went unpunished. It’s not as though his repentance meant there would be no repercussions for his actions. This is another falsehood that some folks get in mind. I’m a new creation, and the old things have passed away. Therefore, I am no longer responsible for my past actions. Wrong, bucko. You’re a new creation, and if anything, this renders you even more responsible to make such amends as can be made. Repentance is more than sorrow at being found out. Repentance is a true change of heart leading to a true change of action, and that includes taking responsibility.
I see that I have once more diverged rather thoroughly from my course in these comments. Let me try and turn back. I shall do so by addressing the theory I raised at the outset. We have Paul’s comment that he had written previously, and we have his clarification. The necessity of that clarification, and the nature of it, suggest the problem he was correcting. They had taken his instruction to break off association with the fornicator in their midst and turned it about so that it was applied to those fornicators in the city at large. As has been noted, such an application in such a place at Corinth would make it nigh on impossible to live. How are you going to go about your daily commerce without having to do with sinners of every ilk? What are you going to purchase that can be certified as the produce of believers only? Who is going to employ you that can assure you that you are not associating with idolaters and profaners, let alone being paid by such? You can’t do it.
This sort of mindset is all over in our day and age. We’re watching it everywhere. You don’t think the right thoughts. You should be fired. I can’t work for you; you support such and such. We can’t allow you to teach here, your opinions aren’t ours. Look: This can and will infiltrate the thinking of the church, unless the church is particularly on the alert to prevent it. After all, we spend far more time in society than in church. What do you suppose will happen? But, the answer is not to withdraw from the world. You can’t. Besides, Jesus didn’t authorize it. In fact, He sought God for something quite different, didn’t He? “I don’t ask You to take them out of the world, Father. Just protect them from the evil” (Jn 17:15). How, pray tell, shall we obey the command to go and make disciples if we won’t have anything to do with those who aren’t already disciples? How shall we change the world if we retreat to our cloistered halls?
What of the World? (06/19/17)
As we consider that question, we must consider this: What of the world? How are we to interact, if at all? Calvin, if I am reading him correctly, is calling for complete separation. I have to be reading that wrong, but his point seems to be that there ought to be no cause to admonish the church to remain separate from the worldly. I have to say that if that is the point he is making I cannot agree. For the one thing, Paul’s conclusion that to achieve such a degree of separation would require departing the world entirely would seem to make it impossible to suppose he meant for them to do just that.
Perhaps, in a city such as Geneva, with its state religion and required membership, such an option existed. Perhaps in the early days of America’s Pilgrim and Puritan roots it could be done. But, then, even the Pilgrims found need to have commerce with the locals, didn’t they? In plain point of fact, the group of colonists we refer to as the Pilgrims were a pretty mixed bag all on their own. It was not a pure, Christian commune of some sort. Still, one could at least suppose a reasonably Christian moral underpinning. Yet, even in such cases as these, one suspects that daily living meant contact with those who were at best nominal Christians, social Christians, with no true faith.
For present-day life in the West, the idea of complete separation from the worldly is just not possible. It was not possible for Corinth, either. We might suppose that awful reality was the reason for Paul leaving an escape here. To be sure, it would be difficult to suppose a less conducive environment for Christianity to take root. Clarke describes the situation. “The Christians at Corinth could not transact the ordinary affairs of life with any others than with fornicators, covetous persons, extortioners, railers, drunkards, and idolaters, because there were none others in the place!” His conclusion? Truly, that city needed Christianity.
This is instructive as we consider how we are to deal with the society in which we find ourselves. If I look around my workplace, just as an example, I should be hard-pressed to avoid idolaters, given the variety of nationalities and faiths represented. I would be hard-pressed to avoid the company of drunkards and fornicators. Granted, they are unlikely to be pursuing their proclivities in the workplace, but they sure do love to talk about them. Coveters and extortionists? We might not encounter them in their most extreme form, but yes, I assure you there are plenty of engineers who are of a most covetous nature, and there are others who are as good as being extortionists in their treatment of coworkers, or their expectations of employees.
Here’s the question, though: How do we view them? Do we look upon them as enemy combatants, fit only to be avoided or destroyed? Clearly not. Do we look upon them as dark souls lost in the nighttime black of sin? It’s the truth, isn’t it? But, I venture to say that it’s not a truth that occupies our thoughts much as we work. In fairness, as I look at the hodge-podge of folks I work with on a daily basis I’m inclined to think of most of them as being pretty good people, and in some cases very good people. Sure, there are those I’d as soon not have to deal with, but that’s not a decision based on belief systems, per se. It has more to do with work ethic, or just general personality traits that happen to rub the wrong way. But, notice how Clarke has looked at the situation, for we have already determined that the workplace, at least my workplace, is not so different from Corinth. Truly, that shop needs Christianity.
We can apply that as widely as we like. What’s your daily experience? Who are you dealing with? Is it the folks at the grocery store? Is it the neighbors across the street? Is it the DPW working on the road, or some other public servants? Here’s something you can count on. At least here in New England, you can count on the majority of those you meet not being brothers in Christ. Yes, that may vary somewhat between rural and urban settings, but only somewhat. You will no doubt meet a great number who claim to be Christians, but a bit of probing would likely expose them as being what Paul refers to as so-called brothers, what we might speak of as social Christians. Oh, yes. They attend a church of some sort, might even be members. But, is that church a biblical church, or a social club that happens to employ a guy they refer to as their minister? What are we to do with them?
Do we shun them? No. Do we count them as boon companions? No. Barnes tries to strike a balance for us. “You are not to make them companions and friends.” Why? Because, if we associate with them in such a manner as would lead us to ‘be esteemed to belong to them’, we are pursuing a course that is likely to lead to our own corruption by their example. At the same time, we are still bound by the obligations of good society. We are, by Christ’s command and by common sense, constrained to show kindness to our neighbors and to our community. We are, by Christ’s command, required to be just with all, whether they are of the Church or not.
Barnes goes a step further, advising that we not enter into their frivolities and fashions, nor into their amusements. For a man of his day, this would involve matters such as theatre, ballroom dancing, and parties of most any sort. Here, he concludes, ‘we are to be separate; and are not to be connected with them’. The restriction is set upon our activities that we only connect with them on such things as ‘we may have in common with them; and which are not inconsistent with the holy rules of Christian religion’. You can put it down to my own moral weaknesses, but I find that line too stringent. I am not convinced that God allows no room for ‘frivolities and amusements’. I don’t think He is adamantly opposed to fashion. I do think He is ill-disposed toward those for whom this is the sum of being. But, is there something in Scripture that would insist we cannot attend theatre? I am quite certain there are any number of plays and the like which promote things we cannot support. But, what if we include the symphony, which seems to fall into Barnes’ list of proscribed activities? Is there something unbiblical about that music? What of Jazz? What of other arts? Is it wrong to spend a day at the MFA, considering the works of those who have a certain skill with brush and paint? Is it wrong to take vacations, celebrate birthdays and holidays? Where is the line, and who gets to draw it?
It strikes me that much of what Barnes is setting out as off-limits are societal judgments. One hears the tales, for example, of regions where traveling more than X miles to church would be considered ungodly. My goodness! The very reason for several New England towns coming into existence was because the town had grown too big for folks to reach one church. A new church must be established with new town boundaries, and that’s where those within those boundaries are now required to go. To go over to their old church with their old acquaintances (even if this includes a neighbor just across the line) would constitute a violation of church law. The same vagaries of definition may apply to matters of wine and tobacco. How sinful they are deemed to be depends rather largely on where you are. If you’re in tobacco country, don’t be too surprised if the church doesn’t much care about smoking. If you’re back up here in the Northeast, it’s likely to be seen as a bigger issue. Living an unhealthy lifestyle of any sort might come close to being a sin in our eyes.
No, I think the boundary we are called to observe is found in the last part of Barnes’ assessment. What we must not accept are activities which are ‘inconsistent with the holy rules of Christian religion’. But, here, we must allow the Bible to define the rules, not the local clergy. As to those outside the Church, let is always recognize that they are the field into which our Lord sends His workers. They are ripe for the harvest, but that harvest won’t happen by us ignoring and avoiding the fields around us. “How then shall they call upon Him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in Him whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher? And how shall they preach unless they are sent? Just as it is written, ‘How beautiful are the feet of those who bring glad tidings of good things’” (Ro 10:14-15)! Go! Make disciples of all nations! They’re out there. God knows those who are His own, and calls upon us to serve as beacons that they may come to Him.
As concerns judgment, Barnes and all the rest agree: “Our province is in regard to the church.” How curious, then, to hear those who insist that we are not supposed to judge! Judgment, my dears, begins in the Church (1Pe 4:17). As to those outside, as Paul has said, they are in God’s hands for His judgment. What better course could we imagine than to turn their attention to Jesus, to invite them, Lord willing, to become brothers in truth, fellow sons of our Father in heaven? Judgment? No. But, outreach? By all means! We cannot reach out to those we are busily avoiding. We do not reach out if we merely treat with them as friends and companions.
Familial Responsibility (06/21/17)
I will offer one last thought as concerns our dealings with those outside the church. While the views of Calvin and Barnes may seem untenably strict to our ears, there is a truth contained therein which we must consider. The truth is that we choose our associates because we enjoy our associates. You may hear it said, for example, that you choose your family but you get your family. Some are fortunate enough to find family consists of folks they would choose as friends. Enter into the social world of your teens and you will likely discover they are forming cliques. For some reason, we find this to be an issue that must be addressed, and perhaps it is. But, in plain point of fact it is human nature. If you turn to the adult world of business and work, you will find the exact same thing happening. You choose your lunch-mates, but your co-workers you get. There are those in the office whose company you generally enjoy and appreciate. There are others with whom you associate of necessity, but would have nothing to do with, given the choice. To be fair, we are often surprised to discover that somebody we would not have considered a potential companion turns out to be very much so, and we would not have known had we not been required to interact with them. So, yes: Insular cliquishness is to be avoided, but at the same time, associations will form naturally.
Now, let us turn this to the topic of a life of faith. If your associates are the ones whose company you enjoy, does it not stand to reason that your choice of associates reflects your inner state in some way? If you demonstrate a marked preference for being amongst the worldly rather than amongst the faithful, I do think there is cause for concern as to your faith. If you profess to be a Christian, but find Christians generally annoying, I have to question your profession. That’s not to say you are required to like all of your brothers and sisters in Christ, although you are called to love them, and not only them, but all people – for all are created in the image of God, however corrupted that image has become in them.
But, who attracts you? I’m not talking sensual attraction here. I’m talking simple pleasures of companionship. Would you rather spend the day with those who pursue the ways of this world with gusto? Do you enjoy the company of drunks and scoundrels because they’re more exciting and entertaining? Or, do you prefer to be with those of like faith? Given your choice of invitations to dinner, would you choose to go dine with a couple of families from church, or with a couple of families from the workplace? Which would you find more stimulating and pleasurable?
I pursue this point because I think it gives us one of the better barometers for our spiritual health. It is easier to consider this point dispassionately than it is to consider the condition of our character directly. I think, if we take to reviewing our actions, words, and thoughts in hopes of coming to an accurate self-assessment, we will fail. The heart is deceptively wicked, and it will either convince us we do no wrong or convince us we do no right. The evidence of voluntary associations may offer us a more accurate measure. Of course, for those of us who tend toward isolation that may not prove all that helpful, but I think it can still be applied. What must be considered in such an evaluation is whether we are making these associations because we enjoy them or because we know it’s the right thing to do. If we are choosing our associates because we see them as somehow benefiting our status, I will respectfully suggest we are not in fact choosing voluntary associations, but are rather associating with those forced upon us by our enslavement to status.
Let’s turn, then, to family. The Church is family. If in fact we are Christians, then we are children of one Father in heaven. We call one another brothers and sisters because in a very real – the most real – sense we are. We are all of us adopted into this family, to be with our dear brother Jesus. He is our brother, and is in fact one closer than a brother. But, those who are at church with us are brothers and sisters as well. We don’t choose them. We get them. This holds in spite of our ability to jump from one church to another if we find the local clan intolerable. I will say this, if the intolerability of family has moved us to depart the local church, we have a problem. It is one thing to depart because of serious doctrinal issues. It is even acceptable, I should think, to depart because of disagreement over secondary issues. It would be hard to sit under a ministry that holds to points diametrically opposed to your own beliefs. Yet, it might very well prove beneficial. If those disagreements concern fundamental matters of faith, that’s a different story.
But, you see three degrees here: Fundamental doctrinal issues are of course sound cause to depart; secondary issues are acceptable cause to depart; family squabbles are not. You may well choose your associates within the family and incline toward those most compatible with yourself, and so long as this doesn’t become exclusionary and repellant of others, I see no harm done. But, that’s the line. The fact that you just can’t deal with somebody’s personality is not sufficient cause.
Here’s another aspect of the matter. These, whatever we may think of them as companions, are family. We are, then, liable to them as we are liable to God. This is something Matthew Henry brings out, and I quite agree. We are liable to them because they, too, are liable to God. They, too, are seeking to grow in Christ, are seeking to edify us as we hopefully seek to edify them. We are put together as a local body because we have very real need of one another. You have gifts and insights that I do not. I have gifts and insights that you do not. By ourselves, we will rapidly discover our lack and have no way to address it. Together, I can appeal to your strengths when I discover my weaknesses, and you can call on mine. Scripture over and over again emphasizes this point. God in Christ established the Church for a reason. The body needs its limbs and organs. Each limb and organ needs all the others.
One of the necessary organs of this body is the organ of leadership. In our polity that organ consists of the pastors and elders. They are set among us by God’s instruction. They are chosen to serve by the Spirit’s direction. Does this mean we await audible word or visible sign from heaven to point us to the ones who should thus direct the work of the Church in this body? No. We are not given to waiting for the white smoke or for feathers falling from nowhere to direct our decisions. We are given to prayer, and we are fully convinced of the indwelling Spirit of God directing the opinions and votes of God’s people. As such, we are comfortable accepting the decision of the body as Spirit-led. We are comfortable, who have been thus elected to leadership, only because we are convinced that God knows what He’s doing in selecting us.
If we are liable to one another, this applies particularly to those God has set over us. This does not, I must stress, mean we follow them blindly. No. We follow the example of our Puritan forebears, and of Paul’s own instruction, and say, “so far as he follows Christ, and no farther.” We act as good Bereans, confirming what we are taught by careful consideration of Scripture, not by good feelings or super-spiritual confirming thoughts. At the same time, and particularly where matters of discipline are concerned, we do well to remain keenly aware that if we are not involved in the matter directly we do not have complete information. If the pastors and elders have found cause to impose disciplinary measures upon a member of the body, we need to err on the side of acceptance in regard to their decisions. It may seem unlovely or unloving. We may not understand the reason for such an action. He was such a nice guy, after all. But, then, don’t we hear the same reactions when criminals are discovered in their deeds. I can’t believe he would do such a thing! He was always so helpful to his neighbors. He would never! But, he did.
There is a seemingly ironclad rule for leadership, that whenever you find it necessary to discipline a member of the flock, there will be any number of others in the flock who are quite sure they know better. They are the armchair quarterbacks of the church, second-guessing the decisions of those called upon to decide, and certain that if only folks would put them in charge they would have decided otherwise, and assuredly decided rightly. Meanwhile, the very nature of the matter leaves the leadership no place to explain or defend their decision. The likelihood is that any such matter as would require disciplinary action, even such action as is contemplated by Paul here, will have a great deal of privileged information involved. Yes, in this case, as has been stressed, we are dealing with a sin of public knowledge, and if that’s the case, then certainly the publicly known facts can and must be discussed with the body. “If he will not listen to the three of you, then make the matter known to the church.” Is that not the final call of our instructions in discipline? But, even then, there are going to be details of the matter that are not to be made known to the church. Whether because of legal ramifications or because of necessary respect for preserving ‘client privilege’ (the term I am groping for fails to arise this morning), we cannot divulge every detail of the matter. We cannot discuss every aspect. If there is misunderstanding, and we are faced with some who choose to impugn our judgment, there is, really, little or nothing we can reasonably do to defend ourselves.
I will just say these same concerns apply in just about any setting in which we find ourselves. Go to the workplace. If you are acting as an armchair quarterback in regard to your management, the problem is the same. They cannot always defend themselves, and may not even be given opportunity. It is dangerously easy to go from second-guessing and otherwise undermining managerial decisions to backstabbing. The damage may be unintentional, but the damage is done nonetheless. It is, plain and simple, insubordination. It is not more acceptable outside the church than in. It is quite probably one of the most dangerously unhealthy bits of character flaw that one can possess, and yet so many of us suffer from it. It is something greatly to be desired that with God’s help we might excise that trait from ourselves. If we will not, I should think we will find ourselves excised. That tendency toward insubordination is like the leaven Paul spoke of, slowly spreading its poison under cover until it has corrupted the whole lump.
This is an issue, sadly, that I know within myself. I don’t know if it’s a symptom of that particular mindset that lends itself toward engineering, or grows out of engineering. I don’t think I do myself any great favors in looking for any such explanation. It is a fact of my character, that I can be so convinced of the rightness of my own opinions that no other can penetrate. This is something I pray God will be addressing soon, because it is not healthy at all, and is assuredly no good witness to Him whom I love above all things. May He be pleased, having brought it to my attention with such force in recent weeks, to walk me through a thoroughgoing repentance from that mindset and to set me firmly on a new course of truly laboring at work as unto the Himself.
