1 Corinthians 5:6-11
Your boasting is not good. (see verse 2) Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump? Cleanse out the old leaven (life before Christ) that you may be a new lump (New Creation Living, Kingdom Living), as you really are (It's our REALITY in CHRIST!) unleavened. For Christ, our Passover Lamb, has been sacrificed (and Risen!). Let us therefore celebrate the festival (Communal Life in the Context of Perpetual Communion), not with the old leaven, the leaven of malice and evil, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity (authenticity) and truth (Christ' Kingdom Reality).
I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people- not at all meaning the sexually immoral of this world (further proof we SHOULD eat with the not yet redeemed for their highest good) or the greed and swindlers, or idolaters, since then you would need to get out of the world. But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of Christ (someone who professes to be a child of God in Christ) - if he/she is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler-not even to eat with such a one.
Why is eating with a professing bro/sis in Christ so bad when the person is living a practicing life of wickedness? Shouldn't we labor to "restore" this bro/sis in Christ? Shouldn't we all the more "fellowship" with them with the hope of bringing them back into the community?
Such questions are good, even necessary. However, the primary concern is not the individual. (this doesn't mean the individual isn't extremely important, but the individual significance is swept up in Community). The concern in the community. In Matthew 18 Jesus gives profound instructions on "discipline" in the Kingdom Community (Church). Discipline can be such a difficult word. For most of us, the word conjures up images of spankings from when we were children, or timeouts in the corner, or writing essays, soap in the mouth, or even an occasional blunt object into the skull (just kidding on the last one). that view may be misleading and not altogether accurate. Discipline is not really the act of correction, but rather the goal desired-that's the discipline. Discipline is the teaching of what is important and right and healthy and productive. So, in MT 18, Jesus is teaching us that the Community is sacred, so sacred that there cannot be room for unforgiving hearts and unrepentant behavior/attitudes. In the end, Jesus teaching is that the community must be valued as something especially Holy (1 Peter 2:9). (Please do not confuse that this means, or that I am stating-the individual is not precious to Jesus-but every thing in the universe, including the Creator of it- is not revolving around any individual).
So there comes a time when it is for the collective good of a community- to sever ties with an unrepentant sibling in Christ. And we have to believe, hope, dream and pray ('Oh, my God do I pray'... a little 4 non blonds for us) for the restoration of this sibling. And yet the community is better for having removed this person from communal fellowship, and here the part that we have to labor to believe- the individual is better off (or so it seems since Jesus Himself says to leave them alone, and Paul seems to be teaching the same thing in our above passage) being put out on their own. We could conjecture all sorts of reasons why this is so or not so- but as the fundies say- "God word says it, I believe it" (Just kidding, I do believe it, but just kidding about quoting that trite saying). One reason this may be for the highest good, is that it place the person in a predicament where they have to rely on God (or just go down the street to another church and be fake w/them).
As soon as this erring sibling is ready for true, authentic restoration-then we have to be arms open wide-Faithfully theirs (cue Journey song now "we're forever yours, faithfully! Goooooo Steve Perry).
Let me give a closing summation here: Whatever the details are- there is a time when a Kingdom Community (like The River) has to collective determine, for the highest good of the church (locally, which is for the highest good of the world and the individual, since we exist to be "the incarnated Spirit of Christ for the peace of the world") have to deliberately choose to NOT EAT/Fellowship with certain professing Christ Followers, b/c they have chosen to live under the "leaven" of the world (greed, sexually immorality, drunkenness, idolatry, malicious divisions etc).
What things do we ponder as we make these decisions? How do we talk these things out in love, without seeing each other as enemies, and the one with whom we are discussing? Do we call on everyone (in the community) to follow the collective decisions?
How hard is this....................?
(posted by Sam)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
Wow, these waters are very difficult to navigate. This takes me back to several situations I had when I was a pastor in Atlanta. There was a specific instance in which a member of the church continued to be divisive and spread nasty untruths about me and the leadership, and it was causing a tremendous problem. I went through the Matthew 18 process as I understood it then. In other words, I confronted her one-on-one and then moved onto the leadership component, but the leadership, although in agreement with the wrong, were not fully sold on the necessity to bring this issue before the collective membership, and so we never went any farther. About a year later, she really caused tremendous problems, and the other leadership admitted that they should have gone along with what I recommended.
As I look back at that now, though, I realize that my own leadership was not that strong and I also see that passage as being far less literal than I took it then. I don't mean to say that it is far less important, because I think it is very urgent for the church to use, but I guess I feel as if this prescription Jesus gave was not a formula to be followed as an exact instruction manual, but rather as a generally wise pattern to deal with wayward people.
My thought, as it pertains to The River and how we deal with believers who go astray, is that we collectively do come to an agreement as to what the member who is not following Christ looks like, or better yet we define what those areas of harming the community of Christ or being impenitent looks like. This is not to say that we have to nail down every possible offense, because that would be impossible, first of all, and secondly our world is much more complex than confining it to a list of scenarios or shortcomings.
It seems, though, this is very difficult to do. In the Church of the Thessalonians, for example, Paul warned the believers there not to eat with a person who is lazy. This seems difficult to uphold, to say the least. In other
places, though, he admonishes them to to cast out the sexually immoral, which would be easier (but not much in this day and age). In another place, it says to warn a divisive person, but what defines being divisive?
My point is that whatever it is that we agree is to be "corrected" (if that is even the best word), or whatever is deemed to be of such nature we cannot eat with that person, then we should come to some clear agreement what it is. It should be guided by the Scriptures, but at the end of the day it has to be interpreted by us, as to what that is. Sorry for being so verbose in this response.
Morning all...
While my response/comment will not be quite as "verbose" as Jason #2's... I hope that it will in some way add to the conversation here.
This is an interesting topic to me because as I was reading it I was reminded of a time where my family and I were actually in the opposite position of what Jason described... we were the ones being called into question by our community of believers.
When I was much younger... about 10 or 11... my family attended a small church that my uncle pastored. It was a small communuity, only 75 or so regular attenders and my family was extrememly involved. My mother was the piano player and weekend janitor of the facilities and my father served on the board of the church as a deacon.
Over a series of a few weeks my Father began to come home from church board meetings very upset... it was difficult to see him so visibly upset.
I can remember my father sitting my family down and explaining to us that my uncle, who pastored the church, had asked my father to do some things concerning the church finances that he felt were unethical... when my father refused he was approached privately by our pastor... when he still refused he was approached by the pastor and several members of the board...
Still refusing the pastor as well as the other board members threatened to take my father and our family in front of the church... to follow the procedure found in Matt. 18 we were told.
Instead of allowing that to happen my Father took the pastor as well as the other board members in front of our district super intendent where he was able to clear his name and our church community was asked to apologize to our family.
Despite their apology... my family was deeply hurt with a wound that still runs deep with my parents today... we left that community despite that we were invited back in... and have only revisted once (a very painful experience) in the last 15 years that have followed that experience...
I'm offering this story to our community as a testiment to what type of an affect this can have on those who are being called into question... this is definitely not a matter that should be taken lightly or that should even be considered unless the offense is causing such harm that it threatens the health of the larger community.
And even then, I believe... the community should practice restraint, patience, kindness... in other words... this action should be taken with, as much as possible, visible love for the individual and an expressed desire for them to return back to the community in the future...
But perhaps this is wishful thinking.
Josh,
I agree with your concluding thought- this should not be entered into lightly. The truth is, that there are few churches that actually do any sort of "corrective" action as prescribed in Mt 18. And in the few cases it is done, it is probably done with little compassion.
One of the things that makes this so tough is the typical deonology of the fundamentalist mindset. therefore, this passage is taken so literal that there is usually a one on one visit, and then a two/three on one visit- and then lastly- the "whole" church.
It seems rather that Christ was saying that both parties must labor to "keep" the peace that is already granted in Christ through the All (all in the church) indwelling Holy Spirit. What is clear in MT 18 is that pre-forgiveness is definately what Jesus has in mind. the 'offended' party should already have forgiven the offender prior to going to him/her. That is rarely the case in practice.
(I know you know this, so I am dialguing, not "educating"-...you'll probably never live that down:) )
So it seems the practice of MT 18 would entail many conversations, e.g. in your story- the Pastor should have talked with your dad several times. and at minimum- they would have come to terms to disagree amicably, and then the pastor could have asked someone else to do the 'deed'- so that steps two and three were profoundly unnecessary- since this isn't about being "right/correct" but righteous/just/peaceable.
No doubt that taking such steps of "not eating" should be the "last resort" (not meaning prayer) in action with the person. And no doubt that the community should err on the side of caution, rather than impetuous excommunication.
In the end- the goal is always restoration of the whole community, which means both the parties on both sides of the issue.
I agree with all that is said. When this blog was first written I tried to respond but didn't quite know how. I am a person whom is very forgiving and willing to work anything out I always have been. So to me I guess I always believe there is a solution to everything. There are things that are unforgiveable I am sure, but I have yet to come across that type of situation so I could not say this or that is unforgiveable/ unchangeable.
As we deal with community restoration and peace- and apparent corrective/confrontational conversations have to be had- I believe some of the things we have to ask about a person/persons b4 we get to a place where we expel someone from fellowship are:
1) What is the community perception of this person? e.g. Whatever the issue with the person- is this something visible to all/most in the community? Does this person(s) seem to be living for the highest good of the community and for their own righteous good- or is this behavior counter to the community and biblical vision? Is the questionalbe behavior/attitude something that happened this one time- or something that is a habitual thing in the person's life
2) How is the confronted one handling the confrontation? Are they immediately defensive trying to acquit themselves- or are they laboring to hear the "criticism"? is there a tone of sorrow in their demeanor over the offense- or do they quickly point out problems of others?
3)do they tithe? JUST KIDDING-
4) really 3)How has this person handled correction in the past?
4) Will this person's behavior/attitude be destructive to themself- and others if we continue to fellowship with them? Are there already negative effects of this person's negativity on those in the community and the community at large?
Certainly there are more- but it seems these are some starting questions to ask should we ever have to go through this.
This situation is difficult regardless of which side you are on... but obviously for different reasons.
On one side... I do not want to be the one being confronted... it's awkward and uncomfortable to be brought into question... especially concerning issues of faith that are rooted deeply in an individual.
And on the other side... it would be difficult to be the person or persons confront the individual in question... it would be hard to not be seen as judgmental or lacking compassion.
This dialogue, I believe, is extremely beneficial to this community because it offers us a chance to really think about how we would react regardless of which side of the "gun" we may at some point in time end up on.
If we prepare ourselves by thinking and praying through these situations... because we are aware of them, they may actually happen less.
But, by chance if they do happen one day... I've been thinking about how I would want to be approached if I was in question... or how I could approach someone else who I felt as though were living a life that was habitually harmful to the community..
I think a good question to start with would be... why I or they desire to be a part of the community? Especially if their actions are in direct opposition to the mission of it.
In this way it may help the person to see how far they have strayed from the heart of the community by simply asking them a question... rather then accusing them.
this has been a healthy conversation.......for the 4 of us! what's up River-onians?
Sam you might as well have said River-onions....
As a prominent member of the little know group known as the river-rats, I will do what five sixths of us do best, meaning I will be a.d.d. and move the discussion into another area of the original topic. Though hopefully what I have to say will tie into what has previously been mentioned by our esteemed communtity of commenters.
This topic of eating, hanging out, spending time with those who have fallen away(for lack of better phrase) is difficult for me and is seemingly difficult for us as a community. I think I can say this because I've had several different conversations with people on this subject matter and it has never been easy to find solutions but mostly has caused much confusion, frustration and disappointment.
Confusion because it's never really clear how to deal with someone who has obviously turned away from their faith and community.
Frustration because though we try and try in different ways and forms we can't seem to reach someone, or help them see the beautiful things right infront of them that they are basically shitting on with no regard to the truths and faith that they supposedly hold to.
Disappointment because if we are true in what we say of wanting to seek the highest good of others, we have to be let down by the fact that those we care about who claim Christ are living in such a way that tells the opposite of the reality of the Christ they claim to know. Shouldn't we want them to experience the reality that is Jesus Christ and shouldn't it hurt us to see those who call themselves Christians yet are blatantly missing out on this wonderful reality of Christ that we as a community are hopefully strenuously searching after.
Sorry about the 3 part sermon there. I guess those 19 yrs underneath the SBC came in handy. Or not!
But seriously, the reason those 3 things come to mind is recently in talks with Sam and a few other friends on the topic of hanging with those who are running away, those are the 3 feelings that come to mind. In the last 18 months or so I have struggled heavily in this arena. Their was a time not to long ago when I was spending alot of time with some great new friends, "christians" they called themselves. I had no reason not to believe them, I mean they graduated from a christian high school, attended a "every now and then" Sunday morning service at a local prominent church(at which they made fun of later), they held occasional bible studies(more like social gatherings) and said all the right things. What was really disappointing about all these things was the fact that Christ didn't seem to be close to the heart of any of these things, meaning, I wasn't seeing christ lived out in any of them, and subsequently I wasn't seeing it in me. I fought this hard, why would I run from these newfound friends that I had/have so much incommon with. Shouldn't I confront them about these issues(one might quickly think alcohol was at the forefront of this, but sadly that was only the starting point, the issues were all across the board). So over time I did confront them about it, and not just individuals, but yet 3 and 4 together. The reactions were both surprising and hopeful. Some were quick to defend their stance on the way they were living as it was germane(yes sam!) to their faith, and others were quick to confess they knew their were huge issues keeping them from living a non-fake faith. Some were just, "I don't know wtf I believe anymore". So in these conversations I was feeling a range of emotions and thoughts. WTF do I do here. I kepft thinking surely if I continue to question them on this then things will get better and I can continue to be in the presence of these people.
Well things did not pan out that well for me in that area and as time went by I found myself diving more and more into the same struggles as those I was trying to seek the highest good of. It got to a point to where I looked at the community of the river and our vision and what that means for me to be a part of that, truthfully. and I had to make a big decision, do I continue to hang with this crowd in hopes they will see what they are missing out on, or do I back away and stay true to my community in upholding the values and truths that we are trying to live.
So I walked away from those people. Extremely difficult. It was really hard for awhile, and then after much frustration from those I left, some of them started to see more clearly why I made the decision I did. and infact in seemed to have called into question for them some of the things they needed to confront. and even now I get calls from them wishing to confess their issues and move forward. But To this day I struggle with how I handled that, and how to handle it now. It seems like it's such a fine line in how we as a community handle these things. I agree with Josh and Sam on so many levels, I do believe we have to be careful in how we treat those we disagree with or those inwhich we feel have fallen away. But how do we do that if it intails building relationships and or strengthening relationships in places and settings that so often can bring us as a whole further away from our vision. Do we just continually jusify it with scripture that says it's ok to be in these places with these people or do we look at the other end of the tension in the scripture that says "no do not surround yourself with those, there"? This clearly(in the size of the comment) is an ongoing issue in my life seeing that it applys to me and so many people in and around our community that I care about deeply and want the best for.
Thanks for reading all of this, I tend to use stories to get across my thoughts, and ofcourse I take alot of time in doing so. Love!
I think that if we are doing all of the things that we as a community should be doing, i.e. staying in contact with each other throughout the week (which I am not the best at that) and if we are welcoming of each and everyone that comes through our building's door, we are going to know what is going on with each other and problems and resistance to change that some may have.
So, in that regard, because our gatherings are rather small and intimate right now, it may be harder to do steps 1 and 2 first. This may mean that a group "intervention" would be the most logical. Whether that is correct to do or not may be a different question and is really what is being asked. For that I am sorry but I don't know the answer. Would it vary from situation to situation?
This topic is so tough because there is so much tension. I have heard it said by a (enter sarcasm here) very wise man, can't remember who, an analogy something like this, "It's easier to pull someone off of a chair that it is to pull someone up onto a chair". There is some truth to this, however, isn't there?
The other thing is that living here in the south there are going to be many people claiming to be "christian" because they grew up in a "christian" home. They take on the title but nothing, or very little, more. They might think that the name is the ticket into heaven and are unwilling to change.
Not sure if this adds anything to the conversation but it was just something that came to my mind.
Daniel, since you posed your comment with 3 questions, I want to respond to you in 3 answers (jk). Seriously, although you have thrown the conversation completely off track, this is actually a good discussion, too, because it deals with real-life issues that are going on now, and (I think) have ramifications for discipline in the community. I sense there are a lot more issues like this where friends that we have possess quite a few values that are opposed to our own evolving values in Christ. This is really hard, because on the one hand we love them and want to bring them to the fuller reality of Christ (I hesitate to say that they don’t know Christ, because we don’t know), but on the other hand, we want to keep our own lives pure.
Sam, you quoted a guy from a conference who said, “I treat everybody like a Christian until they give me reason to believe otherwise” (correct me if this is not it in essence), but how does this play out when it comes to people who nominally profess Christ in some way, are not part of our community (The River), and yet emphatically denounce Christ, or at least our perspective of what it means to know Christ? This is really difficult. By the way, I really love that quote, and I think that is at the heart of how Christ actually did ministry, loving his neighbor regardless of what group they fit into, but at times rebuking/correcting/disciplining (whatever you want to call it) those who professed to have all the answers and yet denounced everything Christ was really about (like the Pharisees).
Anyway, I have enjoyed listening to everyone’s thoughts on this, and I hope this is a foreshadowing of greater conversations to come, like ones with 4 point sermons and maybe a closing illustration, or even a poem (wow, that would be really great!).
Jeremy,
I think you are right... I definitely think that different situations call for different action. Perhaps where we have gone wrong in the past is trying to simplify complex situations in the scriptures into simplistic 3 step formulas...
wow alot to take in and think about.
Post a Comment