Singleness

This is sermon #17 from First Corinthians. I am acutely aware of the different context in which this was written compared to my current awareness. There is a huge contrast between Catholic options for singleness compared to narrower traditions. Yet the practical issues I dealt with two decades ago are very much with us today, and the issues of chastity and healthy friendship among singles is more crucial than ever.

1 Corinthians 7:7-9; 25-28

A WORD ABOUT SINGLENESS

It has hit me all over again just how different the world we live in is compared to the world of almost 2000 years ago. Paul was trying to correct a church that devalued marriage, a church that thought sexuality stood in the way of spirituality, and a church that was trying to make a moral virtue out of a priority of singleness.

Today, the opposite is true in many if not most churches. Many Evangelical churches will not consider hiring a pastor who is not married, and even apart from the pastorate, singles have a hard time finding their place in churches that are so geared toward couples and families.

Singles are viewed with skepticism: how do they fit in? They create an odd number, and so present a problem socially (after all, a biblical church follows the Noah's Ark Syndrome –– two by two). They are also seen as freer, and so more available, than a married person, which means they can be presumed upon –– "Oh, Sue can do that," with the understanding that because she is single she doesn't have anything to do in the evenings or on weekends. Then, too, there is the "yet" focus: "oh, he's not married yet," which means that he hasn't arrived, that he will only be "whole" after he marries.

Singleness was handled differently back in the Bible's time. There were social conventions we can hardly imagine today in our culture: dowries, marriages arranged by parents or other guardians, polygamy.... There was no "dating" as we know it today. Women had little or no choice as to whether they would marry or even who they would marry. Singleness was the exception, and most often occurred because of being widowed.

In this chapter, Paul is trying to correct a warped view of marriage and sex that the Corinthian Christians had. He starts by saying that marriage is normal, and in marriage there is to be full and mutual sexuality (vs1-5). He says he wishes everyone had his gift, which was singleness (v7). Then he addresses several particular situations.

The first is the issue of being widowed (vs8,9). Should widowers and widows remarry? Next he looks at the subject of divorce (vs10-16), which we will come back to later. Then (vs25-28) he considers younger people who are likely bethrothed (i.e., formal arrangements have been made, but the marriage has not yet been consummated). Should they go ahead and marry? Would that be "unspiritual?"

Now I mention all of that to make the point that the issue of singleness is in a far different context for us than it was for Paul as he wrote to the Corinthians. That does not mean there is nothing here for us, but it does mean we have to make some transferences and applications; we cannot merely pull a few phrases out of 1 Corinthians 7 and think we have “the” Christian position on singleness.

I want us to consider three things about singleness. The first two are specifically connected to what Paul has written here; the third is a practical question that naturally rises out of this issue.

The first thing, then, is a principle that Paul asks the Corinthians to consider: "Stay as you are." He says that explicitly in vs 17, 20, 24, and 26. I'll come back to this in another sermon, but it affects singleness.

One practical application is that people who are not married should not rush out to find the first seemingly appropriate person they can marry. God wants to guide those who belong to him, and that includes working in the lives of Christian young people to lead them to the right spouse –– if marriage is part of what God has for a person.

If I could, I would have every teen read Shadow of the Almighty, part of the journal of the martyred missionary Jim Elliot, edited by his wife, Elisabeth. He once wrote:

No one warns young people to follow Adam's example. He waited till God saw his need. Then God made Adam sleep, prepared for his mate, and brought her to him. We need more of this "being asleep" in the will of God. Then we can receive what He brings us in His own time, if at all. Instead we are set as bloodhounds after a partner, considering everyone we see until our minds are so concerned with the sex problem that we can talk of nothing else when bull session time comes around. It is true that a fellow cannot ignore women –– but he can think of them as he ought –– as sisters, not as sparring partners.

I do not think we teach our young people as strongly as we should the principle of waiting on God and trusting him to lead us to the right things so clearly that we know it is from him. And that should be especially so of marriage; nothing else in this world changes and affects us the way the person we marry does. Paul says: stay as you are until God changes the situation.

A second thing that is here is the gift of singleness. We do not lift that up in the Evangelical tradition very often (in contrast to the Catholic Church). It could more easily be inferred that we believe there is a curse of singleness instead of a gift.

How often in the church do single people feel as though something must be wrong with them? To go back to some of the opening thoughts, we in the church do much of our thinking and planning with couples as the common denominator of our thinking. We think in terms of twos. It is only in recent years that churches have begun to realize that when you hire a pastor, you do not get the spouse to double the work for free.

Of course no one would say it so crudely, but can it be we think something must be "wrong" with an adult who is not married, or a least making tracks to be married? Can a single person really be happy living alone, or at least not knowing the intimacy of the marriage relationship?

Without belaboring the point, the Bible is clear that there is a gift of singleness. Paul at least refers to it in v7: I wish that all people were as I am. But each one has his own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that. Jesus also spoke of the gift of celibacy (Mtt. 19:11,12).

Yes, it is hard for some of us to imagine life apart from a marriage partner. I would not function too well outside of marriage unless God changed me, but not everyone is like that. And while differences are hard for us humans, can we in the church not accept the fact that not everyone needs a marriage relationship? And for those who do not need it, can we not see them as gifted in ways we who are married are not, so that they have a conscious contribution to make to the church instead of being a deprived class of people who are problems at banquet times?

Now I know I am generalizing a lot. I am spreading a lot of paint with a broad brush, and I do not do that to incriminate any one person. I say all of this to exaggerate what singles can so easily feel in any church. It is so easy to gravitate toward a couple perspective without thinking about it.

We need to think intentionally about the gift of singleness. We in the church need to lift it up as a wonderful option for those whom God calls to singleness –– without making them feel as if they are incomplete or have missed out on a major part of life. The truth is that singles are just different in some ways.

Singles can be free to serve in ways that couples and families are not. A single can pick up and move for a year of voluntary or missions service in a way that others cannot. Singles are free not to be distracted as often as people who are committed to marriage and parental relationships. Singles can have a financial freedom others of us do not have; they can spend their money taking only God into account, while a husband or wife needs to consider the other, and perhaps children.

Singles can have an understanding of friendship that alludes one who is married. Sometimes sex gets in the way of friendship, and singles have the freedom of avoiding that (if they can escape the sex-craze of our culture). Singles can be free to develop personally in ways that a married person could envy; the time the married person puts into sustaining a relationship is time the single can put into reading or traveling or taking educational classes. And all of that can contribute to a greater opportunity for service in the kingdom of God. The church should be saying that such an option is a good one.

On the other hand, singles are no different than anyone else. They are people who need to be loved. They need to be seen as important. They need to be hugged. They need to be included in things –– not because they are single, but because they are each individual people who have something to contribute. (If you think about it, no one would want to be included or excluded on the basis of their marital status. I hope people include me because of who I am, and not because I am married. And likewise, the single person's singleness should be no big deal; it is the person he or she is.) The freedoms that singles have do them no good if other people do not freely affirm the good things those freedoms give –– the freedoms that come from the gift of singleness.

A third thing we need to consider is the people who are single, but do not have the “gift of singleness.” This is not a category the Bible explicitly deals with. Our culture is different, and without arranged marriages and without polygamy and other common things of 2000 years ago, we have people who are single who desperately want to be married. They are lonely. They ache for physical affection. Almost everything they see becomes a reminder of what they are personally missing. What does 1 Corinthians 7 say to them?

I'm not sure it says anything explicitly to them. It is another problem, but it invariably rises to the surface when the issue of singleness comes up. I would say, though, the problem is not just theirs; in the church, it is ours. We need to be teaching the proper context for sexuality and to be helping singles live chaste lives in healthy friendships.

It is hard to imagine what singleness means for someone who craves marriage, but we in the church need to try to understand –– and to help ease the pain. But even as I say that, I need to say one thing to the single who is unhappy: you need to be vulnerable to someone you trust. You see, it is almost impossible for people to help if they do not know. At the same time, we in the church who are married –– or those who have the gift of singleness –– need to know all we can so those who are struggling do not have to spell out every detail. As I have thought about it, I see four areas where we can have sensitivity toward the single who doesn't want to be.

First is the realization that there is a big difference between loneliness and being alone. People who are lonely can be dysfunctional. They are unable to take advantage of some of the benefits of being alone. Loneliness is crippling. Loneliness is a state of mind, and a single can feel horribly lonely in the middle of a crowd. It has to do with a sense of not belonging, of deprived intimacy. Lonely people need love.

A second thing is vulnerability. Single people without the gift of singleness keenly feel the need for others. They do not have an immediate advisor when the car breaks down or the plumbing goes crazy. They do not have corporate wisdom for financial decisions where major spending or investing is necessary. They are aware when they are sick that no one special may be there to pamper them or provide crucial care. Each thing that happens is a reminder of what they want but do not have, and it can be self-depreciating.

A third thing is awkwardness. Social functions are more of a threat than a pleasant escape from aloneness. How do you act if you are one single with three couples, especially when being with happily married couples only reminds you of what you so badly want for yourself? And then there is the opposite sex. Can the single be friendly with a married person of the opposite sex, or might something be taken wrongly? And how about a person of the opposite sex who isn't married? Is it a set up? Is he or she thinking what you are thinking? Could this be something? Should I even be thinking this? How can you help but think of it if that is what you desire? It is awkward.

A fourth thing is the danger of bitterness that comes when what the single wants so much does not come for him or her when it is happening to those all around. Bitterness can come when it seems that no one is sensitive to the needs and feelings of the non-choice single –– when events and conversation always revolve around couple-type things. Bitterness is a danger when the single is always thought of when a job needs to be done (since they have so much more free time, you know), but once the job is done it is back to usual.

Now the reason I say all of this is not to depress singles who do not have the gift, but to impress on the rest of us some of what is at stake for us to be caring and loving to everyone in the church community. It is one thing to blithely say, "Be content; trust God for your life." It is something else to feel lonely and frustrated and think no one in the church understands or cares.

Of course we can trust God, but he has put us in the church to trust together –– to help each other and encourage each other. I know these words about singles will not answer all questions, but I hope they they help us be more sensitive.... more sensitive to promote the gift of singleness and recognize those who have it, and more sensitive toward those who struggle with their singleness. When all is said and done, we all are fellow strugglers on this journey of faith.

Sexual Honor In Marriage

This is sermon #16 from First Corinthians. I would develop some things further today, but the practicality what I said long ago still applies.

1 Corinthians 7:1-7

SEXUAL HONOR IN MARRIAGE

This sermon is for husbands and wives. I do not often focus a sermon so narrowly, but I do so this time for two reasons. The first is that this passage is about husbands and wives. The second is that husbands and wives today need to hear what God's Word says about a subject that is so relevant, as we saw in the last passage, in an X-rated world.

This passage of Scripture has been abused off and on in the church for 2000 years, so much so that some people think spiritual Christians see the human sexual relationship as some second-class, almost evil, activity –– as if sexual intercourse itself was part of the Fall.

The way the NIV translates the first verse does not help things, either. You see, the punctuation we so take for granted in our written texts was not part of the Greek manuscripts of the New Testament. We supply that as part of the translation, and translation relies a great deal on interpretation.

The first phrase of this passage tells us Paul is responding to something the Corinthians had written: Now for the matters you wrote about.... Then comes the next thing, which literally says, It is good for a man not to touch a woman. What it means is, "It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman."

Now one translation question is this (and it comes down to the interpretation of the whole passage): is Paul speaking here, or is he quoting something the Corinthians have said to him in their letter? I think the best translation would be: Now for the matters you wrote about: "It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman."

To put the whole thing in context, there were some Christian wives at Corinth who applied the concept of being "spiritual" in an extreme way –– so extreme that they were not having sexual relations with their husbands. Sex was part of this temporal world, they said, and spiritual people do not need such. The husbands, in turn, were going to the temple prostitutes (the subject of the preceding paragraph).

Understood this way, the whole passage makes more sense. And even more, understood this way, Paul is correcting a view of sexuality that some in the church have tried to hang on him for all these years. It is important that we grasp this. It is good for us that the Corinthians had this problem, for it caused Paul to give us a Christian view of the sexual relationship of Christian husbands and wives. That is very important for us as we live in a culture that makes sexuality such a big thing. What is the Christian response? God's answer to our sexuality is marriage.

First, though, I need to give a few qualifiers. Marriage is not merely a license for sexual pleasure. Neither is the mere fact of a marriage a guarantee of a good sex life. If the act of marriage was an entrance into a magic world where everyone was satisfied and happy, there would be no affairs. We would not hear songs on the radio with words like,

Oh, it's sad to belong to someone else

when the right one comes along.

What should marriage be? What does it imply, sexually speaking? Can long-term marriage work any more? Can a person have a great sex life over the years with the same spouse? Are these questions that Christians should be asking? Does God care about the sex life of a husband and wife?

Let's try to get some perspective. The Bible tells us that God created humans as a special category: So God created Man in his own image (Gen. 1:27). And the same verse says God created us sexually: male and female he created them. That sexuality was given expression before the Fall: God blessed them and said to them, 'Be fruitful and increase in number' (Gen. 1:28). It was after that creation of male and female, and the command to procreate, that God's assessment is given: God saw all that he had made, and it was very good (Gen. 1:31).

Yes, the Fall changed things. Sin coming into our world caused relational breakdown. I do not know all it means, but part of the curse on Eve was: Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you (Gen. 3:16b). I think that is why women have been given the short end of things throughout history; but because it is part of the curse, I think it is something that Jesus has undone through his death, and part of extending his kingdom means husband and wife mutuality.

Now let's get back to Paul and his words to the Corinthians about husbands and wives. In short, he says there is to be full sexuality in marriage. Specifically, he says that three different ways –– each with increasing implication. The first is v2: Each man should have his own wife, and each woman should have her own husband. The second is in v3: The husband should give to his wife her due, likewise the wife.... to her husband. The third is in v4: The wife does not have authority over her own body, but her husband does. Likewise, the husband does not have authority over his own body, but his wife does.

The language here is totally sexual. In v2, "have his/her own" is biblical usage for sexual relations (Ex. 2:1; Deut. 28:30; Isa. 13:16). And the words, "each should" means that Paul thinks marriage is the usual thing for people in the Christian community, and not the exception.

Why get married? One reason is for the sexual relationship. In my pre-marital counseling I tell young men and women that if the desire to give physical pleasure to the other is not part of their reason for marriage, they should not get married. Paul says such pleasure is a married person's "duty."

Now this doesn't mean it is something over which you grit your teeth and endure. The old story of a mother telling her daughter on her wedding day to "just bear it" is not a Christian view of sexuality and marriage. It is, instead, an affirmation that marriage means a sexual relationship. Jesus said, For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh (Mk 10:7,8a). And what is the reason? They are male and female. Sexual.

Sex is good. God made it that way. Read the Scriptures. The wisdom writer said in Proverbs, ...rejoice in the wife of your youth...may her breasts satisfy you always... may you ever be captivated by her love (5: 18,19). That sounds like physical pleasure to me. It is sexual excitement continuing throughout the marriage.

And it is not just from the man's point of view. Read the Song of Solomon. The woman in that Bible lesson knew what sexual passion was. I often point out in pre-marital counseling that it is the woman who is endowed with a sexual organ that has no other purpose than physical pleasure.

What Paul says in v4 may cause a bit of consternation in our day of self rights and independence: in marriage, a person does not own his or her own body. Another thing I tell couples in pre-marital counseling is that they are giving their lives away. If you are not ready for that –– if you do not love or trust that other person that much –– you are are not ready for marriage.

There is a reason for that. It is such a level of love and trust that makes sex work over the long-run of a committed marriage. Sex in marriage is a special gift. You are giving to one other special person what you cannot really give to another. Marriage is giving yourself away. Sex is a celebration of giving yourself away to someone you love and trust that much. Sex is a celebration of receiving abandoned pleasure from someone who loves and trusts you that much. When you give your body away like that, there is no shame –– it's like recapturing a bit of Eden. When you can trust to give your body away like that, there is no greater earthly exhilaration.

I hope you are hearing some implications, but just to be sure I will be specific. Sex in marriage is not a matter of demanding what is due you or giving what is expected and required by the very concept of marriage. Sex is not just physical acts of pleasure. A husband will not be satisfied by a wife who is passive and "lets him." A wife will not be satisfied by a husband who thinks good sex is a matter of pressing a few magic buttons at just the right time.

Satisfying sex is knowing a sense of fullness and happiness inside after the physical part is over. A pop song from years back that said something good was, "after the loving, I'm still in love with you." There is a fulfillment that comes when a husband and wife have given and received in ways that trust and self-worth are enhanced.

Have you ever thought that a spouse's opinion can be either the most exhilarating or the most crushing thing in the world? Husbands, we have the power to make our wives feel like the most beautiful woman in the world. Wives, you can make your husbands feel as though he is God's special gift to the world. It is out of that kind of relationship that great sex happens –– not because it is the goal, but because the sexual relationship is best when it is a celebration of life between a husband and wife who are totally given to each other.

How can that happen? I am going to focus my comments even more narrowly. Husbands, if we want our marriages to be so good that we are not enticed by this X-rated world, there are things we can do to help our wives love us like perhaps we never thought possible.

(The same is true for wives, but I would prefer a good wife to tell other wives what to do –– or wives can make their own applications, which is better than making an expectation list for their husbands from what I say.)

Someone has said the best four-letter word for sex is "talk." That is where I would ask husbands to begin. A grunt or two during supper is not enough for a husband to give a wife. Some husbands operate under the assumption once expressed by Archie Bunker to Edith: "I told you once that I loved you, and if I ever change my mind I'll let you know." It is not enough to only "show" your love by all the things you do. Tell her.

Sexuality is one part of a relationship, and relationships need people relating to one another. A wife needs real conversation. She thrives when she sees her husband simply enjoying her presence. A wife needs to hear thankfulness for the small things. How often do husbands take for granted the meals and the laundry which are so faithfully done? Yes, we each have our jobs to do, but no one likes to be treated with presumption –– as if she'll always be there. The way things are today, she might not be if someone else notices and you do not.

Another key to relationships is time. It takes time to talk, and most of us need to plan for quality time. Leftovers is not enough, even if it happens that way (and it probably won't). I have recently been trying to "date" again –– plan a meal out every week or two, drive to her work-place once a week for Libby's lunch break, send love notes and buy special cards to let her know how special she is to love me so much. Libby and I try to have an overnight away every couple of months or so; she can forget other demands more easily if she's away from them.

Relationships mean learning about the other person. People like to feel important, and wives need to feel like the most important person in the world in the eyes of their husbands. Don't buy your wife only what you would like for her to have; find out what she likes and get it for her. Think of her feelings and hopes –– and you can do that only if you have learned who she is on the inside.

Husbands need to learn some things about female physiology. We men have one sexual hormone to drive us on our way; women have several hormones that are on sometimes and off sometimes. If men's hormones worked like women's, we would have a week when our beards would grow like crazy, and then suddenly quit for a few weeks. When a wife says she does not feel good, believe her and know her well enough to know even without asking what you can do for her to make her feel loved.

Don't wait for an anniversary or a birthday. Do something special for your wife, and then tell her, "it's just because you are so wonderful, and I love you." Watch a TV show she likes with her, and then let her tell you what she likes about it.

There is one thing I have found to help me keep this in perspective, and to keep me motivated in my marriage relationship: I think about what my wife has done--she has given her life to me.... she trusts me.... she gives me the gift of herself (the most precious thing she can give), and only asks that I treat such a gift with the reverence it deserves.

Reverence –– it's not only for God –– is also for that special one God brings into your life. And let me just mention one thing that is grossly irreverent: husbands who belittle their wives. You have heard it or seen it. A look that says her idea is absurd, or actually speaking of any weakness she has in front of others. So often it is to make the husband look good (smarter, in better shape or whatever) in contrast to his wife, when in fact a man doing that to his wife causes him to look like a clod.

Do you know what comes out of a relationship where there is caring and reverence? Passionate love. A love that cares.... a love that wants to be reciprocal. It's a love that nothing in an X-rated world can match.

But what about marriages that are not that way? First of all, do all you can to take them in that direction. But this world is not ideal. Not everyone will have this kind of marriage. Does that mean one is then free to look elsewhere for it? If a wife or husband does not give to the other all that the one hopes, is that justification for sexual looseness? You know the answer.

As wonderful as marital sex can be, that is not our ultimate fulfillment. God has given us an incredible gift with marriage and sexual relationships. But it is that –– a gift from God, and the gift cannot be more important than the Giver. When we try to do that, the gift is no longer a gift –– it is something stolen, and that brings fear and guilt and emptiness.

Later in this chapter Paul will give some godly instructions for when it doesn't happen ideally. But for today, the word is for those who are married and wanting to make it work. We need to know God has given us our sexuality to help us celebrate life and love and the gift of one to another. There are things we need to do to keep it real and alive, but the God who has given us such a gift wants to be in our lives helping us love in a way that our marriage will be all that he wants it to be. Husband and wife, are you doing your part? It can happen this very day.

Do you know how? Maybe some of you need to go home and find a private place to apologize. Some of you may need to be vulnerable enough to say that you have hurt for a long time over something that was said or done, but that along with the hurt you also ache for a love and closeness that is not there right now. Others may need to say to their spouse, "I want to love you this way, but I don't know how. Will you help me?" In some situations, neither husband or wife will know how, but you know you want it to be better. Come talk to me or one of the other pastoral staff. If we can't help, we will find someone who can.

I do not need to elaborate on the sad condition of many marriages in our society. God has something better than that for his people who are married. Can you believe it? Can you believe your marriage can be a joyful refuge from all the sexual frustration and immorality in our world? It can be, because God has designed it that way. Ask him to make it gloriously true for you.

Thinking About Death

Our culture does all it can to avoid death issues. Christians have hope in the face of death, but even "popular Christianity" seems too often to go for the fluff.

Death has been part of my consciousness for years. In my formative days I heard preaching described as "a dying man talking to dying people," and that shaped my approach to declaring the Scriptures for three decades.

This morning's Office of Readings has a wonderful selection from St. Ambrose, the Church Father from the fourth century:

The Lord allowed death to enter this world so that sin might come to an end. But he gave us the resurrection of the dead so that our nature might not end, and the resurrection was to enable our nature to continue for ever.

"Death" in this context is a passover to be made by all mankind. You must keep facing it with perseverance. It is a passover from corruption, from mortality to immortality, from rough seas to a calm harbor. The word "death" must not trouble us; the blessings that come from a safe journey should bring us joy. What is death but the burial of sin and the resurrection of goodness?

Here is a saying you can depend on: If we have died with him, we shall also live with him; if we suffer with him, we shall also reign with him (2 Tim 2:11,12)

Think about it!

Christians in an X-rated World

This is sermon #15 from my long-ago First Corinthians series. It was written, if you can imagine, before the Internet was such a common presence in our homes. If the battle for sexual purity was intense when I wrote this about 20 years ago (and it was), then how much more today. Satan has a highway from hell that comes straight into our computers if we open the gate. Please don't do it!

1 Corinthians 6:12-20

CHRISTIANS IN AN X-RATED WORLD

This is not a subject I gladly come to in a sermon. One of the advantages, though, of preaching through a book of the Bible is that one takes what comes; there is little chance of riding a favorite hobby horse, nor, if one is honest, avoiding some of the hard things we read in the Scriptures.

The next several sermons will focus on some facet of sexuality. That is good, because we need a word from God about our sexuality. We are sexual. We are male and female, and that affects the way we think and act with one another in this world. We are all the more affected because this world is fallen, and the fall has distorted our sexuality. We need a word from God.

At the same time, this is a hard subject to address. It can be depressing. It can be disgusting. It is hard for me to know when I have said enough or too much. Some of you may have opposite opinions, some thinking I did say too much while others feel the need for even more explicitness.

We live in our own Corinth today. Corinth was an X-rated world when Paul wrote this. William Barclay quotes an early Greek, Demosthenes, saying:

“We keep prostitutes for pleasure; we keep mistresses for the day to day needs of the body; we keep wives for the begetting of children and for the faithful guardianship of our homes." So long as a man supported his wife and family there was no shame whatsoever in extra-marital affairs.

That was the moral climate in which the Corinthian Christians lived. That was the attitude Paul was calling to holiness.

We live in our own Corinth. I remember going quite regularly to one of the local drug-stores when I was about thirteen to browse through the monthly issues of Playboy and Cavalier. That caused no little struggle when I surrendered to Jesus, and later, even in my marriage. Back then it was nude women in mostly demure positions with a wisp of fabric strategically placed so that the genitals were concealed. That was over 25 years ago.

Today one can go into a store that sells "adult magazines" and be confronted with myriads of titles, some of which cannot be repeated in public by decent people. Inside these magazines today you will find full male and female nudity. And they do not stop with mere nudity; there are simulated sex scenes of men with women and women with women, portraying manual and oral fondling of genitals. Such magazines are openly displayed in many small towns in our country.

And not just magazines –– one can also rent videos that do not stop at simulation. These videos offer any kind of sexual variation the fallen mind can concoct: straight, lesbian, oral, anal, and all kinds of combinations. And the reason those things are available is because people (many and all kinds of people) rent them. Some people who go to church look at such regularly.

I talked with a Christian psychological counselor. He told me that he sees little difference in the lives of professing Christians who come to him compared to non-Christians. People who come to see him are sleeping around outside of marriage, feeding on pornography, and getting involved in extra-marital and homosexual affairs. He told me of a ten-year-old boy who is already sexually active.

There are phone numbers where a person can call and either get a recording of a woman detailing what she would do if she were there or a live conversation willing to lead in any fantasy the caller wants to pursue. I read of two boys, thirteen and fourteen, and an eleven-year-old girl who called one of those numbers. Following the phone call the boys forced the girl to do all the things they had just heard.

Young people today are afraid to admit they are virgins –– if they are! Virginity is jokingly called the horrible disease that comes with a simple cure. Sex is used to sell any and everything in magazine ads and on TV. Calvin Klein jeans advertisements have half-nude men and women in suggestive poses, and I do not mention this one brand because it stands alone. Everywhere we look our culture is obsessed and reeling with sexual immorality. That is what Paul is talking about here in I Corinthians 6.

In v13 we find the body is not meant for sexual immorality and in v18 flee from sexual immorality. The Greek word is porneia, which means prostitution or any other sexual wrong. It's the basis for our word, pornography. I am sorry for being so explicit about the kinds of things that are around us today, but if I merely talk about sexual immorality in a general kind of way, many would not know how stark and pervasive it is, and some who do (among whom are our youth) would yawn and tune out one more predictable morality lecture.

There are two reasons why this sermon is necessary. The first is that sexuality is so powerful. Don't think those advertisers do not know what they are doing. There is something about sex that grabs our attention and holds it. Don't think the people who produce and market pornography do not know that once a person gets hooked, he or she wants more and more. Don't think, young person, that you are the exception –– that you can be alone with a girl or boy friend in a compromising situation and not be tempted beyond your ability to say no. Don't think, married man or woman, that you can feed that fantasy of another person and come out unscathed. And let's not any of us think we can uncritically absorb the stuff that comes at us through the media without our moral fibre breaking down. We live in Corinth! Ours is an X-rated world.

Sexuality is even more powerful because of the lies that we use to rationalize wrong behaviors. That was one thing Paul recognized in the Corinthians. One was the line of argument in v13: food for the stomach and the stomach for food. The Greek view of life at that time regarded sexual activity as just as natural, necessary and justifiable as eating and drinking. Sexual abstinence was regarded as unnatural and even harmful. "If it feels good, do it."

That line of thought obviously has not died. Some secular psychologists and sociologists today try to say that sexual suppression causes mental illness and social inhibitions with resulting frustration, and even violence. Don't you think it is odd that we have far more frustration and violence today when sexual freedom runs rampant than a hundred years ago in what is today sneeringly called "Victorian prudishness?"

Another lie Paul had to deal with was a perversion of the gospel. He starts his comments in v12 with something the Corinthians were saying to justify their immorality: everything is permissible for me. Is a Christian free to do any and everything? Does Christian profession and baptism mean you can sleep around and feed on pornography and yet get by with it? Paul asked the same question of the Romans: Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? His answer was, "By no means! How can people who have died to sin continue to live in it?"

Another variation of the Corinthians' rationalizing was the idea that what they did with their bodies did not matter. The body was temporal anyway, and what mattered was what was on the inside. It took Paul to remind them that what is on the inside is seen by what happens on the outside. Those who have hearts for God in the inside act like it on the outside.

New lies come up –– things that Paul does not explicitly mention (but you might be surprised at how much is here for those who are willing to see!). One subject today that is rife with lies is “freedom.” The foundation of "pro-choice" is that we should be free to do with our bodies whatever we choose. Of course it is mostly connected with women and abortion, but it goes beyond that. "It's my body" and "reproductive freedom" means she is free to sleep around with whomever without reaping the full fruit of the action. For the homosexual, "freedom" means the right to have sex apart from the laws of nature (which by the way are consistent with the moral laws of the Creator). Such thinking does not want to consider what "freedom" would mean for the man who desires young children.

Whatever else our culture might call these things, God's Word calls it porneia –– a prostitution of what God meant when he created sexuality. The problem is that when human culture rejects God's truth, there is no truth. That is yet another lie: there is no absolute right or wrong. The culture tries to say that sex is the same as love. Men say to women, "If you love me you'll do it." Women do it hoping desperately that along with the heat of passion they will get a bit of tenderness and true care. Men and women keep doing it, believing that more is better. We judge each other by our bodies, believing the lie that a perfect body will give perfect satisfaction, and that physical satisfaction is the most important thing in the world. We are told the excitement can’t last with the same old person; it is assumed that “looking” certainly won’t hurt anything. The goal is “safe sex,” and that only means a condom. We never hear anything about sex that is wrong. All such attitudes are what the Bible calls porniea –– sexual immorality.

I read a cartoon that was far more pointed than funny. A boy was asking his grandfather, “Gee Granddad, your generation didn’t have all these social diseases. What did you wear to have safe sex?” The grandfather’s wise reply was, “A wedding ring.”

There is a reason why sexual practices are getting worse and worse. It is because people are trying to find satisfaction through the physical sensation of sex. Sex that is cut off from a committed and lasting relationship is doomed to hurt and frustration. When physical sex is all you have, you have nothing when it is over. People who live for “now” find that it doesn’t last.

This is not to say that sex cannot be wonderful. If not, it could not have the power it does. When we come to the next section in this Corinthian letter we find human sexuality as God meant it to be. Yet even before that, we need to know who we are. It is when we know and believe the truth about ourselves and God that things like human sexuality begin to fall into the right place.

The first thing we need to know is that our bodies are not our own (v19b). None of us had anything to do with being here. God is behind every conception as well as our particular characteristics. Speaking under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, David wrote:

For you created my inmost being;

you knit me together in my mother’s womb.

I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made;

your works are wonderful, I know full well.

My frame was not hidden from you

when I was made in the secret place.

When I was woven together in the depths of the earth,

your eyes saw my unformed body.

All the days ordained for me were written in your book

before one of them came to be (Psa 139:13–16).

Not only is God our Creator, he is our Redeemer. He bought us with the blood of his Son, so Paul says you were bought at a price (v20a). The reason God did this was so his Spirit would be free to live inside us. This is our hope of fulfillment –– a hope realized: your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit.... (v19).

It matters what we do with these bodies of ours. We cannot use our bodies for immorality without it affecting our inner person. The people Paul was writing to were going to prostitutes for physical gratification. It was an accepted part of their culture (culture is never an excuse for illicit behavior). Prostitution was part of pagan temple worship. Prostitutes were readily available, and the Corinthian Christians easily could have said, “everyone does it.”

For us today the issue is greater than one dimension of immorality. This word porneia means any prostitution of sexuality –– any use of sexuality other than what God has intended and sanctioned. It means that sleeping around before marriage is a prostitution of sexuality. It means filling your mind with images of people misusing sexuality so that your desires are both warped and inflamed is a prostitution of sexuality. Christians are not to behave that way.

Why? Because if we are Christians we belong to Jesus. Our bodies belong to Jesus, and what we do belongs to Jesus. When we sin these ways we are sinning against a body that belongs to Jesus. We cannot embrace sexual immorality and Jesus at the same time. Those who try to do so find that God is serious about this.

God hates sexual immorality. Do you believe this? When you see the seductive scenes on TV, does something in you say this would make you happy? When you see the sensual magazines on the rack, can you remember there is a coiled snake ready to strike? When a passing encounter seems so inviting, are you tempted to see how far it might go?

God wants people who will honor him in every way. The final word here is: honor God with your body. Is that your covenant? God’s way is for our eyes to see only what the Holy Spirit wants us to see. God’s way is for your body to be held only by the one with whom you make a life-long commitment. God’s way is not to use your body except in those ways that honor the Lord who died to make you holy.

Hear these words as J. B. Phillips captured them:

The calling of God is not to impurity, but to the most thorough purity, and anyone who makes light of the matter is not making light of a man’s ruling but of God’s command. It is not for nothing that the Spirit God gives us is called the Holy Spirit (1Thess 4).

As you live in an X-rated world, remember who you are.

Tongue Twister

As I drove a long commute yesterday I was thinking about how people talk about others. How easy it is to tarnish another person by relaying an incident nursed by our own hurt. How easy it is to judge another’s motives (when we have no idea what the other person was thinking or intending). How easy it is to bring someone else into an issue when he or she is neither part of the problem nor the solution. How easy it is to believe (and spread) the worst. How easy it is to say something that builds sympathy for ourselves by denigrating someone else.

James warns: You must understand this, my beloved: let everyone be quick to listen, slow to speak, slow to anger; for your anger does not produce God’s righteousness.... If any think they are religious, and do not bridle their tongues but deceive their hearts, their religion is worthless.

Paul gives the positive spin in the context of love: Love is patient; love is kind; love is not envious or boastful or arrogant or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice in wrongdoing, but rejoices in the truth. It bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.

If we cannot build another up, can we refrain from tearing a person down? Hear the wisdom of James again:

For all of us make many mistakes. Anyone who makes no mistakes in speaking is perfect, able to keep the whole body in check with a bridle. If we put bits into the mouths of horses to make them obey us, we guide their whole bodies. Or look at ships: though they are so large that it takes strong winds to drive them, yet they are guided by a very small rudder wherever the will of the pilot directs. So also the tongue is a small member, yet it boasts of great exploits.

How great a forest is set ablaze by a small fire! And the tongue is a fire. The tongue is placed among our members as a world of iniquity; it stains the whole body, sets on fire the cycle of nature, and is itself set on fire by hell. For every species of beast and bird, of reptile and sea creature, can be tamed and has been tamed by the human species, but no one can tame the tongue—a restless evil, full of deadly poison. With it we bless the Lord and Father, and with it we curse those who are made in the likeness of God. From the same mouth come blessing and cursing. My brothers and sisters, this ought not to be so. Does a spring pour forth from the same opening both fresh and brackish water? Can a fig tree, my brothers and sisters, yield olives, or a grapevine figs? No more can salt water yield fresh.

Who is wise and understanding among you? Show by your good life that your works are done with gentleness born of wisdom. But if you have bitter envy and selfish ambition in your hearts, do not be boastful and false to the truth. Such wisdom does not come down from above, but is earthly, unspiritual, devilish. For where there is envy and selfish ambition, there will also be disorder and wickedness of every kind. But the wisdom from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, willing to yield, full of mercy and good fruits, without a trace of partiality or hypocrisy.

Doing Wrong and Being Wronged

This is sermon #14 from my First Corinthians series. The opening context is my pastoral identity of twenty years ago, but the core issue is for all Christians at all times. Perhaps I was too restrictive with the options, but Paul was writing at a time when the options were few: be radical for Jesus or deny Him. Two thousand years of church history have complicated things a bit, especially a Christian's relationship with the civil sphere. Yet we still need followers of Jesus who are radical (which is not the same as fanatical, although the world will make the accusation). I would still say today that the main point(s) here are faithful to true Christian commitment.

1 Corinthians 6:1-11

DOING WRONG AND BEING WRONGED

Obedience is a very important issue in the life of a Christian. Obedience has played a key role in the identity of the Brethren in Christ Church; the title of the definitive history is aptly called A Quest For Piety And Obedience. Obedience is the correct human response to God's commands. That is one clear emphasis in the Bible.

Now if the Bible gives us God's commands, and if the Bible entreats obedience, it is only natural that a people with a concern for pleasing God find those things that are commanded in the Bible and do them –– or not do them, in the case of prohibitions. That was essentially the attitude of the Brethren in Christ Church over most of its history.

A bit later in I Corinthians we will see Paul saying that the women should cover their heads, so Brethren in Christ women devised a covering. In other places Paul extended in his letters the cultural greeting of his day, the holy kiss. The Brethren in Christ made the holy kiss a practice, and defined it as such in their Manual. Jesus took the part of a servant with his disciples and washed their feet after walking the dirt roads of Judea in sandals, and he said his disciples should follow him and wash one another’s feet. The Brethren in Christ simply obeyed and turned feet washing almost into a sacrament.

Now I have said all of that to say the obvious: The clear point in this passage is that Christians should not take each other to court. Is this another simple command that is to be simply obeyed? That is as far as some Christians would take it. We might wish all Christians would simply do that much, but if that is all one sees here it is no wonder that the church has trouble with obedience.

The passage is clear enough –– there is an issue of obedience, and people in the church had best be aware of it and practice it. But again, is that all there is to obedience? Do we simply read the law and concur? A good understanding of Paul and New Testament theology will cause one to say no; simple obedience is not all there is to good Christian response.

Paul is strong in these verses. If I developed and preached this chapter with the same tone Paul is using you would feel as if I were a blast furnace. That is not to say, of course, that I am not prepared to state the truth without equivocation. We desperately need what this chapter says, but we do not need it merely as a law to be obeyed. That is not what Paul is doing; it's just that we are so far removed from the occasion of the letter that we must constantly step back to see the bigger context. Paul gets to it as he concludes, but we need it as we begin.

Go back in your minds, if not in your Bibles, to the opening words of the first chapter. There Paul identifies the people to whom he is writing this letter. He is writing to the church...to those sanctified in Christ Jesus...and called to be holy (v2). He goes on to affirm our testimony about Christ was confirmed in you (v6). And because of that he expected certain things of them: He will keep you strong to the end, so that you will be blameless on the day of our Lord Jesus Christ (v8). Was this a confidence he had in the Corinthians themselves? No! So how could he hope such a thing? God, who has called you into fellowship with his Son, Jesus Christ our Lord, is faithful(v9).

Maybe you remember the two words used to describe what Paul is talking about throughout this letter –– the indicative and the imperative. If you do not remember, an indicative states something; it "indicates" what is. An imperative statement, in contrast, is a command. For Paul (and for us, and all other Christians), the indicative precedes the imperative. The reason we obey an imperative is because of the reason behind the command, which is the indicative.

Maybe you remember a ridiculous example I gave. An indicative statement would be: All smart people eat sardines. Follow that with an imperative by a parent who wishes his child to excel in academics: you must eat sardines. The point is lost, though, if the indicative statement, "all smart people eat sardines," does not come first. The imperative makes sense only as it is based on the indicative.

Now to be sure, Paul gives a strong imperative here in this chapter –– but that is not where we begin. We should never begin with the imperative. To begin with the command is to take obedience out of its context. The Christian life is not lived by obeying laws. That is drudgery. It is defeating, for we can never obey the laws good enough to escape guilt. Turning Christianity into laws makes it harsh and ugly. It also makes it deadly, for it gives no life to those who would try to do it that way, and it turns the watching world away from us because the gospel is distorted and hidden. Before there can be any imperatives, we must understand and embrace the indicatives.

Paul alludes to the indicatives over and over. They are implicit in everything he commands. But if we are to get to the heart of obedience, we must eat, sleep and breathe the basic things that are true which make obedience worthwhile and relevant. As I said, they are implicit here, but I need to make them explicit for us.

I want to identify three things Paul says in this chapter, and show how the indicative and the imperative work in each. The three things here can be called:

I. An Avoidance of World Courts

II. An Acceptance of Wrong-suffering

III. An Aversion to Wrong-doing

In vs 1-6 we find Paul exhorting an avoidance of world courts. The whole section is written with the most biting sarcasm anywhere in the letter, and its one intent is to drive home an imperative: Christians shouldn't take other Christians to secular court. I could stop here with cries and laments over the times people in the church at large have not obeyed this, but that would not be helpful. We need more than straightforward commands.

What we need are the indicatives that give the reason for such a command –– and we need to embrace those indicatives so that they mold the way we think. The actions we choose to do are always based on our understanding of reality and truth, and so wrong actions come from a wrong understanding of what is really true. There are indicative reasons Christians should not take other Christians to court, and if we truly believe those indicatives we will not choose to take such an action. On the other hand, those who do choose to act in such a way do not really understand or believe the indicatives.

What are those indicatives? Paul gives them here implicitly. The basis of everything he says in vs1-6 lies in the different world-view a Christian has. The non-believer looks out on this world and thinks it is the sum total of reality. A Christian, on the other hand, sees this world but knows that another unseen world must also be taken into consideration, and is indeed the greater part of reality. The choice is between this present visible world and the kingdom of God. And the contrast is so great that one cannot believe and act on both at the same time.

Consider just a few of the ways the Bible describes and contrasts the two (and remember we are looking at indicatives here –– things that are):

PRESENT VISIBLE WORLD vs KINGDOM OF GOD

seen / unseen

passing / abiding

apparent reality / true reality

death / life

foolish / wise

Man-centered / God-centered

material / spiritual

outer appearance / inner heart

wicked / just

lose by winning / win by losing

selfish / giving

retaliate / forgive

hoard / give

indulgent / controlled

The list could go on, but you get the idea –– there is a different perspective at work. Christians are people who believe the kingdom of God is real, so that they try to live that way.

Now Paul's point is rather simple: Why should Christians, who live out the perspective of the kingdom of God, go to secular courts which are based on the way of thinking of this present world? That is his point in v4 (where in the NIV, the alternate translation in the footnote is better): do you appoint as judges men of little account in the church?

In other words, why go to a judge who, in the eyes of the church, understands so little and makes his decisions by standards Christians abandoned when they saw the truth of the kingdom of God? In fact, if we really believe this world is passing away, the very ones who now pose as judges in the world system will be the ones who are judged by Christ and his saints (vs2,3). And how absurd it is for us who have the greater understanding to go to people who understand so little.

Now if this is a concept almost foreign to us, it only shows how far we are from the kind of understanding Paul assumed as basic for Christians to truly live as Christians in this world. But that is not the only thing that shows the need for us to understand who we are and what it means in everyday life.

A second thing that Paul encourages (or, if you prefer, commands) is an acceptance of wrong-suffering (v7,8). We must remember this imperative is based on particular facets of the indicative of the kingdom of God. The imperative (we might even be tempted to call it the idiotic imperative) is in v7b: be willing to be wronged and be willing to be cheated.

Maybe you wonder if this is hyperbole. Is Paul serious? I can tell you a story of one man who believed Paul was, indeed, serious. One of the names in Brethren in Christ history is that of a Canadian farmer, Lafayette Shoalts. According to Morris Sider, the reigning historian of the Brethren in Christ, told me this story some years ago. It seems that Farmer Shoalts had an ornery neighbor who insisted the fence bordering their property was two feet over on his side. So Brother Lafayette hired a surveyor to come and determine the right boundary. After that was established, he moved the fence two feet over on his own side. Hiring the surveyor, giving up a running two feet of property, moving the fence.... all at his expense.... Mr. Lafayette Shoalts knew what it meant to be willing to be wronged. He also knew what it meant to be a disciple of Jesus.

Some would say that just doesn’t make sense, and they would be right –– from the perspective of this present world. The reality of the kingdom of God says something different, though. The kingdom of God has what we might call here an inverted indicative.

Look at the first part of v7: the very fact that you have lawsuits means you have been completely defeated already. The reason a person goes to court is to win. The inverted indicative says if your priority is that of winning, you are already a loser. The flip side of that, the kingdom perspective, is that people who choose to embrace losing are actually the winners. It’s the way of the cross. Jesus won by losing. He is alive because he died. He knew that winning in this world is not winning because it does not last.

When the church has believed this and lived it, the world has looked on in wonder. This is a passage that strikes at the heart of our values. It puts the light of God on a love of money and materialism. The only way we can be willing to be cheated and suffer wrong without retaliation is when we see this passing world in contrast to the reality of God’s kingdom. Can we live in the reality of what Paul will later say in 7:31 –– this world in its present form is passing away.

Peter and John had that perspective when they met the cripple beggar on the way to the temple (Acts 3). Peter made it clear that material was not the priority when he said, “Silver or gold I do not have, but what I have I give to you.” Representing the power of the kingdom that is unseen, Peter pulled the man to his feet and told him to walk.

People who follow Jesus with abandon believe what Jesus modeled is true –– that we actually win by losing, and they act on what they believe. This could be called an identifying indicative. What we do identifies what we truly believe. The problem with the Corinthians was that they were not acting out of the perspective of faith in the kingdom.

Instead of accepting wrong-suffering, they were committing the very thing that is the antithesis of God’s people. That is why Paul gives them a third exhortation: an aversion to wrong-doing (vs9–11). Someone in the church was unwilling to suffer wrong so he was going to court over it, and someone else in the church had caused it! Paul gives an intercepting indicative at this point ––he wants all the church to know one thing: the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God (v9).

Hear this in context. Remember all that has come before. It is not that God accepts people who do not do wicked things and rejects those who do. This is not a self-action program to get people in or out of the kingdom. Paul is not putting a performance rule on salvation. He is saying once again that the people of God will not have lives characterized by certain behaviors precisely because they are God’s people.

The list in vs9,10 is not meant to be exhaustive. It is not a full catalogue of sins. Yet the ones mentioned are clear enough. This is not the focus of this sermon, but I want to highlight briefly two things. The first is the observation that God’s Word is quite clear about homosexual behavior. In a world where even some in the church-at-large are calling for embracing this increasingly “popular” disorder, the warning stands that there is no place in God’s kingdom for such. The second thing I call to your attention are some of the other sins: greed, drunkenness and slander. People whose lives are marked by these are in the same category as homosexual behavior and other sexual immorality. Embracing sinful behavior is just that –– there is no hierarchy of sins.

But to make sure the Corinthians know how he truly sees them, Paul reminds them of an intervening indicative. Yes, once they had been among those whose lives were marked by sexual immorality, homosexual activity, greed and drunkenness, but you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God (v11).

That is the gospel. There is a kingdom. There is another reality, unseen by the natural eye. The entry to that kingdom has been provided by God himself. His Son has gone the way before us. He has shown that one can be wronged and things still come out right. He has shown that death itself can bring life. He has made it possible for our sins to be forgiven. He has given us his Spirit so we can understand what cannot be clearly seen. He has set us apart so that we are not like the rest of the world, and he calls us to become brand new people. All these things are already true. They are God’s intervening indicative. They make God’s people different.

That difference always carries an implied imperative. Sometimes the imperative is more than implied. Sometimes it stands out so strongly that it’s like the commandments of Sinai thundering over our heads. But behind the imperatives, whatever they are, lie the indicative truths of what God has done –– and who we are if we are his people.

What that means is that when we are given a choice in our everyday lives –– something like either doing wrong or suffering wrong –– we will choose to suffer wrong instead of doing wrong. It’s because we are people who believe in the One who won by losing, the One who died but is now alive, whose kingdom is forever.

Sin in the Church!

Sermon #13 from the First Corinthians series:

1 Corinthians 5:1-13

SIN IN THE CHURCH!

Church life does not often hit the Associated Press lines, and when it does it is not usually good news. Some time ago a story appeared about a woman bringing a lawsuit against her church for defamation of character. She had been involved in an extra-marital affair, and the church she was in publicized her sin and put her out of the church. She said the church had humiliated her, and that her private life was no concern of the church's.

What should be the church's response to sin in a member's life? Some churches try to maintain a rigid standard of purity. They pull away from other Christian bodies and set up a list of rules to safeguard holiness. They are visibly conspicuous in the world, but the one thing that often stands out is self-righteousness. Years ago there was a notorious incident in Mechanicsburg where a man was shunned and his wife wouldn't eat at the same table with him. Is that what Paul is talking about here?

Other churches have decided that is not the right response. They see discipline as harsh and unloving. Any move toward discipline is stereotyped as a witch hunt. The trouble with this response is that the people of such churches are seldom different from the world at all. There is no standard of holiness, which makes one wonder how such a church is different from any other social club. What is the church, anyway?

In this fifth chapter of First Corinthians we have a record of sin in the church. We also have God's Word through Paul of what to do about it. A casual reading explains why some churches zealously go after sinning members and practice shunning, but there is more than that here.

A general observation that becomes very important is Paul's emphasis as he deals with the situation. He gives little time and space to the sin and the sinner. He gets far more exercised with the church and its attitudes. We do not give enough thought to what the church is and what we are here for. It is only in that context that we begin to understand what the response should be when there is sin in the church.

When sin is in the church how do we handle it? The answer here is, with authority. When sin is in the church, why do anything? The answer here is, for authenticity. When sin is in the church, what should be the expected result? The answer here is, a visible alternative.

How do we handle sin in the church? With authority. “Authority” has become a bad word in our culture, and it is especially suspect in the church. There is a pervasive mood that no one has a right to tell anyone else what is right or wrong, or what they can or cannot do. But in the overall context of what the church is, we need to do a better job of helping people understand that when they join the church they are putting themselves under a particular authority.

We say that in membership vows, but could it be those vows function as a mere initiatory rite –– something to be forgotten once we are "in?" Whatever the case, the authority is there, and discipline is inherent to authority. Paul is clear as to the source of the authority: I have pronounced judgment in the name of Jesus Christ (v4). The church's first identity is that of representing the actual presence of its Lord. We are to affirm or judge what Jesus would affirm or judge.

Of course there are stipulations to that, but the church today is in greater danger of under-using its authority than over-using it. This is not the only place where Paul used this language of discipline. Writing the second time to the church at Thessalonica (3:6), the authority of Jesus is named as the basis for corrective action. The question for us is to what extent we actually see the church as the physical, earthly presence of our Lord. Jesus told Peter that he was giving the church the authority to bind and loose on earth according to the realities of heaven (Matt. 16:18,19).

Still, the stipulations exist. The context for this judgment and discipline lies in the church –– not in the world. I'll say more on this later, but notice that the discipline is directed toward anyone who calls himself a brother (v11). The authority for discipline is only for those who have placed themselves under it –– members of the church. Any member of the church who persists in sinful behavior implicitly invites the disciplinary authority of the church.

And what is that discipline? Paul says it is expulsion (v2, 4-5, 7, 13). He says the same thing to the Thessalonians ("keep away" and "do not associate" 3:6,14). What does it mean when the church puts someone out?

The first thing it means is a removal from the identity of the church. The Christian church is exclusive. That is one of its offenses. Not any and everyone should have the privilege of belonging to the church. The church is a group of people who, together, find their identity in Jesus Christ. He is their Lord. Jesus is the most important person in their lives, and their expressed purpose is to follow him in discipleship. When anyone in the church lives as though those things are not true in his or her life, one of two things needs to change –– behavior or identity. If a sinning person will not change his behavior, then the church needs to change his identity. Thus Paul's word: Expel the wicked man from among you.

The second thing it means is a removal from the protection of the church. When a person is put out of the church, something else happens. With the instruction, hand this man over to Satan, the implication is that expelling someone from a church removes them from the protection of the church. Satan is called "the prince of this world" (Jn 12: 31), and when a person is put out of a church he or she is put back "into the world," which is Satan's jurisdiction.

Things work differently for people in the church than for people outside. People in the church are under the reign of God in a way those outside the church are not. The "principalities and powers" have full access to people outside the church; Christians have access to the armor of God (Eph 6). Feeling vulnerable to the full force of evil should make a person want the protection of the church, and putting a disobedient person in that position should heighten the issue of repentance and obedience.

The third thing it means is a removal from the fellowship of the church. The phrases here to imply this are "out of your fellowship," "not associate," and "do not even eat" (vs 2,9,11). This means the church should not act toward an erring person as though everything is fine. Fellowship implies approval, and people whose behavior is marked by disobedience need to sense the church's disapproval. One of the needs the church fills in our lives is a sense of belonging. The church cannot afford to give that to one whose actions deny and defy the church.

This does not necessarily mean "the cold shoulder." When Jesus gave the order for discipline (Matt. 18), he said to treat one who would not listen to the church as you would a pagan (18:17). And how should the church act toward a pagan? With love and with a call to repentance. Paul's word here, with such a man do not even eat (v11), may mean a calculated refusal to include him at the Lord's Table (Communion). It may mean as much as not being friendly and accepting at a fellowship (Agape) meal. What it probably does not mean is that the members of the church are to individually shun this man and treat him as if he has a plague. The action called for is by the church within the church, so for example, the incident where the wife would not eat at the same table with her husband at home is a gross exaggeration of the meaning here.

A fourth thing we need to acknowledge here is problems with trying to practice this at all. One problem is equity; we in the church have a problem treating all people and all sin the same. If it's a heavy contributor or the son of a deacon it's too easy to overlook the sin. Or if the sin is greed or slander, we do not seem to notice as we would if it is adultery or drunkenness.

Another problem is the fragmentation of the church. If a church does put someone out, he or she (and probably the whole extended family) just goes over to another congregation who welcomes them with open arms and asks no questions. The whole intent is then lost.

The biggest problem, though, is with the church. Churches that do discipline are seldom as hard on themselves as the ones they catch in sin. Before a church would take such a step, there should be tears and questions asking where we failed that the situation ever developed to the place it did. But to put this all in perspective, all of these former things come into focus when we start looking at how to handle sin in the church with any measure of authority.

Then there is the second question: Why do all of this? The answer is authenticity. It has to do with who a person is and what the church is.

It is right to put a disobedient person out of the church for his own sake. The tone throughout this chapter is redemptive. When the church disciplines someone, it is not giving the person false assurance. The church is saying, "You are not living like a Christian and so we cannot treat you like one." Paul implies that by saying a person in the church guilty of evil things only calls himself a brother (v11). In the next chapter he will affirm that people who do wicked things will [not] inherit the kingdom of God (6:10). The church should not give such people false assurance.

Another reason for discipline is given with the words so that the flesh may be destroyed, and his spirit saved... (v5). Some think this means a person's physical death is judgment for the sin, but that does not agree with anything in Paul, nor the general flow of New Testament theology. For this destruction to happen, the person is handed over to Satan. We saw earlier what that meant. It is to put a person in a situation where he is subject to the full repercussion of his choice. The other way to understand "flesh" here is "sinful nature" (as the NIV has translated it). Out in the world, buffeted by Satan, such a person may re-learn that, indeed, the sinful nature is death (Romans 8). If that lesson is truly learned and there is repentance, then the wayward person will again have assurance of spiritual life. Redemption is always the purpose of discipline.

Earlier in my ministry I was in a church that took discipline seriously. On one occasion a woman began to get involved with a man who had recently left his wife because of her mental illness and institutionalization. The man divorced his wife, and this woman in the church came to ask for marriage. She had been cautioned about the relationship from the beginning, and with the formal request the board said no, and that she should break the relationship. She not only ignored the counsel, she sought another clergyman and married. The church's response was discipline; her membership was revoked and announced to the church. She was invited to attend, but it was made clear that she was "out of fellowship." Within six months the man died in bed with a heart attack, and the woman returned to the church openly confessing her disobedience; she was fully reinstated. Whatever you think of the details, that has been an incident in my experience where discipline worked correctly. There was redemption for the individual.

There is another reason tied to authenticity. Discipline is necessary for the sake of the church. If discipline prevents false assurance for the individual, it helps prevent false witness for the church. The church, remember, is the physical presence of the Lord in the world. The church gives witness to who God is.

One thing the world desperately needs to know is that God is holy. If holiness is not a standard in the church, then we are misrepresenting God. If discipline seems harsh and unloving to us, it only shows how far removed we are from a right understanding about God. Most people in churches today would do well to experience a vision like Isaiah's (ch 6) where he saw God high and lifted up, with all the hosts of heaven covering themselves and only able to say, "holy, holy, holy."

Another thing the church must witness to is a right understanding of the death of Christ. That is Paul's point in verses 6-8. The crucifixion tells us what God thinks of sin. It takes the death of Christ to make us new –– and when God makes us new we cannot help but live differently. That is the distinctiveness of the church.

Christ has died for us not simply to give us passage to heaven, but to re-create us in his own image. And how horrible it is when God's people look more like their surrounding world than they do the Lord himself. The image Paul uses is a loaf of bread. The church is God's new loaf. We need to understand this word "leaven" to know what the point is. Leaven was not just yeast like we use today. Leaven was a chunk of old dough that was in process of fermentation. When mixed with new dough, it caused the whole to rise.

Sin is like leaven. It is the old rotting thing. Sin in the church is like leaven in bread; it spreads to the whole. It is like our more modern saying, "One rotten apple spoils the whole barrel." And when sin permeates the church, the church cannot truly be the church. There is no authenticity. Sin must be removed from the church, or sin will destroy the church. And to go back to something Paul said earlier:

Don't you know that you yourselves are God's temple and that God's Spirit lives in you? If anyone destroys God's temple, God will destroy him; for God's temple is sacred, and you are that temple (3:16,17).

Finally, do you know what happens when the church exercises its authority so that it practices authenticity? It becomes a visible alternative to the world.

Discipline gives the church internal integrity. It is then the church can be a new community. The world needs to see a new community; it needs to see there is another way. Corinth was marked by three things: sexual immorality, greed and idolatry. It should almost go without saying that we live in "Corinth." But "Corinth" is not part of the church's identity, and it has no place among the new community of God's people. That is easier said than done.

Paul had written the Corinthians a previous letter instructing them in this matter (v9). Their response was to disregard it or deliberately misinterpret it. Paul had told them not to associate with sexually immoral people; they looked at the world they lived in and decided Paul was crazy –– a convenient way to disregard his teaching.

Now Paul makes his intent clear. He does not mean the church should withdraw from the world. That is the opposite of what the church is here for. Too often the church has pulled away from the world, saying it is "too evil." Of course it is evil. There is no reason to expect anything else. But when the church has internal integrity, it becomes just what the world needs –– an external witness.

Internal integrity is what sets the church apart. Christians are different; that is our very reason for existence. The church has a different standard: God's holiness. The church has a different motivation: the death of Jesus Christ. The church has a different identity: God's new human community.

That is why Paul said they were not to associate with immoral people in the church. If the church is to go into the world as a new community, then it cannot be like the very world it is trying to reach. To use the imagery of Jesus' prayer (Jn 17), the church is to “be in the world, but not of [like] it.”

Now, does this mean that only "sinless" people can be part of the church? I need to ask this –– and answer it –– or I will sound the way Paul did to the Corinthians. Of course Paul is not saying only sinless people can be members of the church. Neither am I. As I said at the beginning, some churches have taken it that way, and then split hairs and gagged on gnats while the rest of the world looks on at the camels they swallow.

We never fall back to the idea that our performance is what qualifies us to be in the church. At the same time, we do not want to say that our performance can never disqualify us from the church. That seems to put us in a quandary.

The issue here is people who persist in the very activities from which they have supposedly been forgiven and freed by the death of Christ. It is people who try to have it both ways –– trying to be a part of the church while fully living like the world. People who persist in their old ways –– who live like the world –– do not belong in the new community. This does not mean people who genuinely struggle or people who get caught in temptation and sin, and then repent, do not belong to the church. That is just the kind of people who do belong in the church, for what Christian is there who does not daily come before the Lord in humility and say, "Jesus, I'm such a poor servant; make me more like you."

Neither is this passage a focus on one kind of sin. Sexual sins are nothing special compared to any others. The issue here is not a certain sin. Yes, this man in Corinth was involved in an immoral situation, but that just became the springboard to the larger issue. Even the list in v11 is not inclusive; it is a sample. The kinds of situations in which the church needs to exercise its authority are when people are, among maybe other things, sexually immoral, greedy, idolaters, slanderers, drunkards, and swindlers. The issue is the authenticity of the people of God. To be an alternative, we must be authentic, and to be authentic we must exercise the authority of our Lord in the lives of people in the church who persist in sin.

One last thing is the principle of judging which Paul gives here. It is not the function of the church to judge the world and its people. God will do that. The world has no reason to do what is "Christian." The “world” is living out of the only reality it has. The only way it will see another way is when the church shows it with integrity.

What the church is to judge is its own. We know the standard. We have the Spirit. Ours is the task.

My observation is that too often we reverse these two things. We look out and judge the world, but do nothing about the inconsistencies in the church! It's easy to judge the world. Like I said, they have no reason for doing anything other than they do. They do not need our judgment; they need our Lord. Then the behavior will change.

It's harder in the church. It is the people who have become our friends. It is the people who know our faults so well, so we find it to be easiest if no one points the finger –– if no one rebukes, if no one is put out. But in the process we lose our authenticity.

Sin in the church? It is likely a given as we live in this evil world. The issue is how the church responds to it. We can do nothing. We can do too much. Either one is easier than being God's redemptive people in the world. But only one response is really available to the church. Are we really being the church?