Category: Church Discipline

Church, Let’s be Gentle (Gal 5:22–23)

On By Jovan PayesIn Articles, Christian Leadership, Church Discipline, Galatians, Holy Spirit, New Testament, Paul's Letters, Spiritual Formation

Hardships come in all shapes and sizes. They often harden the people that survive them. Sometimes we are surrounded by so many troubles, their downpour is palpable. Our political climate resides on a hairpin trigger; any response to the “pandemic” seemly places you at odds with various camps at once.

There is remote education, remote working, adjusted schedules, reduced workforce and its accompanying reduced income and on we may go. Never have we had to adjust so quickly in so many fields, and rethink all of our social/cultural connections at once. It has not been done without incurring major trauma and frustration. The medical sector has gone to such protective measures that people have died alone, void of human touch; people are fighting diseases without the side by side support of their loved ones and communities. Yet, we somehow find the strength to cheer, “we’re all in this together.”

Many of our churches have likewise had to adjust and adopt methods that have been viewed, for the most part, as luxuries, out of reach and impractical. Among the many churches, broadcasting sermons and worship is for the bigger, tele-evangelist type churches. Embracing a new way to gather together, embracing additional formats allowable in the scriptures for assembling and spiritual communion. This has not happened without various forms of turmoil, infighting, the testing of fellowship, and in some cases suspicion.

It makes me think that the church needs to be reminded to be gentle.

The Fruit of the Spirit

A study on “the fruit of the Spirit” is badly needed right now. It is the outflow of our relationship with God. These fruits provide us the resources for enduring and succeeding as God’s people during stormy weather.

What was Paul getting at in the “fruit” of the Spirit”? The word “fruit” (karpós) has a wide range of meaning: it may be translated as “fruit, grain; harvest; result, outcome; deed, action; return, gain, advantage; tribute, praise (of the lips); offspring (Lk 1:42) descendant (Ac 2:30).”[1] The word ranges from the literal to the metaphoric and context helps to limit how fruit should be understood.

Fruit is the natural outcome from a plant, a living being, or a process. Fruit bears the distinguishing characteristics of its source. A banana is the fruit of the banana tree, an apple is the fruit of an apple tree, etc. A child is the offspring (fruit) of her/his parents. An error is the outcome of misinformation or a distortion.

For example, Jesus speaks of the spiritual caliber of a person based upon the fruit of their actions and teaching:

Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will recognize them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? So, every healthy tree bears good fruit, but the diseased tree bears bad fruit. A healthy tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a diseased tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus you will recognize them by their fruits. (Matthew 7:15–20; English Standard Version)[2]

The Psalms, likewise, speak of one’s spiritual outgrowth based on a connection to the Word of God:

He is like a tree planted by streams of water that yields its fruit in its season, and its leaf does not wither. In all that he does, he prospers. The wicked are not so, but are like chaff that the wind drives away. (Psalm 1:3–4)

These examples are samples of a greater body of biblical examples for the spiritual character of the fruit metaphor.

This metaphor directs our attention to a spiritual harvest procured from the child of God’s relationship with the Spirit. It certainly points to the important spiritual realm of our activity. Paul does not point to a spirituality detached from the world. No, God’s people must embrace that the spiritual realm bleeds over into our natural (flesh/human) world because our faith is grounded in both realms of activity.[3]

This means that Christians derive the wellspring for their actions from God’s leading, and this then frees us from any obligations to act like the customary fallen fleshly/human world. We are freed to live a life anchored to our relationship with God.

This is part of the big picture drama of Paul’s letter to the Galatians. Throughout Galatians, he displays how freedom and obligation work together in tension as Christians live freed by Christ to be obligated by the ethic of love.

For freedom Christ has set us free [theology of freedom]; stand firm therefore [ethic of obligation], and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery. (Galatians 5:1)
For you were called to freedom, brothers. Only do not use your freedom as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another. For the whole law is fulfilled in one word: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” But if you bite and devour one another, watch out that you are not consumed by one another. (Galatians 5:13–15)

These are not competing themes. I like how Charles K. Barrett (1917–2011) puts it,

There is no conflict but rather an indissoluble union between the theology of freedom and the ethics of obligation. Nor is there any equation of a compromise between the two in which each is watered down so as to accommodate the other. Freedom is real freedom, and any attempt to restrict it must be firmly refuted. But obligation is real obligation too, and there must be no attempt to evade it.[4]

Freedom and Obligation (1985)

In other words, the regenerated child of God is freed by the gospel and a life that is lived in light of God’s redemption will their obligation anchored in loving others. God’s people must certainly live with this tension: (1) a theology of freedom to live out in the natural world the love of God bred by the gospel message, and (2) the ethic of obligation that a Christian and the church is bound by to embrace the grace of God and the purpose of Christ’s death.

Making Sense of Gentleness

The most important way to understand how a word is to be understood is its context, otherwise, we may import misleading ideas into a text. Word studies are additional way to appreciate the limits of a word’s meaning. I like to look at how the ancients used the words of the New Testament, as it often provides a better sense of what Paul is saying and means.

Secular Sense. New Testament Scottish scholar, William Barclay (1907–1978), was one of the best wordsmiths of his era. His knowledge of the classics and Greek literature was astounding. In his little book, Flesh and Spirit (1962), he illustrates six ways the concept of “gentleness” (praútēs) was used in ancient secular Greek.[5]

  1. Gentleness as a soothing quality in the face of difficulty, hardship, or bitterness.
  2. Gentleness of conduct breeds a spirit of cooperation, especially when those with the power to act behaved differently.
  3. In the midsts of any argument, gentleness is the attitude and culture created where “cooler heads” prevail without losing one’s temper.
  4. The ability to take things lightly, whether going through an unpleasant experience, or, to not overreact to important things.
  5. It is used to speak of animals which have become obedient and have learned control and discipline.
  6. The most common use: Gentleness is seen in the portrayal of a person’s character in which strength and gentleness go together, where passion and gentleness find a balance in high degree.

The modern sense of “gentleness” carries more of the qualitative sense of “mildness of manners and disposition” (Merriam-Webster), or being “kind, calm, or soft…” (Cambridge Dictionary). There is some similarity to the ancient sense, but as Barclay points out the ancients held a more robust sense of the power and impact of “gentleness.”

New Testament Usage. I want to use Barclay’s spectrum to illustrate how the New Testament uses “gentleness” (praútēs), a term that appears eleven times (1 Cor 4:21; 2 Cor 10:1; Gal 5:23, 6:1; Eph 4:2; Col 3:12; 2 Tim 2:25; Tit 3:2; Jas 1:21, 3:13; 1 Pet 3:15). We are illustrating here how to best understand the word in the context of four New Testament case studies, and then we will look at our passage in Galatians 5:23 (and 6:1).

1 Corinthians 4:21: What do you wish? Shall I come to you with a rod, or with love in a spirit of gentleness?

In a context of correction and restoration, Paul offers this rhetorical question. The phrase “spirit of gentleness” may be translated as “a gentle spirit” (cf. Gal 6:1). In other words, this is a question about the kind of “frame of mind” the Corinthians wish Paul to arrive in.[6] The emphasis is on either whether the Corinthians want Paul to arrive with a soothing attitude (1), or with a culture of love generated by a cool temper (3). These seem to be the better options of the sense here.

2 Corinthians 10:1: I, Paul, myself entreat you, by the meekness and gentleness of Christ—I who am humble when face to face with you, but bold toward you when I am away!

When Paul addressed a slanderous charge against him that in person he was timid and in letter he is aggressive,[7] the apostle appeals to the Corinthians by “the meekness of Christ” or “Christ’s meekness.” This is clearly a reference to the balanced character of Jesus Christ who is both meek (praútēs) and gentle/forbearing (epieíkeia). In the face of conflict, Paul will appeal to the disciplined character of Jesus to be his guide (6).

Colossians 3:12: Put on then, as God’s chosen ones, holy and beloved compassionate hearts kindness humility, meekness, and patience...

As in Galatians 5:22–23 and Ephesians 4:2, our word appears in a list of virtues of proper conduct. In fact, much has been said about the parallels between Colossians and Ephesians, where in the latter walking in a manner worthing of the Christian calling includes walking “with all humility and gentleness, with patience bearing with one another in love” (4:2). As part of a virtue list, these contexts provide a “big picture” character portrayal to which the child of God must endeavor to pursue. It is vital to breed unity and cooperation in the body of Christ by being actively gentle (2).[8]

2 Timothy 2:25: correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth...

Paul outlines a program for Timothy on how to engage his opponents. It should not be done through bitter quarreling (2:24) but through “correction… with gentleness” (2:25). Quarreling and correcting are opposites in this context, all quarreling is inconsistent with a servant’s method of engagement, but not all correcting is quarreling. Gentleness must shape the quality of the correction. The emphasis is perhaps on the cool headed attitude (3) or a lack of overreaction to these confrontations (4).

The key takeaway from these examples is that we must make an attempt to understand how the original readers of the text would have understood praútēs, the word often translated “gentleness” or “meekness.” It is not a passive “Clark Kent” unassuming mildness, instead it is a proactive personal virtue necessary to create a culture of community.

The Fruit of Gentleness (Gal 5:23; 6:1)

When Paul lays the vice list of the “works of the flesh” side by side with the virtue list of the “fruit of the Spirit,” he is outlining what freedom in Christ looks like. The realm of the flesh enslaves whether it be the Law of Moses or it be living exclusively by our natural conventions.

The realm controlled by the Spirit, provides freedom from such constraints. We are no longer bound by the Law (for the Jews) or our vice-filled conventions (for gentiles), but are lead by the Spirit to produce a new character (the fruit/outcome).

the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law. And those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires.

Galatians 5:22–24

The character portrayed here gives us the content of the ethic of obligation. We are free in Christ to create a new creation, an Israel of God (Gal 6:15–16). This obligation has communal implications. God’s people are must look out for each other and hold each other accountable.

Paul moves quickly from “the fruit of the Spirit” to one example of application in Galatians 6:1 which has to do with restoration:

Brothers if anyone is caught in any transgression you who are spiritual should restore him in a spirit of gentleness. Keep watch on yourself, lest you too be tempted.

Galatians 6:1

I repeat what I said earlier, gentleness is part of a “big picture” character development necessary for the child of God. It must be pursued. When Christians are actively gentle its breeds unity, cooperation, and healing in the body of Christ. This fruit of the Spirit “enables the Christian to correct the erring brother without arrogance, impatience, or anger.”[9]

This fruit of the Spirit provides the gentleness and tolerance in the face of difficulties to do the better–often harder–thing.[10] Sometimes church discipline is practiced in such a punitive way that that permanent expulsion is the only outcome. We should meditate, however, on the following words,

Do not amputate [them], as a piece of gangrene flesh, from the church body, but so handle [them] as to restore [them]. Also do not do this in a proud, Pharisaical spirit.[11]

J. W. McGarvey and Philip Pendleton,
Thessalonians, Corinthians, Galatians and Romans (1916)

The process of restoration requires the connective tissue of a Spirit-led gentle community and a humble self-evaluation. J. Louis Martyn rounds out my thinking here:[12]

The restoration, then, is to be completely devoid of lasting stigma. It is to be carried out with the gentleness that is one of the marks of the Spirit-led community […] and also with circumspection. For, as the next clause indicates, all are subject to missteps. Indeed, because every member of the community […] is on the battlefront pictured in 5:17a, everyone is subject to the tempting power of the Flesh.

Galatians (2008)

Freedom and Obligation

Gentleness provides us with one virtue where the theology of freedom and the ethic of obligation are found in Christ is clearly illustrated. Here we conclude with a few examples.

  • When church controversies occur that leave us upset, heart broken, or disheveled, God’s people are free in Christ to break from the destructive behaviors we were once bound to. Our obligation is to be gentle in the face of conflict with those that have hurt us and that we disagree with.
  • When our society is embroiled in controversy and unrest, remember we have been liberated from any cultural tests of loyalty (political party, hashtag movements, etc.), because our obligation is to love our neighbor with cool-headedness and Christlike character.
  • When we are tempted to act out in self-righteous anger, we are freed to acknowledge our own sins that God has forgiven, and can then look in the mirror to see that our commitment to the gospel obligates us to treat others with Spirit-led community.

Love is the obligated ethic of the Christian (Lev 19:18) and it is the proving ground of true discipleship (John 13:35):

You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against the sons of your own people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the Lord. (Leviticus 19:18)
By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another. (John 13:35)

Gentleness is the method and shape of how we administer love during the various difficulties the Christian faces.

This means I must learn to do things differently. I must learn to be cool headed and kind when dealing with fallen Christians. I must learn to face the prospect of things out of my control with the balance of calmness and patience.

All of God’s people must learn to reflect the character of Jesus described by Isaiah in the following way:

a bruised reed he will not break, and a faintly burning wick he will not quench; he will faithfully bring forth justice. (Isaiah 42:3; Matthew 12:20)

Endnotes

  1. Barclay M. Newman, Jr., A Concise Greek-English Dictionary of the New Testament (Stuttgart, Germany: United Bible Societies, 1993), 92.
  2. Unless otherwise noted all Scripture quotations are taken from the English Standard Version (ESV) of The Holy Bible (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2016).
  3. Walter Russell, “Does the Christian Have ‘Flesh’ in Gal 5:13–26,” JETS 36.2 (1993): 179–87.
  4. C. K. Barrett, Freedom and Obligation (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1985), 70.
  5. William Barclay, Flesh and Spirit (Nashville: Abingdon, 1962), 112–14.
  6. Anthony C. Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians: A Commentary on the Greek Text (Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans, 2000), 378.
  7. Wayne Jackson, A New Testament Commentary (Stockton, CA: Christian Courier Publication, 2011), 359.
  8. F. F. Bruce, The Epistles to the Colossians, to Philemon, and to the Ephesians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984), 152, 334.
  9. Friedrich Hauck and Seigfried Schulz, “πραΰς, πραΰτης,” TDNT 6:650.
  10. Herman N. Ridderbos, The Epistle of Paul to the Churches of Galatia (1953; repr., Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1976), 208.
  11. John W. McGarvey and Philip Y. Pendleton, Thessalonians, Corinthians, Galatians and Romans (1916; repr., Cincinnati, OH: Standard Publishing, 1950), 284.
  12.  J. Louis Martyn, Galatians: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2008), 547.

Bibliography

Barclay, William. Flesh and Spirit: An Examination of Galatians 5:19–23. Nashville, TN: Abingdon, 1962.

Barrett, Charles K. Freedom and Obligation: A Study of the Epistle to the Galatians. Philadelphia, PA: Westminster, 1985.

Bruce, F. F. The Epistles to the Colossians, to Philemon, and to the Ephesians. NICNT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984.

Hauck, Friedrich, and Seigfried Schulz. “πραΰς, πραΰτης.” TDNT 6:645–51.

Martyn, J. Louis. Galatians: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AYB. Vol. 33A. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2008.

McGarvey, John W., and Philip Y. Pendleton. Thessalonians, Corinthians, Galatians and Romans. 1916. Repr., Cincinnati, OH: Standard Publishing, 1950.

Newman, Barclay M., Jr. A Concise Greek-English Dictionary of the New Testament. Stuttgart, Germany: United Bible Societies, 1993.

Ridderbos, Herman N. The Epistle of Paul to he Churches of Galatia. NICNT. 1953. Repr., Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1976.

Russell, Walter. “Does the Christian Have ‘Flesh’ in Gal 5:13–26.” JETS 36.2 (1993): 179–87.

Thiselton, Anthony C. The First Epistle to the Corinthians: A Commentary on the Greek Text. NIGTC. Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans, 2000.

Working Through Church Problems

On By Jovan PayesIn Articles, Christian Ethics, Christian Leadership, Church Discipline, Church Leadership, New Testament

Are you looking for a perfect congregation? Take a number and stand in line. The perfect congregation is elusive because they are composed of imperfect people.

Yes, problems happen. If anything should tip our hand to this fact it ought to be the apostolic letters to the churches found in the New Testament. Even though the Spirit of God dwelt in the primitive church, the New Testament reveals those congregations were still imperfect.

Problems emerged, emerge, and will continue to emerge within the church, and within a congregation. Paul said that the heartache of “factions” can provide a lens to recognize who is “genuine” in the church (1 Cor 11:19 ESV).

We have been given biblical teaching as to how to respond to disruptions caused by Christian misconduct. The answers are found in the apostolic word. Consider three examples.

1. The Thessalonians

Certain members of the congregation in Thessalonica would not work in order to be self-sufficient (2 Thess 3:11-12), but instead, burdened the church as they received dietary support. Such was described as living in “idleness.”

Such was described as “busybodies,” which is a play on words contrasting the appropriate Christian ethic of being “busy at work.”

The point is some members of the Lord’s church in Thessalonica refrained from being productive in the workforce and had become guilty of lifestyles that were unproductive, intrusive, and disruptive to their lives about them.

The apostle Paul sets forth an apostolic injunction to prohibit those who willfully reject the divine ideal to “earn their own living” and received benevolent sustenance from the church: “if one is not willing to work, let him not eat” (2 Thess 3:10).

The church suffered at the hands of their disruptive behavior (i.e. “busybodies”). Since they were subsidized by the church, Paul aptly responds: “stop subsidizing their sinful behavior!”

Too many times, matters which affect the congregation (gossip, opinions, hypocrisy, etc.) are allowed to thrive due to a lack of solidarity to follow God’s teaching. Here Paul makes it clear that the congregation must make a stand together placing sanctions on those Christians who live contrary to the divine teaching on working to supply your own needs (2 Thess 3:6ff).

Only with a unified front, will there be sufficient godly pressure to make the defectors return to the “ranks.” The congregation is to apply the pressure of a well-intended, caring family towards “work” so that they may not be an unnecessary burden on others (3:8).

2. Paul and Barnabas

Sometimes problems develop within very successful ministry teams, particularly in matters of expediency.

In Acts 13:1-4, the setting for Paul’s ministry to evangelize the world is narrated. In fact, the Holy Spirit is quoted as saying, “Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them” (13:2).

This Divine call to action belongs to Barnabas as much as it does Paul. Still, throughout the reports in Acts of the various evangelistic labors, it appears that Paul (Saul) begins to gain special consideration (Acts 13-14).

An interesting footnote is placed at Barnabas and Paul’s transition from the Cyprus Island to the southern Asia Minor Roman province of Pamphylia (Acts 13:13). Luke writes that “John” (= John-Mark 15:37) was with them in their evangelistic campaign functioning as an “assistant” (Acts 13:5); however, for reasons unknown he left Barnabas and Paul and returned to Jerusalem (Acts 13:13).

After some time had elapsed, Barnabas and Paul were anxious to return to the “mission field” to see the well-being of the congregations which they planted in Asia Minor. At this point, Barnabas and Paul entered a “sharp disagreement” over the inclusion of John-Mark (14:36-41).

John-Mark who had served as an “assistant” (Grk. huperetes), a term which suggests the responsibility to care, guard, and to manage the resources of another,[1] had “defected” (= ESV “had withdrawn”) from the evangelistic team. Why, is anyone else’s guess.

While Mark broke his commitment to the evangelistic team, Barnabas wanted to give John-Mark a second chance; but Paul felt him undependable – an evaluation he publically reverses over a decade later (2 Tim 4:11). Mark is enshrined in Scripture as one whom Paul came to think of as helpful, beneficial, and useful (Grk. euchrēstos, 2 Tim 2:21; Philm 11).

Still, Luke does not append any evaluation upon who made the right choice, for Barnabas and Paul part ways here never to be found together again on the pages of Scripture; and yet, never disparaged for their differences on this issue. Possibly, they were both correct, and it is one of those cases where there are two right choices for the same problem (Prov 26:4-5). Wisdom is always a contextualized answer-solution to a contextualized problem.

It is unfortunate that such a successful evangelistic team should part ways, but the most significant point is that neither party refrained from evangelism. Paul continues to fulfill his ministry, as Barnabas continues the “encouragement” he is known for (Acts 4:36; 9:27).

Here is a powerful lesson, especially for advocates of non-denominational Christianity. At various times, brethren due to opinions – even strong opinions – must part ways for the common good of sharing the gospel with the world:

There is enough room for different expedient methodologies (provided they are biblical) to thrive side by side without any sense of competition of faithfulness to intrude our works.

Paul continues his work with the prophet Silas, and along the way picks up Luke and Timothy. Barnabas takes with him John-Mark to the island of Cyprus. One dynamic team turns into two evangelistic teams with capable leaders.

Sometimes we need to step back and realize, like Abraham, that we are brethren, and as such, we should not quarrel with each other over expedients (Gen 13:8; Rom 14:13). Disagreements can be worked through if the parties involved reflect heavenly dispositions to make peace (Jas 3:13-18). Faithful children of God must strive to “agree in the Lord” (Phil 4:2-3). Might one of those agreements be in the matter of ministry methods that are different but biblical?

3. Diotrephes and Gaius (3 John)

Sometimes a church setting can be thrown off its balance by a strong vocal minority. They typically are aggressive, carnally minded, and self-absorbed. Unfortunately, good-meaning brethren can give such ones an audience -and the podium- which encourages their behavior.

Such was the case with a man by the name of Diotrephes. In brief, the apostle John sent a few preachers to the church acquainted with this man in order to be welcomed and financially supported in their evangelistic and missionary work.

Read more about Diotrephes in “Studies in 3 John: The Fellowship of the Truth”

However, pumped with his own arrogance, he rejected the apostolic request, suppressed the request, attacked those like Gaius who provided for men like these, and imposed his own will upon them by ill-treating the preachers and casting their supporters “out of the church” (9-10). In practice, he was a “missions killer.”

Such “church gangsters,” the apostle John says, must have their nefarious operations exposed (“I will bring up what he is doing”). They operate in the brotherhood “alleyways” where their true face is revealed. They are punitive. For not only do they not support a “worthy” work, but they will also subvert them at all costs.

The church must stand up against those who are intoxicated with pride, those who manipulate behind the “church” scenes, and those who “always need a villain” in order to promote their agenda and get their way.

Concluding Thoughts

Problems come, but the church has, can, does, and will overcome them if we are faithful to God and gracious to each other. Some church problems are ethical or doctrinal; consequently, as in the Thessalonian situation, the only solution is to reinforce God’s plan for Christian conduct and teaching.

Other times, church problems emerge when leaders disagree over matters of opinion. Sometimes, we must realize that not every method is the only way to carry out a biblical command or expectation. Some methods and decisions can co-exist side by side. We must learn to be flexible and gracious in such scenarios.

Finally, some problems are instigated by a divisive minority who implement their plan in the shadows rather than in a clear view of all. They are coercive and manipulative. They seek and exercise power rather than submission to God. In such cases, exposure to such conduct is warranted in order to begin the process to restore peace in the church.

These situations do not exhaust every problematic scenario, but hopefully, they provide guideposts that will be helpful. May the church learn to acknowledge and work through our problems in a peaceful and God-fearing way.

Endnote

  1. James H. Moulton and George Milligan, The Vocabulary of the Greek New Testament Illustrated from the Papyri and Other Non-Literary Sources (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1914-1929), MM 654-55.

Book Review: That We May Share His Holiness

On By Jovan PayesIn Bible Guides, Book Reviews, Books, Christian Leadership, Church Discipline, Church Leadership, Church Practices, New Testament, Tommy South1 Comment
that-we-may-share-his-holiness-book-cover-south

Tommy South, That We May Share His Holiness: A Fresh Approach to Church Discipline (Abilene, TX: Bible Guides, 1997), paperback, 159 pages.

With the recommendation from my friend Jeremy Marshall, I purchased a copy of Tommy South’s work, That We May Share His Holiness: A Fresh Approach to Church Discipline. I was completely unaware of South’s work, and as I was reading and researching for a paper on church discipline I took it upon myself to give South’s work a “fresh” look. To my astonishment, I nearly read through the book in one night. That We May Share His Holiness should be read by every member of the church.

Before we highlight some points from the book, let us consider a little information about the author. A minister for some thirty years, Tommy South is currently a minister at the Glen Allen church of Christ and has served in that capacity since its inception in 1995 in Glen Allen, VA. South holds a Ph.D. (University of Virginia) in the New Testament & Early Christianity. South not only serves as an Adjunct Professor of Religious Studies at Virginia Commonwealth University,[1] but also frequently contributes to publications such as the Gospel Advocate.

The Book I Enjoyed Reading

That We May Share His Holiness has been in circulation for some time. However, it is a publication that is worth describing here for study and contemplation. Because we believe there are very few negative matters to discuss, we shall only describe the work and its benefits.

The book has 15 chapters, and its outline appears to have a Bible class setting in mind. The discussion questions that follow each chapter will surely lend themselves to small group studies or congregational settings.

The content is written in a popular style —avoiding technical language— yet the author demonstrates himself to be very adept at the technical matters that arise in the discussion of church discipline.[2] Reading South’s work is a breath of fresh air as it reads so smoothly, and yet it avoids theological shallowness by providing adequate analysis and exegetical insights, and by challenging the readers to spiritually deliberate on critical issues regarding church discipline.

Furthermore, the material on holiness, individual responsibility to self-purity, and the duty we share as Christians to assist others to retain their self-purity are perennial discussions.

South’s work demonstrates how God places emphasis upon personal holiness as the basis for church discipline:

All discipline is the outgrowth of God’s desire for us to share His holiness. […] It also includes disciplining ourselves. This is where “striving after holiness” comes in. […] Congregational discipline is likewise an extension of God’s desire for our holiness. Just as God expects and requires us to discipline ourselves, he calls on us to discipline each other when necessary, not arbitrarily or angrily, or vengefully, but as an outgrowth of his love and of his demand for holiness among his people.[3]

South moves from this biblical basis (Heb. 12.10) and develops many themes in this rich survey of every significant New Testament context dealing with church discipline.

Another important discussion South develops is that fellowship is to precede discipline.

Apart from fellowship, discipline is not only meaningless, it is abusive. To discipline someone with whom we have not enjoyed real fellowship is much like spanking a stranger’s child.[4]

South advocates an attempt “to create an environment of love and fellowship” in the congregation so that church discipline can do exactly what God intends for it to accomplish—restoration.[5]

When restoration of fellowship is obtained, forgiveness is to occur by the individual specifically offended, and by the community of the church.[6] The discipline was to be “effective but not vindictive” and after restoration, steps to communal restoration are forgiveness, comfort, and confirmation of love.[7]

Discipline and restoration are connected at the proverbial hip, and to this point South cautions:

The church is never at liberty to think that we’ve “done our duty” by disciplining the erring when we are unwilling to perform the equal “duty” of forgiveness.[8]

Placing the full responsibility of reconciliation upon the disciplined is a completely untenable theological conclusion. Both have responsibilities: the disciplined is to repent and show those fruits, and the church has the responsibility to forgive and strengthen.

Recommendation

For its size and scope, it is an outstanding discussion of a critical topic. Page per page, it is rich in research which gave the book its birth, clear in the development of the central message of the Scriptures on the subject, and set forth in a spirit of genuine spirituality and Christian honesty.

This book is a must-read. It will tremendously bless all those who give it attention and a healthy judicious study, with the necessary application. It will not take long for a congregation of the Lord’s people that fails to discipline, to lose its identity as the church. It is, therefore, time to give attention to this important biblical theme.

Sources

  1. “Leadership and Staff | Glen Allen Church of Christ.” GlenAllenChurch.org. (Link). Tommy South can be contacted at gaoffice@glenallenchurch.org.
  2. South points to the technical discussions in his work, Disciplinary Practices in Pauline Texts (Lewiston, NY: Mellen, 1992).
  3. Tommy South, That We May Share His Holiness: A Fresh Approach to Church Discipline (Abilene, Tex.: Bible Guides, 1997), 16.
  4. South, That We May Share His Holiness, 31.
  5. South, That We May Share His Holiness, 34.
  6. South, That We May Share His Holiness, 102.
  7. South, That We May Share His Holiness, 103-05.
  8. South, That We May Share His Holiness, 106.

Purge the Evil Person: A Brief Analysis of 1 Corinthians 5:1-13

On By Jovan PayesIn 1 Corinthians, Bible Study, Christian Ethics, Christian Leadership, Church Discipline, Church Leadership, Essays, Exegesis, Kingdom Ethics, Leadership Ethics, New Testament, Paul's Letters3 Comments

One of the most difficult public displays of Christian obedience to God is the withdrawal of fellowship from a recalcitrant Christian. It is perhaps one of the most dynamic of commands to follow in the New Testament. Before reaching such a public excision, the Lord Jesus addressed the problem of confronting a wayward brother with the view to “gain” him (Matt 18:15-17).

Preliminary Thoughts

The Lord sets forth a four-pronged redemptive procedure that begins under the most private of circumstances – “you and him alone” (18:15); in this setting, then, a private appeal to repent is offered. If the rebellious child of God maintains their posture, then the circle of brotherly concern widens to “one or two others” that come to witness the call to repentance (18:16).

Unfortunately, even at this point, some are so entrenched in sin, that they will not hear the admonitions; consequently, the Lord says, “if he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church” (18:17). The publication of the situation allows the church as a whole to make an appeal to their fellow saint. All the “ties that bind” are summoned to invite this wayward soul to repent.

The Lord acknowledges that some will not be gained back to the fold by these loving and redemptive attempts, and sets forth the final process – consider the rebellious Christian as both an outsider of the blessings of the Christian covenant and a traitor who has chosen to serve Satan instead of Christ. In other words, the congregation must “disassociate the offender from the church fellowship.”[1] The saved has now become the lost – how ironically tragic.

A Flagrant Issue

The New Testament has several examples of discipline; most usually they are of a very flagrant issue. For example, in 3 John 9-10 the apostle of love forewarns his audience that he will bring discipline upon Diotrephes the “missions” killer. Or, when Paul abbreviates his role in the discipline of Hymenaeus and Alexander (“delivered them to Satan”), who made shipwreck of their faith (1 Tim 1:19-20).

However, in 1 Corinthians 5:1-13, Paul deals with an outlandish mode of porneia that is not even “tolerated” among the pagans (5:1 ESV). Porneia is the Greek word that is commonly translated “fornication” in older translations, and in newer translations as “sexual immorality.”

The truth of the matter is, porneia is a generic term for “illicit sexual intercourse.”[2] It is an umbrella term, and context must determine the type of sexual act that is under consideration. The flagrant form of porneia Paul addresses in 1 Corinthians 5:1 is this, “a [Christian] man has his father’s wife” (i.e. his stepmother). The severity of this behavior is evident by the fact that Paul appeals to the fact that Gentiles – or pagans – do not even permit such behavior.

This context provides the most insightful New Testament example of withdrawing Christian fellowship from recalcitrant saints. And as careful Bible students, we must definitely rehearse the valuable instruction of these verses.

The Duel Rebuke

Paul moves from the case of the man with his stepmother and draws attention to the congregation’s part in this flagrant relationship. The church had been “arrogant” and not “mournful” about the sinful relationship (5:2) and argues immediately that removal of the Christian was the appropriate reaction. The church at Corinth was laden with arrogance (4:6, 18-19), and here Paul rebukes them for this dispositional flaw that was affecting their decision-making process on this matter.

Paul demonstrates that not only is the rebellious person accountable to God, but that the church too cannot subscribe to a lax posture about known – public – sin in the church. The church is responsible and accountable to respond to a situation where a saint’s sin has become public knowledge. The apostle prescribes that the congregation should respond with a period of “mourning” and move into “disciplinarian action.” This is the divine reaction to sins of a public and flagrant nature (1 Cor 14:37).

The Judgment

With the next flip of his pen, Paul moves into position to make the judgment Corinth should have – he places judgment upon the Christian and the sexually immoral relationship with his un-Christian stepmother (5:3-5). There is no clear statement regarding the woman in view, aside from the fact that she is the wife of his father.[3]

However, since the judgment is upon the Christian man, “it seems safe to assume that she is not a Christian.”[4] Paul writes:

When you are assembled in the name of the Lord Jesus and my spirit is present, with the power of our Lord Jesus, you are to deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord. (1 Cor 5:4-5 ESV)

The context for such a procedure is the public assembly of the church. This recalls the instruction of Jesus regarding the procedures to discipline another for sin (Matt 18:15-17), the last two of which are set in a public context. Paul assesses that this situation is a public matter; and consequently, the licentious Christian must be disciplined immediately by the church in the public eye. The goal of this withdrawal is redemptive – “that his spirit may be saved.”[5]

The judgment is upon his sin and behavior, but the goal of the discipline is to restore him – i.e. to regain him (Matt 18:15). In Hebrews 12:12-13, the author demonstrates that discipline is a privilege of sonship (12:5-8) and that the purpose is so “that the lame may not be put out of joint but rather be healed” (12:13).

Discipline is not designed to “disable permanently those who have experienced the crippling effects of sin. Rather, His purpose is to heal and restore the repentant to spiritual usefulness”;[6] in other words, “that we may share his holiness” (Heb 12:10).

The Imagery of Influence and Purity

Corinth was crippling the unfaithful man’s ability to be restored by failing to address his immoral relationship. Paul makes very clear that both the church and the man were in a spiritually precarious position. Paul appeals to the imagery of the Passover, where preparing unleavened bread demanded the need to remove the leaven (yeast) from the lump of dough (5:6-7).

The bread is the congregation, and the leaven (yeast) is the culprit sinner (and his influence) in the church, and Paul speaks very clearly that the bread must be prepared for the Passover feast which is the Christian faith. From this, the apostle suggests that the Christian who is in a sexually immoral relationship with his stepmother must be removed from the congregation. Otherwise, the church would be affected by the “leaven” (influence) of this morally and spiritually rebellious relationship.

But the truth is, they were already being afflicted by his influence, making it necessary for a public withdrawal to maintain the purity of the loaf (i.e. the church). David Williams, in his profitable work, Paul’s Metaphors: Their Context and Character, writes:

Paul had been speaking of the leaven (yeast), every trace of which had to be cleaned out of the house before the Passover was celebrated. On this analogy, he demanded that the Corinthians put their “house” in order by removing from among themselves what he called the “old leaven,” a particularly appalling instance of sexual immorality that the church had condoned (vv. 1-5).[7]

The apostle, then, was addressing what should have been quite obvious; but, because of the Corinthian’s arrogance the real issue (i.e. the issue of purity) was not seen as relevant – how shameful. May we strive to learn then the lesson of Corinth.

The Place of Christian Judgment

Paul later recalls a previous letter, where he instructed them “not to associate with sexually immoral people” (5:9 ESV). But it does not seem that they were even practicing such instruction, evident by the fact that they had allowed this immoral situation a harbor of protection in the bay of misguided church fellowship. Yet, Paul did not even suggest merely sexually immoral people in general. He meant defiant immoral Christians are not to be associated with (5:9-11).

It is very interesting to observe that Paul moves from a specific case of porneia, and ends with formulating a generic principle against Christians practicing immorality in general – poneroi (i.e. evil doers).[8] Verse 11 is very clear that purity focused Christians are not to be involved with Christians who practice evil, and it is transparent where Paul stands on the matter by saying that eating a meal with them is forbidden. Such a withdrawal of Christian fellowship reflects the disfellowshipped Christian’s heavenly reality – estrangement from God (Matt 18:18-20).

Christians have a responsibility to each other before the Lord (Matt 18:15-17). This responsibility is to “judge” each other regarding sin when necessary (1 Cor 5:12). To support his case, Paul appeals back to a formula common in Deuteronomy that highlights the need to judge insiders rather than outsiders of the covenant (17:7, 19:19, 21:21, 22:21, 24, 24:7),[9] and affirms: “God judges those outside. ‘Purge the evil person from among you’” (5:13).[10]

The Aftermath: Mission Accomplished

What ever became of this gentleman and his situation after being withdrawn from? The answer depends upon the view taken as to how many letters Paul wrote to the Corinthians. It is true that Paul mentions a previous letter written to them prior to 1 Corinthians (1 Cor 5:9), but did he write a third letter that would chronologically fit between 1 and 2 Corinthians (2 Cor 2:3-4; 7:8)?[11]

Without delving into this academic discussion, we set forth our assessment of the discussion. Essentially, we assume for the time being that Paul wrote three letters: (1) A lost letter prior to 1 Corinthians (5:9); (2) 1 Corinthians known as the “sorrowful letter” or “severe letter” (2 Cor 2:3-4; 7:8); and (3) 2 Corinthians.

Chronologically placing 1 and 2 Corinthians together contributes greatly in answering our question. In 2 Corinthians 2:6-11, Paul speaks of the reward of making the Corinthians sorrowful, and a certain punishment rendered by the majority of the congregation upon a certain individual. The connection is drawn that the man in 1 Corinthians 5 is the same as the gentleman made sorrowful in 2 Corinthians 2.

This man was sufficiently disciplined (2:6), and now the congregation’s responsibility was three-fold (2:7-8):

(1) “forgive him”

(2) “comfort him”

(3) “reaffirm brotherly love.”

There will a great deal of Divine judgment upon those that do not respond in this fashion to a penitent brother or sister, for this is a great test of Christian obedience (2 Cor 2:9-10; Matt 6:14-16).

To the apostle, it appears that the matter of restoration of fellowship is just as important as the withdrawal of fellowship; the reason being, Satan is prepared to take advantage of our shortcomings at these pivotal moments (2:11). Would it not be appropriate to make the restoration announcement just as public as the withdrawal process was? It would definitely seem so (Philem 10-21).[12]

Conclusion

It seems important to stress, therefore, that the same amount of effort it took in the discipline process should follow in the restoration process. There is to be no more invisible line of fellowship between the restored and the brethren, for that is over and the saint has returned. Neither should a “we’ll see” attitude embody the brotherhood, but a loving reception – a mirror of heaven – is expected by Paul.

This is the victory of faith, the power of the blood of Christ, and the faithfulness of God. This is a great test of Christian faithfulness. May we be ever minded to discipline when needed and repair the splintered connections of fellowship after restoration. May we likewise be faithful to receive those who have been restored.

Sources

  1. J. Carl Laney, “The Biblical Practice of Church Discipline,” BSac 143 (1986): 361.
  2. William E. Vine, et al, Vine’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words (Nashville, TN: Nelson, 1984), 2:252; Joseph H. Thayer, Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (1896; repr., Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1999), 532.
  3. The phrase reads: hoste gunaika tina tou patros echein. Simon J. Kistemaker observes that “in Jewish circles, the wording wife of his father meant ‘stepmother,'” and observes that God repeatedly told the Israelites to refrain from sexual relationships with their father’s wife (Lev 18:8, 20:11; Deut 22:30, 27:20). “‘Deliver This Man to Satan’ (1 Cor 5:5): A Case Study in Church Discipline,” Master’s Seminary Journal 3.1 (1992): 35.
  4. Tommy South, That We May Share His Holiness: A Fresh Approach to Church Discipline (Abilene, TX: Bible Guides, 1997), 87. Read my book review regarding South’s excellent but brief volume.
  5. Some view the expulsion here as permanent, and redemption only to be found at the end of time (Harris 146-48); however, such a conclusion runs counter to the instruction of Jesus on discipline (Matt 18:15-17), to Paul’s use of similar language in disciplining and restoring false teachers (1 Tim 1:20), and the general tenor of the New Testament regarding cleansing of sin in the Christian’s life (1 John 1:6-2:3). Gerald Harris, “The Beginnings of Church Discipline: 1 Corinthians 5,” Understanding Paul’s Ethics: Twentieth-Century Approaches, ed. Brian S. Rosner (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 129-51. Cf. Wayne Jackson’s article on the forgiveness available to Christians in sinful lifestyles is quite compelling: repentance, confession, prayer, and the cleansing blood of the faithful Christ. “God’s Plan of Salvation for His Lost Children,” ChristianCourier.com (Accessed: 7 July 2004).
  6. Laney, “Biblical Practice of Church Discipline,” 355-56.
  7. David J. Williams, Paul’s Metaphors: Their Context and Character (1999; repr., Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2004), 248.
  8. Peter S. Zaas, “‘Cast out the Evil Man from You Midst'” (1 Cor 5:13b),” JBL 103.2 (1984): 259.
  9. Zaas points out that aside from a minor adjustment by Paul, the Greek phrase is parallel with the LXX (i.e. Septuagint) formulations in Deuteronomy (“‘Cast out the Evil Man from You Midst,'” 259).
  10. Richard B. Hays has a brief discussion on this passage in his work, Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1989). For Hays, Paul showed, if not in retrospect, that the Corinthians are part of the same covenant tradition as Ancient Israel. As such, the use of this formulae to expel the fornicator would have implicitly emphasized this relationship and demanded the logical obedience the congregation is to display in the removal of the sexually immoral brother from the congregation. In this action, they show themselves to be Israel – not figurative, but real Israel. Whether or not the Corinthians completely understood Paul’s use of this excommunication formulae Hays cannot prove, but he does respond to this point: “In this instance, [the] direct quotation becomes an allusive trope: only the reader who recognizes the source of the words will grasp the bold theological proposal implied by Paul’s metaphorical act of addressing Corinthian Gentiles as children of the covenant” (97).
  11. Daniel B. Wallace, “2 Corinthians: Introduction, Argument, and Outline,” Bible.org. For those interested in this issue, Wallace’s discussion will be of help on some of the complexities of this issue.
  12. James Pilgrim, Withdrawing from the Disorderly (West Monroe, LA: Central Printers, n.d.). I agree with Pilgrim’s observation that, “To fail to forgive and receive the returning brother is as wicked as not marking him in the beginning (2 Cor 2:11)” (17).

Bibliography

Harris, Gerald Harris. “The Beginnings of Church Discipline: 1 Corinthians 5.” Pages 129-51 in Understanding Paul’s Ethics: Twentieth-Century Approaches. Edited by Brian S. Rosner. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995.

Hays, Richard B. Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul. New Haven, CT: Yale University, 1989.

Jackson, Wayne. “Church Discipline – A Tragic Neglect,.” ChristianCourier.com(Accessed: 8 June 2000).

Jackson, Wayne. “God’s Plan of Salvation for His Lost Children.” ChristianCourier.com.

Kistemaker, Simon J. “‘Deliver This Man to Satan’ (1 Cor 5:5): A Case Study in Church Discipline.” Master’s Seminary Journal 3.1 (1992): 32-46.

Laney, J. Carl. “The Biblical Practice of Church Discipline.” BSac 143.572 (Oct.-Dec. 1986): 353-63.

Pilgrim, James. Withdrawing from the Disorderly. West Monroe, LA: Central Printers, n.d.

South, Tommy. That We May Share His Holiness: A Fresh Approach to Church Discipline. Abilene, TX: Bible Guides, 1997.Joseph H. Thayer,

Thayer, Joseph H. Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament. 1896. Repr. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1999.

Vine, William E. Vine, Merrill F. Unger, and William White, Jr. Vine’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words. Nashville, TN: Nelson, 1984.

Wallace, Daniel B. “2 Corinthians: Introduction, Argument, and Outline.” Bible.org.

Williams, David J. Paul’s Metaphors: Their Context and Character. 1999. Repr. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2004.

Zaas, Peter S. “‘Cast out the Evil Man from You Midst'” (1 Cor 5:13b).” JBL 103.2 (1984): 259.