Excommunication: When We Have Been Too Arrogant for Normal Discipline
Sermon on September 16, 2018
It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that is not tolerated even among pagans, for a man has his father’s wife. And you are arrogant! Ought you not rather to mourn? Let him who has done this be removed from among you. For though absent in body, I am present in spirit; and as if present, I have already pronounced judgment on the one who did such a thing. 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. Your boasting is not good. Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump?
1 Corinthians 5:1-6
What do you think of when you think of the words “church discipline”? Discipline may refer to several things. One of those things that is often overlooked is the sense in which church discipline is a gracious covering to contain sin. Like the law as a whole, it is a guardrail. It is not given to eradicate sin at the root. It does not have the power to do so. However, it is effective to meet sin as a force, a wall, a check and balance. In this passage today, it is the last stage of church discipline, the extreme final measure, namely excommunication that is in view. When we think of “covering sin” we might be thinking of a bad thing—a “cover up,” a charade, or, in other words, hypocrisy. Indeed, that kind of covering is very bad. That is one thing that the Corinthians are guilty of here. Yet there is a good kind of lid on sin. Discipline is a cover to sin; but there were two coverings in the Garden of Eden after sin: the first of man’s devices (a fig leaf) and the second of God’s grace (a sacrifice).
Because of the nature of this letter, we have to go on an order slightly different than it flows in Paul’s words here.
The Lord’s Authority Rests in the Assembly
The People’s Arrogance is that We Can Cover
The Man’s Sin Discredits and Contaminates
Doctrine. Since church discipline is a God-given covering for sin, let us not resort to an arrogant, man-made covering.
The Lord’s Authority Rests in the Assembly
This is potentially the most complex part of the passage, which is why we are doing it first. There seem to be three sources of authority to discipline in this passage: Christ, Paul, and the church. Let us carefully examine the words. First Paul says, ‘For though absent in body, I am present in spirit; and as if present, I have already pronounced judgment on the one who did such a thing’ (v. 3). This is the source that will be least normative today: apostolic authority. Paul is speaking as an apostle in a way that none of us can. Notice, though, that I did not say that this is not normative at all. The Creed calls the church “apostolic” for a reason. Roman Catholics and [many] Charismatics get this wrong on two different extremes.
What is true apostolicity? It is not about physical succession as in the Roman Church. But it is about passing down something; and that “something” is the gospel teaching of the apostles. So the right way to apply verse 3 to our context is to heed the words that the Spirit breathed through Paul: these “apostolic blueprints” for church discipline. By submitting to Scripture here, we are coming under the authority of Christ precisely in the act of discipline. This power is not something mystical. It is not obscure. It is about our submission to the clear words of the Bible. It is in the context of discipline that Jesus says, “where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them” (Mat. 18:20).
Now he brings in the two other, more normative, authorities in one breath: ‘When you are assembled in the name of the Lord Jesus and my spirit is present, with the power of our Lord Jesus’ (v. 4). First things first: this word “power” must be understood. Here is a loaded term in the Greek. Ordinarily the difficulty confronts us when the word for authority or power is used (exousia), but here he uses one of the other words that more clearly means the dynamic kind of “power” (dynamei). My view is that he has in mind that power contest he had hinted at in the end of the last chapter: “For the kingdom of God does not consist in talk but in power” (4:20). This is part of what is meant by the “keys of the kingdom.”
I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven (Mat. 16:19; cf. 18:18).1
The power to “bind” and “loose” is ultimately a divine action and a divine prerogative, and yet God has given to certain human beings the solemn charge of getting that right.
We return then to those two authorities that are always in play: Christ’s and the church’s. The text draws attention to an occasion: ‘When you are assembled’ (v. 4)—that is the church (ekklesia) or “assembly,” though here it uses the other word for “gathered together”2 from which we derive the word synagogue. We must then notice two qualifications on the assembled authority: first, ‘in the name of the Lord Jesus’ and second, ‘with the power of our Lord Jesus’. The Lord’s name speaks of his authority. Is this indicative or imperative? In other words, is Paul simply saying that when you act as a court, you had better make sure you are doing so under Christ’s authority? Or is Paul saying that when you act as a court, you already do act under Christ’s authority, whether you want to act that way or not? The answer is actually both.
Then there is how we exercise this power: ‘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’ (v. 5). Note that Paul is blaming them for not excommunicating. This proves that excommunication was in their legitimate power. The local church had possession of those keys; and yet they stared at those keys. They misplaced those keys. Finally, notice the ending: SO THAT … salvation! In another passage which is linked to the keys (though it does not ever mention the word), Jesus says, “If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you withhold forgiveness from any, it is withheld” (Jn. 20:23). Notice that same kind of “binding and loosing” power. What is it for? Ultimately, it is given to restore.
That is why the expression “destruction of the flesh” here does not mean anything like an inquisition. It refers to all the bad things that the enemy, Satan, may inflict on the individual apart from God’s special grace in the church, but which God often uses to show his sheep a glimpse of hell and so instill an extreme fear of the Lord.
The People’s Arrogance is that “We Can Cover”
Why arrogance? Whatever is its nature, this is addressed to the whole assembly, and so an arrogance that the church as a whole must confront. Paul reproves them: ‘And you are arrogant! Ought you not rather to mourn? Let him who has done this be removed from among you’ (v. 2). Two things they should be doing, but which Paul notices they are not doing: Mourning and removal. The right heart and the right action are both plain things to Paul; and they should be to us as well. Removal and mourning, so that it is clear that the heart is for restoration. But they are not doing either. Therefore there is no chance that the individual for whom this restorative act is designed will see their heart.
This is very ironic, as Calvin pointed out: “For there is an amazing blindness in glorying in the midst of disgrace.”3 These self-professed spiritual giants that would drag Paul into their court because of his “unwinsome speech,” these who would point to Paul’s weakness and bad luck in life as evidence in their court, Paul’s “secret sin” that disqualifies Paul. These same are presiding over no court at all: but a cover-up. Paul is saying, “Is this what you call moral seriousness!” They see no evil and hear no evil when it is an evil that all the world can see.
When you think of a grand “cover-up” at church, at this moment, you may be thinking of the current scandal of the Roman Catholic Church, in covering up its notorious abuses. For the present, though, let us not allow our minds wander to such an extreme and imagine that we are somehow immune. This sin that Paul calls “arrogant” is happening any time we trade in church discipline for the self-assured expression: “We got this!” We try to manage. We do, as we call it, damage control.
Paul is not fooled. ‘Your boasting is not good. Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump?’ (v. 6) This piece of imagery from the Old Testament easily recalls others. God was often revealed as angry with the whole assembly because of the sin of one, lone individual in the camp.
But the people of Israel broke faith in regard to the devoted things, for Achan … took some of the devoted things. And the anger of the Lord burned against the people of Israel (Josh. 7:1).
Now this might not seem to mesh with our individualism today, and this may easily be confused with the kind of false corporate repentance that we see in the current demands for “racial justice.” However, we must not miss the genuine article in the sea of frauds. The rationale is simple enough. If rebellion against Christ is going on in the camp, and I do not care, and we do not care, then is it really only one, lone rebel? Or is it not a conspiracy of silence? So one reason it is arrogant to forsake discipline is that the wrath of God abides over even His own assembly in a certain respect: “I am jealous for Zion with great jealousy, and I am jealous for her with great wrath” (Zech. 8:2). Another reason is that it is arrogant to think that what overcomes our brother or sister cannot overcome us: “Therefore let anyone who thinks that he stands take heed lest he fall” (1 Cor. 10:12). So this mourning that Paul commends is both sympathy and sobriety.
But there is a third reason that this shows arrogance in the body at large. It is at the heart of the imagery Paul uses. Leaven grows. It expands. In one case, the figure of expanding leaven is a good thing, namely, when Jesus compares the growing kingdom to it (Mat. 13:33). Here the leaven is clearly a bad thing. So, the moral imperative is “Contain that leaven! Reverse that outward march of sin! Quarantine that evil!” And therefore, the ironic cause of excommunication is the whole church that would not nip it in the bud when it was much more easily manageable. The church opting out of discipline is actually the cause of this extreme stage on the excommunication. Perhaps even their false empathy had consequence of doing harm to the one some may have been so worried about.
The Man’s Sin Discredits and Contaminates
This is not an exhaustive list because this is not an exhaustive chapter. It is not meant to be. Paul is addressing a real-life situation. So we can use it as a Spirit-inspired test case. ‘It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you’ (v. 1a). Note the phrase: SEXUAL IMMORALITY AMONG YOU. Sexual immorality is not private immorality. It always affects everyone else around you. The word itself, porneia,4 is very particular and we will explain it a bit more in our next time together.
But just catch the first reason why this sexual immorality cannot be tolerated in the body. It is, Paul says, ‘of a kind that is not tolerated even among pagans, for a man has his father’s wife’ (v. 1b). Do you see his rationale? Even the pagans know this is wrong! Observe yet another instance here of the biblical authors utilizing natural law reasoning to persuade the people of God of something that may otherwise be learned from some Scripture text.
Or, more to the practical point: “The pagans are laughing at us right now! They see our inconsistency!” Now don’t draw the wrong conclusion. The point is not that sexual immorality is just fine, until it reaches that point. Just the opposite. It got to this point because you bought into the lie that what a man does in private has no bearing on his public character.
Naturally this raises the question: Which sins? What sins exactly discredit and contaminate? A fuller answer comes down in verse 11.
Presbyterians have two words for where to draw the line. One word is the word NOTORIOUS and the other, a little stranger to our ears, is CONTUMACIOUS. One refers to the sin, and the other refers to the sinner. A sin is notorious (or infamous) if it is a public disgrace. It drags the name of Christ into the mud, so to speak. It makes our gospel and our witness look bad. And a sinner is contumacious (or is in a state of contumacy) when they are wholly unrepentant. We might call it a flagrant sin because the sinner shows no signs of caring; nor heeding the counsel of his brothers or sisters. This passage in 1 Corinthians perfectly places the senses of these two words. Here we have a man who has committed a notorious sin and is contumacious about it. I draw that out because Paul is really saying that like undisciplined church member, like church. Sin that rages out of control and doesn’t care who knows it - that sin will be a contagion, and the whole church that tolerates it will become it. That church will not care and its carelessness will get out of control and become the beginning of the end of that church as a church.
One caveat before we close on the man’s sin. Our title is “Excommunication: When we have been too arrogant for normal discipline.” The “when” is all-important. The “when” requires contemplation. There are many exceptions, and I do not want anyone to miss that. There are healthy churches that are attacked, seemingly out of nowhere, by false teaching, rank immorality, or a fire-bombing of gossip or slander. That does not mean that the people have been arrogant as a rule; although it may mean that leadership has been arrogant in ignoring a breach in the city walls. But just be aware of this important footnote. There are exceptions.
Let me put it in one more way:
Not all cases of excommunication happen because we have been too arrogant for normal church discipline.
However,
All cases of being too arrogant for normal church discipline will result in one form of excommunication or another: either properly called, because someone will have to be removed from communion by a lawful church court, or because a division will occur in the church body effectively separating brother from brother by less lawful means.
Practical Use of the Doctrine
Use 1. Instruction. If it belongs to Paul’s rationale to discipline that which even the world knows is sexually perverse, then it follows that any such sexual perversion is rightly within the scope of church discipline. The biblicist impulse appears in the nagging insistence that we “produce” the verse that says this or that about homosexuality or transgenderism. Losing the art of making inferences will be the death of us. Make no mistake, Paul sternly warns elsewhere, within the whole scope—“sexual immorality and all impurity” (Eph. 5:3)—and then concludes: “For you may be sure of this, that everyone who is sexually immoral or impure, or who is covetous (that is, an idolater), has no inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God” (v. 5). This lawyer-like biblicism belong to those “empty words” that Paul tells the Ephesians are meant to deceive us into license.
Use 2. Exhortation. I said it at the beginning and I will say it again: Discipline is a cover to sin—but there were two coverings in the Garden of Eden after sin: the first of man’s devices (a fig leaf) and the second of God’s grace (a sacrifice). We do not receive that latter gracious, truly effective covering because of how we perform in church discipline. Where we have failed to discipline, where we have practiced the arrogance of being “hands off,” so as to correct overbearing legalism with live-and-let-live license, God gives us grace. Let us embrace His appointed judicial means as a means of that grace.
_____________________________________________________
1. Wayne Grudem’s treatment of the Greek construction, which the NASB picks up on as “whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.” — Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994), 890-91; cf. D. A. Carson, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, Volume 9: Matthew and Mark, ed. Tremper Longman III & David E. Garland (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2010), 370-72.
2. This is a participial form (συναχθέντων) - “being gathered together” - of συνάγω.
3. Calvin, Commentaries, XX:180.
4. Prior sets the “literal” sense at “resorting to prostitutes” (First Corinthians, 71), which would fit the Corinthians context better than other renderings that have been given to fit the modern controversies in which it is borrowed.
