Drunken Mystic

I have written you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people— not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. But now I am writing you that you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler. With such a man do not even eat.

What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? God will judge those outside. “Expel the wicked man from among you.” I Corinthians 5:9-13

Paul repeats something he’s told them before (you repeat things you really want to teach .. especially when people aren’t getting it). You cannot keep company with sexually immoral people. But he doesn’t mean those in the world. If someone is not a part of the fellowship of the saints, then you’re not to cut them off. To do so would require you to have no contact with the world at all, which isolates the Church and the very testimony of Christ.

But to fellowship intimately, in community, with those practicing serious sin, you are compromising the testimony of Christ, not enhancing it. Sinners will be sinners, though. To expect them to be something different is unrealistic. Christians are held to a higher standard. Paul gives the Corinthians a list of no-nos in verse 11 — sexual immorality, covetousness, idolatry, reviling, drunkenness or extortion — they were not to associate with those who claimed to be in Christ yet consistently practiced these sins … struggling is one thing … giving in is another.

So Paul makes a distinction: there are some who are outside the Church. Some who are outside.

Inside/outside what? A building? An organization? No, the Church, the Kingdom of God, fellowship, a community of faith, whatever kind of organic/spiritual collective expression of Christ you wanna call it. There was a definite line of demarcation in Corinth in some capacity, despite their many, many issues. Some are in, some are out.

And it is the Christian, the Christ-like, responsibility to judge those within, to measure who claim Christ against a standard of true repentance and righteousness.

Again, this is not pride but humility and obedience towards God and the sacred fellowship we are to have with one another and with Christ.

So, to “hand them over to Satan” means to hand them over to God’s judgment, not your own, so that he may later be restored. By refusing fellowship, you don’t know their hearts fully but their actions, so you are actually refraining from being God and fully judging. Apart from fellowship, this person is completely in God’s hands, which is grace and kindness to that man in sin.

I have seen this handled a couple times in a correct way, but there are many difficulties. There are other fellowships that will gladly take another problem child to fill a pew and pay a tithe. Christian leaders from fellowships right next door to one another barely talk civilly, much less care enough about Christians in both fellowships to not “steal sheep” and keep abreast of problems like this.

Because of these problems, many don’t deal with discipline at all, just hoping they’ll get something “in the sermon” while their brother is on his way to death. Leaders feel helpless in such a system, so structured that it ironically entails much confusion and powerlessness.

Others don’t discipline because Church discipline has been abused. Any discipline can be abused, but that doesn’t invalidate truth or the dangers of just ignoring problems. Just because some guy beats his kids for the smallest thing does not mean I shouldn’t discipline my son at all and just “let him be what he wants to be when he’s ready.” That is also far from biblical discipline and fraught with failure, another type of abuse (remember one of David’s sons that raped his sister … the scripture says David had never told him “no”).

Still uncomfortable?

Okay, I’ll try to find some time tomorrow to give you some balance!!

Peace.

Your glorying is not good. Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump? Therefore purge out the old leaven, that you may be a new lump, since you truly are unleavened. For indeed Christ, our Passover, was sacrificed for us. Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, nor with the leaven of malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth. 1 Corinthians 5:6-8

After making sure they understand the seriousness of this sin and the expectation of their response very clear (often times, the Greek language is much harsher than our English interpretation … not a hard and fast rule, but generally true in these instances), Paul continues to address the boasting of the assembly.

As if he heard it handed down from the original twelve, Paul asks them a rhetorical question, “Don’t you know that just a little yeast puffs up the whole loaf of bread?” Jesus dealt with the pride of the religious leaders of His day with the same metaphor.

Paul then begins to make inferences based on the initial Passover feast, which is truly defined as Jesus Christ and His sacrifice. (In the gospels, Jesus wasn’t giving them something new called “communion”, He was redefining a tradition that had been followed for literally hundreds of years, the Passover, that He was the lamb and the sacrifice that freed them from slavery to become God’s people of promise; He was the New Covenant Himself)

Under the rules of the Old Law, the house was to be completely cleaned out of any leaven before the Passover. Not only could they not cook with it during Passover, they were restricted from having any leaven at all. This was to guard against temptation because anyone who ate any leaven over Passover week was to be “cut off from the congregation of Israel.”

Are we seeing a pattern here?

By getting rid of their pride, their boasting in sin, they are able to become a “new lump”, ready for fellowship with Christ. In verse 8, Paul concludes his Passover metaphor by telling them to purge not only the leaven of pride but malice and wickedness, leaving only the bread of sincerity and truth.

In other words, as Christ is representative of the Passover, get rid of pride, malice, and wickedness so you are able to participate of Christ in sincerity and truth. Pride, malice, and wickedness are not mutually exclusive here … they are all outshoots of the same root of the flesh.

Despite what many now teach, it was pride to allow this level of unrepentant sin to continue in the fellowship, namely the sin of sexual immorality. Many today would say it is pride or judgmental to deal with other’s sexual behavior. Paul is adamant that the opposite is true.

This means that sexual immorality, while it may be behind closed doors, is not private, according to the Bible, among the fellowship of saints.

Think about it. If we are the Body of Christ, connected through community, true faith, and (more importantly) the seal of the Holy Spirit, then there can be no private sin. If one brings sin, especially serious sin like sexual immorality, into the community of faith, it spiritually affects the whole community in ways we do not understand, and maybe not supposed to. But the principle is true just the same, and I guarantee we will see the fruit of it.

More to come in the conclusion …

Peace.

Finished Jesus Among Other Gods by Zacharias. Actually, it finished better than it started. I’ll share some quotes here.

The difference between name-calling and calling one by name is world-views apart. … we see that the difference between a silent world and one in which God has spoken is the dramatic line of division between the theist and the naturalist.

The mockery and ridicule in the Scopes trial was not the mockery of an intellectual over a lunatic. It was the mockery of the voice of man over the voice of God.
In the first garden, God spoke, and humanity denied that He had. Humanism was born, and man became the source of meaning.

Common sense tells us that we cannot live without a moral law. But how does one generate a moral law if God has not spoken? The only answer is to arrange a morality of one’s own design that, though mystical and transcendent, is attainable by one’s own efforts. This way we appeal to our spiritual bent and at the same time incorporate our self at the center. If we can be good without God but retain a religiosity, we win both the secular and the sacred.

When God sent the plagues upon Egypt in the Old Testament, they were designed to show that He alone was supreme over the objects they had deified (rivers, planets, creatures, magic, and so on) and that there was no other like Him. Nature, humanity, and every other entity or quantity is distinct from God. We cannot try to eliminate that distinction with impunity. From pantheism to the worship of nature, the temptation of the desert is still with us today, to have religion without God.

When the missionary John Paton arrived in the New Hebrides in the mid-1800′s, he began translation on the New Testament. He did not know how to illustrate the word BELIEVE. Finally, when he leaned completely on a chair in such a way that his whole weight was on it, the concept of trust emerged. “For God so loved the world, that He gave His one and only Son, that whosoever throws his whole weight on Him, will not perish but have eternal life.”

Perhaps if our naturalists would stop looking only for a gardener, they might be surprised at who they would find, or should I say, at who finds them. They might actually hear Him call them by name also and might truly understand the gardens and the deserts of this world for the first time.

Peace.

I’m not as much a fan as a casual lister at times, but Sean Hannity actually impressed me today. Every now and then, as I’m scrolling through the stations on my way home, between 4-5, I hit upon Mr. Hannity and listen if its something interesting. Many times I get tired of just bashing people instead of truly dealing with issues, but other times I appreciate his political thoughts, even on the Democratic race, which are pretty right on most of the time.

Anyway, if you haven’t heard, a whole other pastor has been bashing Obama. His name is Manning, and he has said some pretty harsh things about Obama. He actually said Obama came from a white trash mother and a father who was “whoring” for white women. Then he said Obama was “born trash” and then called it the “word of God.” Well, Hannity played the clips and had the guy on the radio, severely challenging any semblance of Christianity in said statements. Manning said some other things that were a little more reasonable and valid, but saying someone was “born trash” is just unacceptable for anyone who claims to believe in Christ.

So here Hannity was, calling on this pastor to show some compassion. Hannity openly admitted that he disagrees with much of Obama’s policy and the direction he would take the country, but he would never say someone was “born trash.” Hannity’s actual comment was, “How can you say that about a child?” and “How can you hold Obama responsible for who his parents were.”

I know I give some flack to Hannity for the whole “stop Hillary express” and everything, but I actually appreciated his attempt at decency.

Peace

Catchy title, eh?

Been sitting on this one a while, meditating on it, but thought it was time to start the series … should be fun and interesting.

I think one of the ways my Christian walk truly changed was when I stopped interpreting the scripture according to my doctrine or theology and just read it and believed what it said, developing my principles after an honest assessment of the Bible … instead of developing principles based on a lofty theology and then skimming scripture to support it.

This includes parts we don’t like and will probably never hear mentioned by some teacher at a megachurch. But they are in there, and we might as well deal with them.

As we look into some of these scriptures, it becomes important when we re-examine big questions like, what is the Church? What is Her role? Who is She supposed to be? Things like that. It’s cool and new to re-examine, to question everything, but often that examination is dishonest and too driven by worldly agendas to really change anything. The emperor is still after we’re done making fun of him.

One of these issues is Church discipline, and an uncomfortable one to look at in reference is 1 Corinthians 5, which has the handy quote, “deliver such a one to Satan,” hence the catchy title.

In part 1, we’ll tackle the first five verses:

It is actually reported that there is ual immorality among you, and such ual immorality as is not even named among the Gentiles—that a man has his father’s wife! And you are puffed up, and have not rather mourned, that he who has done this deed might be taken away from among you. For I indeed, as absent in body but present in spirit, have already judged (as though I were present) him who has so done this deed. In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when you are gathered together, along with my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.

First off, Paul is amazed that there is extreme sin named among the community of faith, gross ual immorality, at that (a man, on some level, has had some type of ual relationship with his father’s wife … his mother? don’t know … no more detail than that). Paul contends that it is so bad, that even the “Gentiles” (the unsaved) don’t do these things.

What’s worse to Paul is that they are proud of it. The whole Church is “puffed up” because they have accepted or allowed this sin in their midst. What were they boasting in? Their freedom? Their tolerance? Regardless, they were prideful about it, boasting.

Rather, this should have caused them to mourn, to weep for the sin committed among them. They, as the family of God around this man, should have taken personal responsibility for this sin and felt the seriousness of it intimately.

Then in verse three, Paul firmly announces that they should, in the name of Jesus, place judgment upon this man: to hand him over to Satan.

Here’s where it gets interesting. This was obviously some sort of public shaming (done not in secret but while they were gathered together) and expulsion. He basically commands them to do this the next time they met and give this man a swift kick in the rear. They were to no longer associate with him at all.

And, before you start quoting scriptures in your head about not judging and planks and specks, this was to be done in the name of Jesus, in Jesus’ stead, with His power, as if Jesus Himself were doing this.

Why? Paul isn’t saying this out of malice or revenge or even punishment, but love. Yes, love. Paul’s goal here was to expose the acts of the flesh for what they were, the seriousness of them, and the consequences based on their seriousness. What are the consequences? Separation from God and His Kingdom (Paul repeatedly lists people who actively participate in certain sins as not a part of the Kingdom at all).

So how is this love? Well, Paul wanted his soul to be saved in the judgment of Jesus Christ, on that Day. Isn’t that love? Not to condemn him. Based on his sin, in God’s eyes, he was already condemned. Paul wanted the Church to express by outward expulsion the inward truth that had already occurred.

Now, realize, this was a very serious thing, and this man was unrepentant … did not even see it as wrong … and the whole community had been led down this path with him. To keep fellowship with this man, in his unrepentant state in something so serious, was lying to him, thereby hating him. That is the opposite of love.

Also interesting to me is the implication that, on some mystical level I don’t understand, to be in fellowship and community is to be in the Kingdom … that to not have fellowship with this man was to hand him over to Satan … for his redemption.

Still uncomfortable? There’s a happy ending, so stay tuned …

Peace.

God wants our commitment to Him rather than our education about Him.

You rebuild the temple, then repair the walls, THEN you can hang the Door.

It was said about Christ, “Zeal for Your house has consumed Me.” He’s waiting for that zeal to consume His Body, too.

Peace.

Not much really happening this week in either Republican or Democratic circles, as far as the pres race stuff goes. Obama will continue to get flack, and some of his other past political relationships will haunt him. If he can weather this storm, though, and get the nomination, he’ll still probably beat McCain in the general — although I have personally heard a couple of my die-hard Democrat friends finding themselves very disappointed with Obama and Hillary and leaning heavily towards McCain. McCain might have more of a shot than I think if the moderates view Obama and Hillary as too liberal, much like they did Kerry in ’04.

Hillary has been eerily quiet recently, which means she’s found some more reasonable advisors. If she had openly exploited Obama’s latest debacle, she would’ve only continued to make herself look worse, which has been her modus operandi for the past few months.

On to the issue today — gun control.

Recently, the Supreme Court asserted the right to own a gun … but also the government’s right to place some limitation on that ownership. Relatively safe and accurate constitutional decision, and it only really continues the modern status quo — enough gray area to give both the NRA and liberals pushing room.

The US has extremely open gun ownership laws for an industrialized country. I know in Korea you cannot own a gun at all. I’m sure there is some illegal gun ownership, but its pretty rare there. In fact, most other nations in Europe and Asia view America as too free in this area.

But just as every nation has their own cultural history, so does America, unique in ways that applying even common standards may not work … this is the case with gun control. (Funny to me how some are very adamant about not spreading our culture abroad but are more than willing to point to another country and go, “hey, they do it!”, to prove some argument)

Historically, the US has maintained the importance of gun rights for two reasons: self-protection and hunting.

Initially, the liberals during the framing of the Constitution would not sign off on the document without something protecting the rights of the individual. They wrote the 10, one of the main ones being the right to own a gun. Britain had attempted to disarm the colonies as they imposed their will upon the Americans. The liberal fear of big government required the protection of that right. The fact that many Americans were members of a allowed the colonists to hold out long enough to get French help.

After independence was attained, the pioneer spirit took over. In “lawless” areas, pioneers felt the need to protect themselves from Native Americans and one another, as well as hunting for food.

Both of these elements have been glorified over our history, for good or ill, and so we have a /hunting culture associated with guns.

Historically, the disarmament of the citizen is an act of despotism and oppression, a way to put more power in the hands of the government to subdue a people and remove their ability to rebel, a monopoly on the power of force much like over-taxation is the power over money and provision. It makes the government the source of both.

I understand the liberal viewpoint though: not necessarily to give more power to the government (although that is what you’re doing), but to keep gun from occuring. That is a noble motivation, but I’ll ask a couple questions to quickly delve into this issue.

Over the past twenty years, has gun control increased or decreased? Increased dramatically in many areas.

Over those same twenty years, has gun increased or decreased? If we believe the news, this has also increased. School s are common events in the news. They weren’t twenty years ago.

So gun control doesn’t seem to be working for its intended effect. Not because it isn’t a valid idea but because of our cultural history, which will take more than just a couple new laws to change. Those new laws might make politicians sound and look good, but it isn’t getting at the root issue of our violent cultural history. We would seriously have to look at rap music, violent movies, TV and gaming, which is touchy concerning free speech rights, also placing more power over us (what we can say and express) by the government.

How about the Church? Well, I wouldn’t say it’s un-Christian to own a gun (Remember when Jesus told his disciples to bring their swords, and they had a couple ready? That was after being with him for three years … and he didn’t rebuke them for it). At the same time, for most Christians in America, hunting is not a necessity, and we aren’t called to protect ourselves physically against even an oppressive government.

Jesus healed the ear of the centurion Peter attacked with that very sword — and his words to Pilate are very important — “My Kingdom is not of this world, if it were, my people would fight.” We are to love our enemies, not shoot them; die for them, not kill them. We serve the Kingdom of God, are we in need to protect ourselves from the USA? I think God can handle it. If a Christian in China can pray for his government despite its many injustices against humanity, I think we’ll have the grace we need when we need it.

One more spiritual point — the dichotomy between Jesus and Barabas is telling. Jesus was willing to die to save and preached a different message than Barabas the zealot, who attempted to establish a new Israel through and force. As Pilate pleaded with the Jews for the life of their true King, the Jews declared, “We have no king but Ceasar!”

Let’s not choose Barabas again and declare an earthly government our King.

Peace.

Cardboard Jesus was over in the corner while I finished writing my blog.

“I see you over there,” I said. “I’ll be with you when I’m finished.”

Peace.