The Nuclear Option for Spiritual Formation

Recently a discussion group I am leading was reflecting on the quality of “safety” in a community, that quality that makes it possible for sin to be openly confessed and for healing and redemption to occur.  In the course of our discussion one of our members described a church that she had once visited.  On that visit the pastor stood up in front of the congregation and declared that a married couple was having irreconcilable problems, that the wife had demanded a divorce, that the husband did not want one and that the consequence was that no one in the church should feel obligated to have anything to do with the wife in the future.

In some circles this practice goes by the term, "excommunication." Others give it a more palatable name, “disfellowship.”  But it seems to me that it warrants a more visceral title – shunning.

What really struck me in our discussion was the comment by another member of the group that she believed that the practice was biblical.  I warned her (gently, I hope) to be careful not to make assumptions like that based on what she had been taught or read about scripture but to actually read the text and see what it had to say.  Now I’ve done the same and I’m really wondering if she was right.

The text in question comes from Paul’s first letter to the Corinthian church.  As Paul is issuing a scathing rebuke to the church for all manner of offenses, he comes to a point where he expresses his outrage and his judgment on a man who is having a sexual relationship with his father’s wife (apparently his stepmother).  Paul’s judgment is that the man is to be cut off from the community.  They are not even to share meals with him.  “Expel the wicked man from among you” he writes (1 Corinthians 5:13b).

Make no mistake about it, this practice is to spiritual formation what nuclear bombs are to diplomacy.  Everybody loses when a church gets to this point with a member of their fellowship.  Certainly the offender loses.   The need for inclusion is so strong in the human spirit and the pain of exclusion is so great that we will often go to extremes in belief and behavior to be on the inside.  Just think about high school here.

I am reminded of a story a professor shared when I was a graduate student in communications taking a class in persuasion theory.  He was talking about the tactics used by cults to indoctrinate new members.  They didn’t require force or threats, just simple Skinner-based reinforcement methods.  When a recruit said or did something that approximated “correct” thought they were praised.  When they said or did something that represented “incorrect” thought they were given disapproving silence.  The professor said that some doctoral students in psychology who infiltrated a cult to study it actually required months of intense therapy to recover from their indoctrination.

Now imagine the offender who is cast out.  Imagine the searing wound left on the soul of that person, no matter how strong or stubborn or prideful they might be there is no denying that being shunned by people who have formerly offered you acceptance hurts.

But the rest of the community suffers a loss as well.  If we really believe the biblical metaphor that we are all members of a body, each with a unique role to play, then the amputation of part of that body leaves the rest wounded as well.  My group’s discussion was centered on the idea of safety when this subject came up.  How safe, I asked, would that church feel when the pastor publicly cast out one of its members?  Would anyone ever be inclined to confess anything again?  It seems to me that in such a community my sin and brokenness and pain would be instantly driven underground, hidden away from anyone’s view lest I suffer the same fate.

However, it is clear in Paul’s epistle that he is referring to someone who is unrepentant.  Not being a Greek scholar I am at a disadvantage here but the English translation indicates the present tense, the man HAS his father’s wife, presumably in an ongoing relationship.  Maybe that’s the key.  Can we tolerate unrepentant sin in our midst?  Unfortunately, yes, we do it all the time.  The problem with it is that some sin is more visible or more shocking than others.  Had this man chosen to indulge gluttony or greed instead of lust he wouldn’t be cast out of a twenty-first century American church.  On the contrary, he might be celebrated by some as a jolly fellow or courted by others as a potential wealthy giver.

Yet I have to admit that I can’t find fault with Paul’s judgment and, unfortunately, not even necessarily with the pastor described by my group member’s story.  When we encounter sin within the church (a very important distinction according to Paul) and there is no openness to correction the nuclear option is all that’s left.  The problem with this morality tale is that we simply don’t have all the facts.

I feel like I trust Paul because Jesus did.  The pastor my group member described?  Maybe not so much.  I have to wonder if the woman wanted out of a loveless or even abusive marriage and the man went to the church to exercise control over her.  Was she responding to an affair on his part or on the other hand, was she just looking to trade up?  Maybe they both carried responsibility (much more likely) and the best advice the pastor could give was, “stick out because the bible says so.”  That’s the problem with ethical dilemmas, they are dilemmas precisely because there is no clear answer.  That’s why we’re so dependent on God and must always be so.  If all we had to do was open up the bible like an instruction manual with all the answers what use would the Holy Spirit have in our lives?

Yet what really strikes me in re-reading this section of Paul’s writing is that his indictment is not simply on the offender, it is on the entire community.  The man is at fault in his behavior and unwillingness to change but they are all at fault in that they have tolerated him, even boasted about him (Paul’s words, not mine).  Rather than shaping his character with true friendship they have reinforced his sin with sycophantic approval.  Maybe that’s the most important lesson in this for us: we are to bear each other's sins because we all bear the consequences when we fail to do so.

Addendum: It occurs to me that I failed to mention that my group's original discussion was prompted by a post in the Letters from Kamp Krusty blog.  My sincere apologies to Brant for not giving him the credit.

Comments

[grace]

Ron,
This was an interesting post, and I share your uneasiness with the idea of disfellowshipping.

A few thoughts here, and then I will likely also post about this topic.

First, I think that we have a tendency to read Paul through a lens of traditional church structure and apply his ideas more organizationally than perhaps he intended them, rather than relationally.

I attempt to understand Paul's writing with an emphasis on unity, believing that some translations have missed his intent and added to the confusion. However, I am also aware that I could be overreaching with my own biases.

Also, when reading about sin in the NT, I attempt to interpret it through God's love and desire for restoration rather than with an assumption of God's wrath and anger.

All of that to preface my thoughts about I Cor. 5:

My first thought is that in condoning this man's sin, the Corinthians were contributing to his spiritual sickness and possibly the loss of his soul. I believe their attitude was as you describe -

"On the contrary, he might be celebrated by some as a jolly fellow or courted by others as a potential wealthy giver."

This is my understanding of verse 2 - that they were not grieved that this man might be permanently lost from the fellowship of believers.

I think that verse 5 means that the destruction of his flesh nature will be necessary for his soul to be saved. I am not convinced that the "turning him over" means writing him off, throwing out, or excluding him.

Arrogant unrepentance automatically excludes us from true fellowship with believers in worship. What fellowship can darkness have with light?

I'm not sure that it is necessary for us to enforce that exclusion by decree. In fact, it seems that repentance would be more likely when the door to true fellowship is left open.

I think that your last paragraph describes the heart and attitude that a community must have regarding sin.

If we are truly grieved by sin, rather than arrogant acceptance and possibly even participation, we would avoid involving ourselves in compromising situations. (not joining them at the table of sin)

We would instead support and encourage one another in righteous living, calling one another away from whatever evil influences may still be at work in our lives. (expelling the evil from among you)

I have trouble with the idea of complete exclusion. I believe that real fellowship is broken when a brother is in unrepentant sin and can only be truly restored when that person is restored.

Fellowship isn't necessarily whether we sit in a Sunday service together, but rather whether we are walking the same path. Broken fellowship is the honest admission that we are not walking the same path.

No matter how much I might desire to walk with a brother, true fellowship can only be restored when we are both walking in humble submission to the Lordship of Christ.

I would love to hear your response to these thoughts.

[Ron Shaw]

Grace:
I really appreciate your comments. You have some great insight here.

I couldn’t agree more about Paul’s emphasis on unity. In fact, the more closely I read in his epistles the more I am inclined to believe that this was his central concern. That casts a very different light on this subject.

Yet, I’m not so sure I understand the attitude and behavior of the Corinthian church in relationship to this man as you seem to. If, as Paul says, he’s behaving in a manner that would raise eyebrows even among the pagans of the community, why are they “boasting” at all? Is it as we have both speculated that he has some kind of material or relational juice that gives him more freedom in the community than would otherwise be warranted? Perhaps they are just glad to have such a shocking sinner in their midst to make their own stuff pale in comparison. I just don’t know.

However, I really appreciate your insight on the effect of his sin on the fellowship. It isn’t that he must be cast out to restore fellowship; the damage is already done by the sin itself. As you say, “arrogant unrepentance automatically excludes us from true fellowship with believers in worship.”

But that’s the real rub for me here, just how unrepentant is this guy? I’ve read and re-read the text and I don’t think we can say anything about his attitude, we can only surmise that his behavior hasn’t changed. I know that I’m running this through my own twenty-first century cultural filters but I think there’s a lot of space between, “Yeah, I’m sleeping with my step-mother, so what?” and “I’m sleeping with my step-mother and I just can’t stop myself.” The latter is a cry for fellowship just as much as the former is an obvious break thereof.

It didn’t occur to me until just now that it was a post in the Letters from Kamp Krusty blog that prompted this discussion. Brant’s story of a pastor caught so red-handed in his pornography addiction that he must have been humbled really struck a chord with the group I was leading. By the way, thanks, Brant! In that case I could see the truly loving fellowship saying, “Listen man, we’ll walk with you through this. We’ll be there for you if you want to break this. But if you can’t admit that you have a problem, admit that you’re an addict, we can’t be with you and you can’t be with us. Without that step you’re poison to us.”

After your insight I’m all the more of the opinion that shunning is a nuclear option for sin that has already damaged fellowship. It’s not an unthinkable option but it should be a last resort.

[robbymac]

We once had to ask a leadership couple to step down because of their obsession with Shepherding Movement "covering" teachings and demanding that others submit to them with unquestioning obedience. They were confronted, again and again and again, with how their actions were wounding people and in some cases, causing people to flee out of fear of being abused by them.

These "interventions" did nothing: they just denied everything and accused us of being part of a Satanic conspiracy to get them out of ministry.

For us, it was (A) this incredible level of self-deception and manipulation, (B) the lack of "owning" what they'd actually done to others, and ultimately, (C) their refusal to listen, repent, apologize, or commit to a process of restoration, that led us to the unsatisfying but necessary step of asking them to leave.

One of the young men who had been the most abused by this couple later said to me, "You know that verse where God says 'I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked'? I think I know what that means now. I know it's for the best that they're gone, but I'm not happy about it."

Wise words from that young man. Exclusion -- even when there's no other option -- should always be an unhappy last resort.

[GIG]

Jesus had some comments about this very thing. In Matthew 18:5-9

"And whoever welcomes a little child like this in my name welcomes me. But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.
Woe to the world because of the things that cause people to sin! Such things must come, but woe to the man through whom they come! 8If your hand or your foot causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life maimed or crippled than to have two hands or two feet and be thrown into eternal fire. 9And if your eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into the fire of hell."

Sometimes I think excommunication is vital to a community when that person or persons continues to cause others to sin or turn away from God. The Catholic church used to do this all the time in church history. Kings would rise up and the church didn't like something they did so they wouldn't allow them to have communion. It's one reason why the Church of England broke off from the Roman Catholic Church. Anyway, sometimes we need the separation to search our own souls and then we can once again come back. But there is an accountability within churches and even between Christians. Paul said a number of times that those who are more wise in the faith need to watch out for the younger ones. We need to teach them and bring them up into greater faith. If we have people continually turning others to sin it makes a mockery of God for one and ruins the integrity of a community. In all of this though we need to be looking through the eyes of grace with great humility and love for those who are let go. Just a couple of ideas!

[Ron Shaw]

GIG, thanks for your comments. You are right about the history here but all the more so in your comment about "the integrity of the community." When the time comes to exercise this last of all options it must be done so not from a stance of self-righteous superiority but from the humble stance of protecting the community.