| |
Viewpoint
July 3, 2006
Church membership, repentance, and the transformed life
By Robert A. J. Gagnon
A recent Presbyweb letter by Richard Hong (July 1, 2006) raises a challenge about church membership and its relation to repentance, faith, and the transformed life that is worth considering. Mr. Hong writes in response to Rev. Elliott Scott:
| |
In Pastor Scott's reading of [1 Cor 5:9-13], is he advocating that we should go further and deny membership, even fellowship, to active homosexuals? Does he believe that G-5.0103 and G-5.0301 should be amended to preclude homosexuals (and the greedy, and other persons who might be considered "wicked") from participation in the church? After all, 1 Cor 5:9-13 is speaking of more than the selection of church leaders. |
These questions raise additional questions: Did the apostle Paul make a mistake in taking the action that he did against (or, better, in favor of) the incestuous man? Did he disregard the best interests of God, the community, and even the incestuous man when he advocated temporary suspension from the life of the redeemed community? Would Paul have erred had he adopted the same policy toward a serial unrepentant adulterer? Or a man who decided to pick up a few extra wives? Are similar injunctions about communal discipline that appear in Matthew 18 invalid? I, for one, do not think so.
Nor do I think a "business as usual" policy would have been a more loving approach on Paul's part. I think Paul actually loved the incestuous man far more than the Corinthians did. Paul also had a far better pastoral sense and a greater willingness to sacrifice his life for his churches than any other pastor whom I know of today. Now, if one acknowledges the obvious-that Paul acted correctly and did so out of love-then the next question is whether the offense of same-sex intercourse rises to the same level of seriousness as adult consensual incest, adultery, and "polyfidelity." Doubtless, Mr. Hong and others would say "No."
Yet an affirmative answer to that question is not difficult to discern from Scripture set in its historical context. In fact, if anything, same-sex intercourse rises to a greater level of seriousness because it violates the very foundation that enables the prohibition of these other sexual offenses and strikes at the heart of God's ordained will for human sexual pairing in Genesis 1-2. This, incidentally, is why same-sex intercourse is singled out among sexual offenses in the extended vice list in Rom 1:18-32, with intertextual echoes to the creation texts. It is also important to add that the mere possession of same-sex attractions is not grounds for exclusion from membership or church office. The issue here is persistent, unrepentant affirmation of such attractions in one's thought life and behavior.
Should membership requirements consider issues of minimal morality? Yes, very definitely. I can think of some cases that just about any rational person would agree should raise serious red flags about membership. Suppose a person wanted to become a member of the PCUSA but routinely and unrepentantly spouted sentiments like "I think African Americans, oriental persons, and Jews should be exterminated." Should such a person be allowed to become a member while in the midst of egregious and active disobedience to Scripture, especially if he would not agree to keep such comments to himself during church services or was determined to wear a Nazi uniform in church? How about an active, unrepentant pedophile, incest-phile, adulterer, rapist, wife-beater, or serial killer? How about a person actively and unrepentantly engaged in ripping off the elderly of their life savings? How about an active, unrepentant thief?
I think the point is fairly obvious: If a person claims that he or she has accepted Christ as Savior and Lord, then it is right and necessary for the church to have some minimal expectation of obedience. Not absolute perfection, of course, because then all would flunk the test. But still a minimal expectation of obedience. Faith is not just an intellectual assent to the truth; it is a reorientation of life to Christ. It is not that works merit salvation but that true faith issues in a reformed or transformed life. There are sexual offenses, if committed in a serial and unrepentant fashion, that would merit consideration of refusal of membership or, if already a member, temporary suspension from the life of the community until there is repentance.
That is why the Apostolic Decree in Acts 15 insisted on, as a precondition for the inclusion of Gentiles in the life of the church, abstention from porneia ("sexual immorality"). It is also why Paul, in our earliest extant letter, began his moral exhortation by re-warning his Gentile converts to
| |
abstain from sexual immorality (porneia)... [and not live] like the Gentiles who do not know God... because the Lord is an avenger regarding all these things... For God called us not to sexual uncleanness (akatharsia) but in holiness. Therefore the one who rejects [these commands] rejects not humans but the God who gives his Holy Spirit to us. (1 Thess 4:2-8) |
This is similar to Paul's remarks in 2 Corinthians, where Paul regrets: |
| |
I may have to mourn over many who have continued in their former sinning and did not repent of the sexual uncleanness (akatharsia), sexual immorality (porneia), and licentiousness (aselgeia) that they practiced. (12:21)
|
And it explains why sexual vices are "front-ended" in a series of vice lists in Pauline texts that elaborate on whom among self-professed Christians runs the risk of being disqualified from the kingdom of God (Gal 5:19-21; 1 Cor 6:9-10; Rom 1:24-27; 6:19-23; Col 3:5-10; Eph 5:3-6). Ephesians 4:17-19 makes a similar point to Acts 15 and 1 Thess 4:2-8: |
| |
[N]o longer walk as the Gentiles walk,... who... have given themselves up to licentiousness (aselgeia) for the doing of every sexual uncleanness (akatharsia)... Sexual immorality (porneia) and sexual uncleanness (akatharsia) of any kind... must not even be named among you, as is proper among saints. |
The early church's gospel message – and that of John the Baptist and of Jesus – usually included a call to repentance: "Repent and believe," not "believe without a requirement to desist from a life led primarily under sin" (John the Baptist: Matt 3:2, 8; Mark 1:4; Acts 13:24; 19:4; Jesus: Mark 1:15; Matt 11:20-21 = Luke 10:13; Matt 12:41 = Luke 11:32; Luke 5:32; 13:3-5; 15:7, 10; 17:3-4; 24:47; risen Christ: Rev 2:5, 16, 21-22; 3:3, 19; Jesus' instruction to the Twelve: Mark 6:12; the early church: Acts 2:38; 3:19; 5:31; 8:19-23; 11:18; 17:30; 20:21; 26:20; in addition to texts from Paul cited above, see: Rom 2:4; 2 Tim 2:25; Heb 6:1-6; 12:17; 2 Pet 3:9).
To be sure, there are a number of red herrings used by people in the church who argue that repentance should not be a part of the church's expectation for membership. I mention two of the most common here:
|
1.
|
We are all sinners. Well, of course, we all fall into sin at different times. The early church knew this too, including Paul. But it didn't stop them from setting minimal expectations for righteous conduct and expecting repentance from sin when committed. Jesus was very generous on this score. According to Luke 17, a person could sin seven times a day (a symbol for a ridiculously high number) and still be forgiven if he or she repents. I guess that Jesus and the early church realized that if a believer couldn't attain a minimal level of decency-say, by desisting from serial, unrepentant idol worship, murder, stealing, exploitation of the poor, or sexual immorality-then it was probably a safe bet that the confession of faith didn't take or, if it did take at an earlier time, it was now grossly deficient. Many (such as Mr. Hong) claim that if we adopt this view of things, the church would have to exclude the "greedy," by which he and others understand
virtually all believers. The word that Paul used in 1 Cor 5 refers to perpetrators of particularly egregious exploitative acts like deliberately and repeatedly swindling people out of money, not just those who purchase some luxury goods. |
|
2.
|
Jesus never would have disassociated from sinners. It is true that Jesus actively sought out sinners to reclaim them from the kingdom of God. This is a wonderful example for the church today. We have memorable stories like Zacchaeus the tax collector, the sinful woman who washed Jesus' feet with her tears, and the woman caught in adultery. But there is no evidence that Jesus would have continued indefinitely in association with tax collectors who, long after their encounter with Jesus, refused to stop exploiting the poor by collecting several times over what they were expected to collect and pocketing the difference; or with women who persisted unrepentantly in adultery or prostitution. Zacchaeus promises to give back whatever he has taken from others. The sinful woman in Luke 7 loves much because she has been forgiven much. And the adulterous woman is told to "no longer be sinning" lest something worse than a capital sentence happen to her (i.e., exclusion
from God's kingdom). The church must likewise provide opportunities for offenders to hear the gospel and respond to it. But it cannot be expected to condone indefinitely, by inaction, conduct of an egregious sort that is both serial and unrepentant, committed by members or candidates for membership. Moreover, church discipline, done rightly, is not punitive but loving. It has the best interests of the offender at heart, as well as that of the community of believers to which the offender belongs (a little leaven leavens the whole batch of dough). The church constantly has to monitor whether, by postponing discipline, it is giving the offender gracious opportunity to repent or communicating to both the offending believer and the community that the offense in question and comparable offenses are not serious. |
Recapping the above points:
|
1.
|
Our Lord and the apostolic witness to his teaching commanded a minimal expectation of repentance from members of Christ's body. This includes abstinence from persistent and unrepentant participation in clear and egregious forms of sexual immorality (e.g., no incest, no adultery, no same-sex intercourse, no sex with prostitutes, no bestiality). |
|
2.
|
Discipline, done appropriately, is an act of love, not hate, because so much is at stake in terms of the moral purity of the community of faith and the judgment of God upon unrepentant offenders. |
|
3.
|
The church should be generous in its acceptance of the genuineness of claims to repentance by offenders, give reasonable opportunity for the offender to be exposed to the gracious demand of the gospel, and take action only in cases that are particularly egregious, serial, and unrepentant. |
|
4.
|
A church that disconnects completely membership requirements and minimal expectations for a holy life is a church that is deficient in both love of offenders and reverential fear of God. The church of today does not love more, or better, nor is it more "pastoral," than our Lord, the apostle Paul, or the rest of the New Testament witness. |
As regards the stance on such matters taken by the Book of Order, it is not true, as Mr. Hong claims, that G-5.0103 and G-5.0301 would need to be amended to preclude church discipline of members for serial, unrepentant acts of same-sex intercourse. G-5.0103 ("Inclusiveness") states:
| |
The congregation shall welcome all persons who respond in trust and obedience to God's grace in Jesus Christ and desire to become part of the membership and ministry of his Church. No persons shall be denied membership because of race, ethnic origin, worldly condition, or any other reason not related to profession of faith. |
This provision states clearly that those who are welcomed into church membership are "all persons who respond in trust and obedience to God's grace." There is nothing in the following sentence that would preclude denial of membership based on continued disobedience to minimal standards for obedience to the gospel.
G-5.0301 deals with "nonmember privileges and, as such, I am not sure that it conflicts with the principles put forward in Matt 18 and 1 Cor 5. I do think that it errs, however, when it states that "all baptized person... even though they have made no profession of their faith in Christ, are entitled to participation in the Lord's Supper." But the main issue that Mr. Hong raised pertains to matters of membership.
According to G-5.0102, "a faithful member accepts Christ's call to be involved responsibly in the ministry of the Church," including the responsibility of "demonstrating a new quality of life" and "living responsibly." The Rules of Discipline in the Book of Order is explicit that one of the purposes of church discipline is "to correct or restrain wrongdoing in order to bring members to repentance and restoration" (D-1.0101). Degrees of church censure of members, as of ministers, can range from rebuke, to rebuke with supervised rehabilitation, to temporary exclusion, to removal from membership (D-12).
The 1978 Definitive Guidance on homosexuality (since 1993, officially recognized as an "authoritative interpretation"), which emphasizes the church's role as a "hospital for sinners" rather than as "a citadel of the morally perfect" – incidentally, a false or misleading dichotomy – states:
| |
Homosexual persons who sincerely affirm "Jesus Christ is my lord and Savior" and "I intend to be his disciple, to obey his word, and to show his love" should not be excluded from membership. (emphasis added) |
Certainly persons with same-sex attractions should not be disqualified from membership simply for the mere experience of such impulses; nor if they occasionally backslide but continue to express repentance. However, intent to continue in serial, unrepentant homosexual practice could be construed as a violation of the intent "to obey [God's] word." This is consistent with the Definitive Guidance's acknowledgement: "As persons repent and believe, they become members of Christ's body" (emphasis added).
Granted, the church should not expect moral perfection or anything close to it as a condition of membership. Nevertheless, as we have seen, Scripture indicates that some behaviors deviate so grossly from the Christian faith as to render suspect claims to even the minimum repentance associated with conversion. The confession "Jesus is Lord" must be reflected in some basic behavioral compliance to Christian norms. Minimal expectations for sexual conduct on the part of members would include, at least, abstinence from adultery, incest, same-sex intercourse, and bestiality. The church would cease to be operating on scriptural principles if it simply declared outright that no immoral conduct of any sort would ever trigger discipline of a member.
Finally, should the church disregard the biblical witness on serial, unrepentant homosexual practice as grounds for church discipline of members (compare 1 Cor 5:9-11 with 6:9-10), there is still no virtue to being more consistently disobedient to the teaching of Scripture by excluding officers of the church from such requirements. This point needs to be stated since Mr. Hong's question seems to suggest that if the church is not willing to apply a text like 1 Corinthians 5 (the incestuous man) to members, neither should it apply this text to church officers. Disobedience at one level does not entitle the church to disobedience at a higher level.
Dr. Robert A. J. Gagnon is associate professor of New Testament at Pittsburgh Theological Seminary and author of The Bible and Homosexual Practice.
Note: Viewpoint articles are unsolicited essays that we believe deserve to be highlighted. Viewpoint articles often do not express the opinion of Presbyweb.
|
