as i travel thru ThisPilgrimLand

Institutionalism & the Church

Should the Church of Christ support outside organizations?  That is the question Don Martin from BibleTruths.net asks in the following post.  I am going to post it word for word and request that you read this.  What is your church doing with it’s money?  Is it Biblical?  Remember, it’s not what you feel, what you think, or what you want – it’s what the Bible says that counts.  The restoration is extant.

Since the inception of the Lord’s church on the first Pentecost following Jesus’ death and resurrection, there have been many efforts expended by the devil to curtail and destroy her. The destruction and loss of identity has not usually come at once, but over time and through progressive digression. One major threat to the church during the last especially 65 years has been what historians call institutionalism. Institutionalism involves financially and politically burdening local churches to regularly support various human institutions such as colleges, missionary societies, and orphanages. It is claimed that these institutions can perform specific work of the church better than the local church; hence, they should be placed on the budgets of local churches. When institutions are desired, other forms of reasoning have also been witnessed. I recall the following statement made by Batsell Baxter relative to schools:

“It is my conviction that the schools need to be dependent upon the churches for their financial life blood in order for the schools to remain permanently loyal to the goals and principles the Bible teaches” Questions and Issues of the Day, pg. 30, ca. 1964).

Baxter made another statement at the same time that is also of great historic interest. “The orphan home and the Christian school must stand or fall together” (Ibid. pg. 29, I shall shortly revisit this statement).

Relative to schools being placed in the budgets of local churches, October 18, 1954 is note worthy. W. L. Totty affirmed the following proposition:

“It is scripturally right for churches to contribute money from the church treasuries to support what is commonly called a Bible College in its work.”

While institutionalsim such as church supported colleges has advanced and been accepted to the point that it is seldom even questioned in some circles today, this was not always the case. One of the largest “Christian colleges” involving members of the Church of Christ is Abilene Christian University. The founder of Abilene Christian University wrote as follows in 1930 concerning the church and institutions, including the college:

“There were no ‘brotherhood colleges,’ ‘church papers,’ ‘church orphanages,’ ‘old folk’s homes,’ and the like, among apostolic congregations…Individual Christians, any number, may scripturally engage in any worthwhile work, such as running colleges, papers, and orphanages, and other individual Christians may properly assist them in every proper way; but no local congregation should be called upon as such, to contribute a thing to any such enterprise. Such a call would be out of harmony with the word of the living God. And if any congregation so contributes, it transcends its scriptural prerogatives” (Gospel Advocate, March 13, 1930, it is my understanding that Abilene Christian University to this day does not accept monies from churches).

Those who opposed church supported institutions are often labeled as being “anti” and uncooperative. However, institutionalism was once staunchly opposed by many within churches of Christ. Consider a few quotations from well-known men of yesterday:

“Institutionalism has destroyed the life and energy of the church today! …The next religious war will be fought around the issue of institutionalism” (W. E. Brightwell, Gospel Advocate, November 29, 1934).

“The ship of Zion has floundered more than once on the sandbar of institutionalism. The tendency to organize is a characteristic of the age. On the theory that the end justifies the means, brethren have now scrupled to form organizations in the church to do the work the church itself was designed to do. All such organizations usurp the work of the church, and are unnecessary and sinful” (Guy N. Woods, Abilene Christian College Lectures, 1939).

“The church is about to become the unwitting and unwilling victim of institutionalism and institutionalism is about to become a racket….Institutionalism was the taproot of digression. It has always been the fatal blow to congregational independence” (Foy E. Wallace, Jr. Bible Banner, July, 1939).

Regarding orphan homes in particular, John D. Cox stated in a sermon that he preached in Florence, Alabama, February 12, 1950:

“Now, word has been getting around that I am opposed to Child Haven – to that Orphan Home – but it seems that the word is not getting around as to why I am opposed to it….The issue is not whether the church should or should not do such work, but the issue is through what organization should it be done – through the church or some institutions or organization that has been set up by men supported by the church?”

Guy N. Woods succinctly stated the issue in 1946: “There is no place for charitable organizations in the work of the New Testament church. It is the only charitable organization that the Lord authorizes, or that is needed to do the work the Lord expects his people to do” (The Annual Lesson Commentary for December 15, 1946).

Let us now return to Batsell Baxter’s statement, “The orphan home and the Christian school must stand or fall together.” Brethren appear to forget history and plunge on to commit the same mistakes over again. In 1849 the American Christian Missionary Society was introduced to church budgets. Many opposed the church contributing to a missionary society instead of performing itself the work God has assigned to the church under the oversight of the local elders (I Tim. 3: 15, I Pet. 5: 1, 2). In 1906 there had been so much division over the presence of the American Christian Missionary Society that the federal government recognized the church of Christ and the Christian Church (proponents of the missionary society) as two different religious organizations. Institutionalism had again reared its ugly head in the late 1920′s in the promotion of orphan home support by churches. Hear C. M. Pullias:

“A great apostasy, maybe, is being planned unaware in the various things that local churches are doing under the eldership. Institutionalism is dangerous because it is a departure from the apostolic way. Human societies to do missionary work is wrong, but no more so than some human organization to take care of the orphans or old people or even the young folks” (Life and Works of C. M. Pullias, page 577).

Consider the statements of Baxter and Pullias. Baxter said, “The orphan home and the Christian school must stand or fall together.” Pullias said, “Human societies to do missionary work is wrong, but no more so than some human organization to take care of the orphans or old people or even the young folks.” Indeed, if it is scriptural for the church to support orphan homes, it is also scriptural for the church to support colleges, missionary societies, and homes for unwed mothers, etc. If not, why not?

Much of the issue of institutionalism involves a failure to distinguish between collective and individual action. The statement, “What the individual can do, the church can do” is faulty and lacking biblical sanction. For instance, Paul clearly shows there are some things that the individual Christian is required to do as opposed to the church (I Tim. 5: 16). Moreover, there are matters in certain circumstances that the Christian is to do that would be wrong for the church to do (ibid.). The scriptures do address the subject of orphans and widows. However, the question is do the scriptures teach individual action or that churches are to place orphanages and homes for widows in their budgets or even build such institutions? James wrote:

“Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world” (Jas. 1: 27).

Upon consideration of the verse and context, it becomes evident that James is discussing the individual Christian (vs. 23-17). Regarding the Greek word rendered “visit” (episkeptomai), W. E. Vines comments thus:

“…Primarily, “to inspect” (a late form of episkopeo, “to look upon, care for, excercise oversight”), signifies (a) “to visit” with help, of the act of God, Luke 1: 68, 78; 7: 16; Acts 15:14; Heb. 2: 6; (b) “to visit” the sick and afflicted, Matt. 25: 36, 43; Jas. 1: 27; (c) “to go and see,” “pay a visit to,” Acts 7: 23; 15: 36; (d) “to look out” certain men for a purpose, Acts 6: 3. See LOOK.”

James 1: 27, I submit, does not carry the action of a church building or maintaining an orphanage or home for widows. The action is individual, personal, and direct. Children need a home environment rather than an institution.

Many churches that have orphanages and homes for widows in their budgets are also in violation of I Timothy 5: 16. I have asked members of churches of Christ that support homes of widows if they financially assist their needy mother or father. “I do not help them myself, but the church does,” has often been the reply. Paul said the children and/or grandchildren have the first duty to assist rather than the church (I Tim. 5: 16).

Besides, the work of the local church is clearly set forth. Preaching the gospel to the lost and edifying the saved is the work of the church (I Tim. 3: 15, Eph. 4: 16, 2 Tim. 4: 1-5, benevolence for needy saints was done when there was a need, I Cor. 16: 1, 2). Some local churches are so burdened (“charged”) with supporting hospitals, colleges, schools, day cares, homes for unwed mothers, homes for boys, etc. that they have little ability to support the preaching of the gospel (cp. I Tim. 5: 16).

The study of orphanages is of great importance in any study of institutionalism because the orphan home has often been used to pave the way for other church supported institutions. The reasoning has been, “The little orphans are starving and the church must help.” In the first place, there are few true “orphans.” In many of these cases, the parents of the children need to be held responsible for the support of their children (cp. I Tim. 5: 8). In the second place, there is usually no real appeal for direct help. What is wanted is for churches to place orphanages in their budgets. I have experienced more than one incident where I knew of an orphan and a family that wanted to adopt. However, an orphanage became involved and refused to offer adoption. You see, orphanages make money based on the number of children that they have institutionalized (I do not mean to say that all who work within such institutions are callous to the real needs of children). The point that I am making is that people are often moved to agree to church support of an orphanage before they would be prompted to agree to church supported colleges. Hence, there is the emotional element present in the orphan home issue. However, remember the words of Baxter: “The orphan home and the Christian school must stand or fall together.” I have heard preachers say to a church, “You support orphan homes, therefore, you can also support a college out of the treasury.” Based on the persuasion of consistency, I have known of churches being persuaded to support other institutions.

Let us briefly now consider the fact and historic development of orphanages among churches of Christ. Based on charters of all the benevolent institutions, certain facts emerge. In the year 1940 there were seven orphan homes in operation among those associated with churches of Christ. In 1950, there were three additional orphanages. From 1950 until 1960, there were seventeen more homes established, making a total twenty-seven. As seen, there was opposition to church support of all institutions including orphanages from the first. However, as their number increased, so did the opposition. The first orphanage established by churches of Christ subsequent to the division over the missionary society of 1849 and mechanical music in 1860 was the Tennessee Orphan Home in Columbia, Tennessee. The Tennessee Orphan Home was chartered in 1909 and officially opened in September 5, 1910. Notice that prior to 1910, church supported orphanages was not a practice. However, we are told, “The church is not faithful unless orphanages are in the budgets.”

I have talked to scores of preachers, elders, and members who are opposed to church supported colleges and other institutions. However, they are in favor of orphanages. Their defense of orphanages is not based on the scriptures, but purely on emotion and misinformation. Yet, church financed orphanages constitute the very backbone of institutionalism because such blackmails people into accepting other institutions into the budgets of local churches.

As seen, during New Testament times, each church preached the gospel and edified itself under the guidance of the local eldership (Acts 20: 28, I Pet. 5: 2, Eph. 4: 16). Each local church acted as its own missionary society, if you will, and edification entity. There were no outside agencies and the church did not have such exterior organizations in their budgets. Even in the matter of benevolence, each church took care of their needs. When the need surpassed the ability of the local church, other churches assisted (Acts 11: 27-30, I Cor. 16: 1, 2). Again, though, there were no benevolent societies interwoven as part of the work of the local churches. Human institutions are parasitic in nature. Once they become attached to local churches, they drain the churches and redirect their mission. Brethren must insist on book, chapter, and verse for all believed and practiced and avoid the manipulative appeal of emotional alleged starving orphans, the impetus for the bulk of institutionalism ( I Pet. 4: 11, 2 Jn. 9-11).  (For similar reading click on, “The Herald of Truth” and “I Timothy 5, Widows and Church Versus Individual Action“)  (Read about privately funded institutionalism by click on, “The Guardian of Truth Foundation and Florida College“.)

Pilgrim’s Map of the Day

Here’s a group of links, some fun, some educational, and some very exhorting (especially in regard to the last two posts of this blog)

• Let’s start off fun.  I think this little video shows in a good way what Facebook would look like in real life.

• Having kids, I am often intrigued by many of the pictures they draw.  Here’s an artist who takes the pictures drawn by kids and renders what they would look like in “real life.”  Click here to see the entire group of pictures.
• Staying in the world of artistry, take 5 minutes of your time and watch this beautiful video of love and sacrifice.  This may be one of the best pieces of animation I have seen in a long time.  I love Crater Face

• “There is Death in the Pot,” is a very good post by Mike Ratliff discussing the danger to Christians and teachers that comes from looking at our faith and the Bible in a subjective rather than an objective way.  Read this short posting.
• Finally, it is a true shame when the secular world is better at seeing the problems in the church than we Christians are.  We all must be more discerning in order to remove this self-applied label of JOKERS from the church that Christ established.  While funny, this video should cause us all to examine how our actions or apathy leading  to refrain from speaking against wrong in the church makes us look.  While the world laughs, does God moan?

Update on Potential Christian College Slip

In the post “A Cost of Apathy,” the Christian college of Heritage Christian University was discussed.  In the post, a fundraiser for the college in which sponsorships as high as $25,000 were available and that featured former first lady Laura Bush was discussed.  In the post, a call for a cancellation of financial support for the university was called for should they not cancel the event in light of her most recent comments in support of gay marriage and abortion legalization.

Since that time Heritage has taken the advertisement for the fundraiser off of the front page of their website and it is not to be found as of this posting on the website.  Also, from very trusted sources and individuals close to the situation I have learned that Heritage seems to be moving toward what would amount to a proper response by a Christian institution.  Let’s hope this is correct.

This entire incident has me wondering a great deal about the entire idea of “Christian” colleges.  While I have given thought about this matter in the past, in my recent studies I am failing to find any Biblical backing for a church sending financial support to such institutions.  More on this to come.

A Cost of Apathy

In recent studies in the book of Hebrews, I have been forced to think a great deal about apathy in terms of not only our commitment to teach the gospel alone, but in our defense of the gospel. Today, one of the largest costs of the apathy that has infected the church was brought to my attention.  A little back story is in order:

On Monday of this past week, I was simply browsing the internet and looking at possibly continuing my education.  One of the stops I decided to make was at Heritage Christian University‘s website.    This was for three reasons: I have friends who are dear to me and who have or are attending that university, the congregation I attend sends financial support to that university, and my wife and I have recently looked into joining a cover school based out of HCU as part of our future homeschooling effort (more on that to come).  As I caroused their website I noticed something very disturbing though.  On the homepage was a link to a fundraiser with former First Lady Laura Bush.  Of course, as soon as I read her name my memory went to the media storm that occurred last week when Laura Bush came out as being both pro-choice and pro-gay marriage as well as the recent “Warren-Gate ” issue that has surrounded John Piper and his Desiring God Conference.  I realize that she has since said that people have mixed her words but the video below should quickly squash that lie.

Knowing personally many of the members of HCU’s board of directors and current instructors I immediately gave HCU the benefit of the doubt.  My thoughts were that these things must be arranged way in advance but that surely since she made her comments, HCU had decided to call Bush into repentance and cancel the event barring a retraction of her statements.  Wanting to be sure before I contacted HCU, I phoned the campus and asked “is the Laura Bush fundraiser still happening at your University?”  the response was a quick “Yes.”  I asked, “really, in light of her recent comments?”  I was then informed that the University had sent her letters about her statements but that because of her work with reading to children, the fundraiser would be going forward.  I hung up very saddened.

I have since been informed that the information I received was less than accurate and that a decision is forthcoming.  Regardless, I have requested that the elders of my church and encouraged other Christians to withdraw their financial support from HCU until their final decision is made and if she is allowed to go ahead and speak, that the support be withdrawn completely.  That is something the now deceased discerning Lutheran Walter Martin called the gospel of the pocket book.  It has amazing results.  Out of respect for individuals I care deeply for, I am withholding further judgment on this exact matter but since this has happened I have caught wind of other fundraisers (especially a judges race in the area) that are being allowed to take place on that campus that should cause every church that sends support to HCU to question what is happening with their money they send to HCU.  [In the heart of full disclosure I will state that I signed up to play in a golf tournament supporting HCU tomorrow.  As I committed myself to that and others I feel that it would not be right to withdraw myself from that event and will be using my own money to pay the entrance fee for that event.]

This leads me to the point of this post:  when did the church of Christ and it’s members become so apathetic?  I ask this question as I myself was convicted of this today.  I spoke for around an hour today with a member of the board of directors for HCU.  I will not disclose the details of that conversation but will say that during the conversation the individual asked me several questions that stirred my soul.  “Were you outraged when we had Sean Hannity at our fundraiser?  Were you upset when we had Gene Stallings last year?  Are you upset that Freed Hardeman University is having George Bush this year or that they had Barbara Bush in the past?”  I could only answer honestly and that answer was no.  No, I could have cared less that two schools which the Church of Christ claims to be sending out teachers of the gospel allows apostates (I do not make that statement re: W or Stallings) to come and address their schools in the name of mammon.  I didn’t really care that part of my contribution to my local church body was going to fund people who spread something that is not Biblical truth.  I didn’t really care that in the name of money, places where my money was being sent were trading the scripture and the truth that people have died for and that Christ gave His life for in for celebrity and a big pay day.  Money that I gave the church was being sent to support idolatry and I was apathetic about it.  I stand and stood convicted.

I try to think about what the response to this would be by preachers I know who are now dead and gone.  I try to imagine if the people in charge of this event could look their past teachers in the eyes and answer why they would even have to think twice about this matter.  Yes, the school does stand to lose money by canceling the event and could even face lawsuits.  Yet, should the church that claims to have a mission of restoring New Testament Christianity even weigh such an issue when it comes for standing for the gospel and the inerrant truth that is the Bible?  How dare we worry about out pocket books when we know and read of the brutal deaths of Paul, Peter, and our Lord Jesus Christ.  Yet, most remain apathetic, not really caring one way or another about this issue.  Have we forgotten Christ’s promise to us that if we seek the kingdom first, all these other matters that the pagan world is doomed to be concerned with, will be added to us (Luke 12:22-34).  What has happened to the church?  Where are those who will stand up for the gospel in spite of a paycheck? What has come of Paul’s thoughts regarding taking a financial loss in the name of being able to preach the truth where he write in 1 Corinthians 9:12 “…we put up with anything rather than hinder the gospel of Christ.”

As I said before, my thoughts go to the book of Hebrews where the unknown author, addressing a second century Roman church, the preacher of this great sermon of exhortations states:

“You must remember those early days when after you had received the light, you had to go through a great struggle with persecution, sometimes being actually exposed as a public spectacle to insults and violence, and sometimes showing yourselves ready to share the lot of those in that condition. For you showed sympathy for those who were in prison, and you put up with it cheerfully when your property was taken from you, for you knew that you had in yourselves a greater possession that was lasting. You must not lose your courage, for it will be richly rewarded, but you will need endurance if you are to carry out God’s will and receive the blessing he has promised [10:32-36].

Just as the church in Hebrews was under attack by others, one of our Christian universities is under attack by secular thought.  Satan is literally beating down the door and while we trust in Christ’s promise that the gates of Hell will not prevail against the church, we must remember in Hebrews 3:6 where the preacher says to the apathetic church:

“Christ is faithful as a son over God’s house. And we are his house, IF we hold on to our courage and the hope of which we boast.”

Is it not safe to say that if HCU allows this obvious error to go forward, which as I see it would be a faithless and cowardly move that neither holds to the courage or hope that the church is to boast of, that we can divorce that institution as no longer being “His house.”  The formula for that thought process is found in the scripture above.  As I said before, I reserve judgment on this matter based upon knowledge that a full decision has not been made up to this point, but having scripture on our side, the amount of time necessary to make a decision on this matter should be quick compared to the slow decision making process shown by the HCU board of directors.  Every second wasted where people are allowed to believe that HCU is hosting, paying, and using a woman who holds heretical beliefs is another second that the body of Christ is given a black eye.  Titus 2:7-8 reminds us that though autonomous in our churches:

In everything set them an example by doing what is good. In your teaching show integrity, seriousness and soundness of speech that cannot be condemned, so that those who oppose you may be ashamed because they have nothing bad to say about us.

Is HCU part of the “US” that Paul was reminding Titus of?  We shall see.  As I ended my conversation today with the member of HCU’s board I posed two scenarios and asked: “For which of these two will the angels of Heaven rejoice?”

1. HCU decides that the risk of lawsuit and the immediate financial loss they will face by not allowing Laura Bush to speak at their fundraiser is too great.  Due to these fears, they go ahead with the event and Laura Bush, although maybe muted on the matters in question, is used by HCU to raise money.
2. HCU stands up and calls Laura Bush to repentance for her remarks asking her to publicly withdraw her statements or not be allowed to speak or take their money, some of which she already has.  The University makes a statement to the world stating that despite facing financial loss, the risk of lawsuit, being labeled old-fashioned, and having to scramble to find another speaker, that they must stand up for the truth as laid out in scripture.  They will not allow any worldly concern to cause them to stray from the truth of scripture that Christ and his apostles suffered and died to bring to us 2000 years earlier.

For which will they rejoice?

My thoughts on this matter is that this is a call to the whole church.  What we see here is a fruit of years of becoming less and less discerning and particular about who we allow to address our flock.  Sadly, we have allowed a precedent to be set that allows individuals to ask why one is upset about one apostate teacher but not another a few years earlier.  The church in general needs to repent of this apathy.  I need to repent of this apathy.  From this day forward we need to remember who we are and the MULTIPLE warnings in scripture addressing allowing wolves in sheep’s clothing to prowl among our flocks.  This holds especially true as the dominion theology of today is attempting to infiltrate the church.  Today needs to be the day that we repent to our God and commit ourselves back to the mission that Christ set before us in Matthew 28:18-20.  He is with US always.

No, this will not be easy and there will be a price to pay.  For HCU it will be financial, for others it will vary.  I have already paid a price today.  As I stated above, my family was looking into and evaluated a homeschool cover school based out of HCU.  While we had not made a decision to apply yet (and our doubts were great based on some of what we saw), today, due to my decision to end my apathy, I recieved this e-mail today:

name deleted and I feel that you would be better served  with another home school program other than Heritage Christian  School.

We do not want you to violate your conscience by   being on the campus of HCU.

We wish you the best in your homeschooling  experience.

Sincerely,

name deleted

I believe the words of my wife sum up this entire situation.  She sent me this e-mail today in response to me forwarding her the above e-mail:

MUST WATCH: Growtivation

This video would be funny if it were not so darn true and sad. This is the fruit of making worship pleasing to man and not God. You have to wonder if these relevant thinkers don’t see both the church and the world laughing at them. Only one of those two are praying for them.

Who is God’s Cartoonist???

Have you ever heard of Jack Chick?  Most Christians would know him better by the initials J.T.C.   If you don’t know, Jack Chick is the man who now for decades has been spreading the gospel.  Not through spoken word or even thick published books.  He is the man who publishes those wonderful 3 x 5 tracts that you find on cars in parking lots, on park benches, and in other various inauspicious places.  Yes, that is Jack Chick.  He is God’s Cartoonist and this documentary about him is excellent.  Rarely photographed and cloaked in humility, this distributor of more gospel literature than anyone in history has given his adult life to teaching the gospel through the talent God has given to him.  Take an hour and fifteen minutes and watch this entertaining and enlightening biopic about God’s Cartoonist, Jack Chick.

A Tough Lot

Four people; four families; four parents; four souls; four is the number of people I personally know through either my work or other acquaintances who have died in the past two weeks due to drug addiction.  One overdose, one suicide, and two by car accident, all in a pattern of substance abuse that has claimed  the lives of so many others.  All dead.  The saddest part about all of them though is that they had been offered a better way.  They had all been given treatment for their disease of addiction in the past but chose to leave.  They chose to return to their pattern of addiction, knowing full well the facts and statistics of the mortality rate of individuals with their condition.  In a world of shady drug dealers, willfully prescribing physicians, and negative peers they wandered.  In a world of rejection, ignorance, shunning, and lack of concern for those with the disease of addiction, they wandered, waiting to be arrested or killed.  This was their world and it is sad.

For all of the four though, there was a segment of people in this world waiting to show them mercy.  All of these individuals had tasted that mercy more than once and knew that they could return to that mercy that is substance abuse treatment.  Despite the fact that when they left their treatment(s) against medical advise and their providers knew they may never return, that mercy was still available.  They only had to admit that they were currently powerless over their condition and accept the mercy that was readily available.  Often times as treatment providers, non-compliant patients are asked to leave treatment with the hope that during their inevitable return to substance abuse, they will finally hit their bottom and want to return to the merciful path that is available for them.  Sadly, there are times when this bottom never occurs and what happens is death.  This is the hard truth that many substance abuse providers face.

This same hard truth is also one that many church leaders must face at times but sadly, many are ignoring.  In 1 Corinthians chapter 5 , Paul addresses the church at Corinth tolerating a brother in their church who is guilty of having sexual contact with his mother, or as some believe, his step-mother.  We can gather from Paul’s writing that the church in Corinth was boasting about the amount of love and compassion they were showing to this man by allowing him to remain part of the flock there at Corinth.  Paul tells them in verse 6 “your boasting is not good,” and continues to remind them that only a small amount of leaven, in this case tolerated sinfulness, leavens the whole lump.  In other words, Paul was reminding the church that if you allow and accept this sinfulness, even in the name of Christian love, then it will not be long before the entire congregation is living as unrepentant sinners.

Paul’s advise to this congregation was to follow his lead and judge this sinner.  Yes, Paul cast judgment on the incestuous relationship.  In a church where people were saying it was loving to say nothing and accept the individual and their sin, probably following the “judge not lest you be judged” mantra, Paul not only condemns the individual, he condemns the churches leadership for not doing such sooner.

Paul’s solution to the matter is found in verse 5 of 1 Cor. 5 where he says, “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.”  Paul advised this church to cast this person away from their congregation.  Paul wanted them to give an ultimatum to the man of repent and stop this act, or else do not gather with us anymore.  It is important to note here that the “flesh” Paul is referring to is not the body or skin, Paul is referring to the earthly nature of man when apart from divine influence.  Paul believed that by removing this man from their church, eventually his desire and nature of sin would vanish and this person, having tasted the gospel, would return to the greatest mercy ever offered, the merciful grace of Christ dying for our sins.  What was on the line?  According to Paul, the very salvation of their soul.

In today’s culture though, this instruction by Paul is one frowned upon and mercy is considered to be showing love and being “Christ-like.”  Due to this, we now have churches full of unrepentant adulterers and homosexuals as well as other sins.  The key word in the prior sentence would not be adulterer or homosexual, but unrepentant.  The trend now is even to allow such persons to shepherd or pastor churches.  One has to wonder how long God will withhold his judgment before bringing these churches into judgment.

In discussion with preachers about why they tend to refrain from discussing blatant sin from the pulpit that God has granted them to speak from, I often hear the same answer; “We do not want to run them off.”  This is often followed by a discussion of the friends and family members that may leave the congregation with those people.  They say that they do not preach against certain sins because they are afraid that they will run the people off.  In other words, they do not follow New Testament principle for fear that what Paul says is best to happen, will happen.  Do we still need to wonder why the church is dying off and has a muted voice in the United States today.  I believe much of the blame lies directly at the feet of the shepherds. Sad.

To return to the beginning of this discussion, it is difficult to send someone away knowing that there is the chance they may die and never return.  The decision is even more difficult when you hear or read of their demise.  The questions inevitably creep into your mind: “could I have helped them more; what more could I have done; what is wrong with our program that they did not want to stay; should we alter our path to be more like other treatment facilities that allow certain behaviors?”  All of these questions have the same answer though.  The answer is a swift no.  By allowing these patients to return  to their lifestyles of addiction, the responsible treatment center makes a statement that it will not allow someone to kill themselves on their watch or to drag other patients and the reputation of their center down due to fear that they may kill themselves.  One patient whose illicit drug use or non-compliance with program policy is tolerated will cause other patients or new patients in your treatment center to believe it is fine to use illicit drugs as well.  Remember, a little leaven, leavens the whole lump.  Mercy was offered, their disease and inability to work with others to control the disease was refused. This is a harsh truth but as research reveals, a truth none the less.  Many times in my experience though, the patient who is allowed or asked to leave treatment does return and upon that return flourishes in their treatment and recovery.  

The church must learn to remember that we have been given a truth that has something better than research or experiences stamp of approval on it.   It has God’s stamp of approval.  We must once again learn to trust the scripture and when we have unrepentant sinners among us apply the Biblical instruction of handling such an issue.  We have tried long enough to do things our way, or what feels good to us.  A return to scripture must take place today.  Yes, it hurts to see someone we once counted as brother living in the world, but is there a happier day when such an individual comes home, returning to the fellowship of those who are aware of and proudly proclaim the truth that all of us being sinners, live lives of repentance and praise of a God who loved us to the point that He sent His only Son to die for our own transgressions.  The time to return to this Biblical truth is now, as Paul says “so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord.”