The Rights and Wrongs of a Silver Ring Thing

I don't know if you read the Times, as I do, but even if you don't, you can't have missed the recent uproar in the media regarding the case of Lydia Playfoot. If you do, you may, like me, have read a spiteful article in today's paper by Martin Samuel.

To summarise, she has taken her school (soon to be ex-school) to court for refusing to allow her to wear a silver ring as an outward symbol of her decision to refrain from having sex until she is married. The ring is supplied by The Silver Ring Thing (SRT), who are an evangelical Christian group who aim to promote this behaviour, and, as part of this, members make a declaration of their intention to remain celebate until they marry. Lydia claims her human rights have been breached, and that by refusing her wish to wear this ring, the school is discriminating against Christians. After all, Muslims are allowed to wear head-scarves, and Hindus can wear armbands. The school, on the other hand, are taking the stand that whilst such dress is compulsory for Hindus and Muslims, SRT rings are not compulsory for Christians (although if she choose to wear a crucifix, this would be allowed). As such, the SRT ring is nothing more than jewelry, and has no place in the school uniform.

Now, in my opinion, both parties have some basis for their arguments. The school is unquestionably correct that SRT rings, or indeed rings of any sort, are not commanded for Christians. Lydia has a point that her decision to wear such a ring is inspired by her Christian faith, and that for her it is an outward expression of her inward convictions. For what it's worth, it seems to me that an SRT ring has a similar level of necessity for an evangelical Christian as a cross or crucifix does - in other words it's not commanded, but I suppose that people like to express their faith in such a way. Maybe both should be allowed, or neither.

But this wrangling over what constitutes a necessary part of a Christian's dress is surely jeopardising an essential part of the Christian message - that salvation, necessary to every human being, is possible through, and only through, the blood of Jesus, shed on the Cross. Faith, not works. It's what one believes that matters, not whether or not one wears a ring.

So what should we conclude? It's unquestionably the case that, in this country, Christians are, increasingly, being stopped from doing things that just a few years ago would have been ignored. It's not hard to imagine a time when I would be breaking the law by writing this article (check out the paragraph above - now, that's not very "inclusive," is it - not as "tolerant" as we like to see here...). This persecution, albeit currently barely noticable compared to that faced by Christians in other parts of the world - China, North Korea, etc etc - is to be expected. God has told us, many, many times that we should expect it.

So should Lydia be fighting this case? Or should she accept her school's authority and let it go? I honestly don't know. At some point we have to stand up for our right to worship the God of the Bible, not the God of the people. Liberal Christianity will never be banned, becuase it has no solid position. In the face of opposition it shifts to fit in. Evangelical Christianity almost certainly won't be banned in the near future outright, rather I believe we should expect "salami tactics" - an attack to come one slice at a time. Is this the beginning? I doubt it. Is this one more slice in a process that's already started? Possibly. How should we respond? I honestly don't know. Apart from prayer.

One thought, which I offer without any theological basis, is as follows. The media has almost universally condemned Lydia's position. She's been portrayed as a misguided, foolish teenager, a victim of the latest "fad" (though I doubt it's one that will appeal to many non-Christians), a pawn in a game played by her hardly impartial parents (they are Director and secretary of SRT UK). If the world (that world which Christians are called to be in but not of) is so against her, my suspicion is that we should be aligning ourselves in support of her. It's not a gospel issue, so I don't think it should be the be-all and end-all. But should we side with those whom, although light had come to them, rejected it in favour of darkness, because their deeds were evil, or with someone who, possibly unwisely, is taking a stand for her right to worship God in a biblically principled way?

1 Corinthians 5: A Sermon

This is the text of a sermon that I recently gave at Stoke Poges Free Church. I found it harder to prepare than the one I gave on 2 Timothy 3. Comments gratefully recieved.

1 Corinthians 5

It's amazing how much attitudes can change over quite short periods of time. Ten years ago you'd have been hard pressed to hear anyone talking about global warming or climate change. Yet today it's a major concern for everybody from politicians and company CEOs through to members of the public.

Fifty years ago, it was almost unheard of to go out in public without wearing a hat, and indeed many people today feel that it's inappropriate to go to church, to a wedding, or to the theatre bare-headed. And, especially relevant this year, it's hard to imagine that just 200 years ago slavery was legal, socially acceptable, and that it would take twenty years for an act of parliament to be passed making the British trade in slaves illegal. It is amazing how attitudes can change.

Well, some changes are generally recognised as being positive - the vast majority of people rightly feel that slavery is immoral, and no-one would want to repeal the law banning it. But some changes in attitudes aren't so universally recognised as being good. So, whilst there are some arguments in favour of greater freedom of artistic expression, many people are concerned about the seemingly ever-more graphic depictions of sex and violence on television and in film. Similarly, language that would not long ago have rendered a film to be judged suitable for adults only is now heard on daytime television.

One major area in which attitudes have changed over the last forty years or so is in the field of sexual ethics. In 1979, 11% of un-married women described themselves as co-habiting - that is, living in a sexual relationship with someone to whom they were not married. In 2002, that number had increased almost threefold to 29%. People actually talk about the "sexual revolution" - the correlation in the 1960s and 70s of the development of reliable forms of contraception and abortion techniques with the changes in attitudes in general, and towards sexual behaviour in particular, following the end of the Second World War.

Well, there's no doubt that attitudes have changed considerably in the last century. Listen to lyrics from Cole Porter. He says:

In olden days, a glimpse of stocking
Was looked on as something shocking.
But now, God knows,
Anything goes.

Good authors too who once knew better words
Now only use four-letter words
Writing prose.
Anything goes.

Anything goes. If it feels good, do it. Cole Porter could have been writing about 1960s Britain. Or equally, he could have been writing about first century Corinth, because it's into this sort of permissive society that we find Paul writing this letter.

Let's just remind ourselves of the background to this letter. Paul's replying to a letter than he's been send from the church in Corinth asking him some fairly complex questions, about food and marriage and idols, and things like this, and in the later chapters of 1 Corinthians he answers them. But he devotes the first few chapters to addressing some problems in the church that have been reported to him, and I think you've been looking at some of these, such as the issue of division in the church, over the last couple of weeks.

Today we're going to look at chapter 5 of the letter, and we're going to see that Paul is now turning his attention to a new issue in the church – the fact that the church must not tolerate sin in its midst. So as we follow this case through the courtroom, we're going to briefly identify the charge, and then the verdict, before spending most of our time, as Paul does, on our final section, where we're going to look at the sentence. So firstly, the charge.

The Charge

Look at verse 1. Paul writes:

"It is actually reported that there is a sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that does not occur even among pagans: a man has his father's wife."

The situation is clear: a man, a member of the Corinthian church, was in an ongoing, acknowledged sexual relationship with his father's wife. In other words, he was sleeping with his stepmother.

Now, do note that Paul doesn't suggest in any way that this man was trying to live a faithful, holy life, and that he had fallen into this one sin, that he was remorseful, that he was struck with guilt, that he was prayerfully trying to fight that temptation. Not at all. This was open, flagrant, and unrepentant sin. So: the charge – unrepentant sexual immorality. Now Paul moves on to the verdict.
The Verdict

Look at verse 3. Paul writes:

"Even though I am not physically present, I am with you in spirit. And I have already passed judgement on the one who did this, just as if I was present."

As far as Paul was concerned, the verdict was clear - guilty. There was no need for discussion, or debate; no wrangling over the precise nature of the act and whether a response would be appropriate. God had made it very clear in His Word - which for the Corinthians was the Old Testament - that this sort of behaviour was not acceptable. He'd said it again and again – primarily in Leviticus 18, but it was repeated at several points in the Old Testament books. The Corinthians could not claim they didn't know it was wrong.

In fact, not only was it stated in the Old Testament, which the Corinthians seem to have largely ingored, it was even clear to non-Christians. Paul says – verse 1 – that such things "[do] not occur even among Pagans" – which was saying something! Corinth was renowned for its sexual licentiousness and its many temple and cult prostitutes. In fact, the temple of Venus, who was more-or-less adopted as the city's goddess of choice, employed over 1000 prostitutes, and I'm assured that there was actually a Greek verb "to Corinthianize", which was shorthand for living shamelessly and immorally.

Well, given the fact that even non-Christians would have viewed this man's behaviour as being wrong, we might wonder what the response of the Corinthian church had been. Were they struck with remorse, were they praying for wisdom about how to act? Well, no, they weren't.

Look at verse 2: Paul says "and you are proud!" It's not clear whether they're proud despite one of their congregation behaving in this manner, or even whether they're proud because of it. It seems there was an attitude of "we're free now we're Christians - free to do as we please - we're no longer under the law, the old ways have no call on us - and such is our freedom that we can even accommodate a man such as this…"

Well, Paul has no truck with this type of argument. He says: "Shouldn't you rather been struck with grief and have put out of your fellowship the man who did this?"

Many of you will remember the tsunami that struck in the Indian Ocean back in December 2004, devastating large areas of India, Sri Lanka and Indonesia. Few of us can forget the images that were beamed to our televisions sets of just total devastation – of families that had lost everything, parents who'd lost children, husbands who'd lost wives. It's hard to imagine what it must have been like there – seeing everything that you'd worked for gone, ripped apart, utterly destroyed. How must it have felt?

Well, I suspect that most of us weren't directly affected by that terrible disaster, but most of us know what it feels like to lose someone. I guess for some of us here that feeling is all too real at the moment. And it doesn't matter whether it's been expected for some time, or whether it's a complete shock, death is still a terrible thing to cope with.

The word Paul uses which the NIV translates as grief is penthein in the original Greek, and it's the word used to describe the feelings associated with mourning the dead. Paul is saying that the Corinthian church's attitude to witnessing this sin in their midst shouldn't be to tut and raise their eyebrows, or to turn a blind, if somewhat disapproving eye to it – it definitely shouldn't be pride – they should be devastated, they should be inconsolable that such a thing should have happened.

Clearly the Corinthian Christians had not understood how they should have responded – they hadn't understood the seriousness of their toleration of sin in their church. Far from being grief-stricken, they were proud.

So: the charge, sexual immorality. The verdict: guilty. And so Paul now moves on to the sentence, and it's on this section that we're going to spend the rest of our time.

The Sentence

The remaining verses of the chapter deals with both the nature of the sentence, and the necessity of the sentence, and the two threads run together through the verses. And we're going to see that the sentence Paul sets out, the prescription for this spiritual disease, is for the church to act to discipline their member. So we'll look first at how the Corinthian church was to respond, and we'll learn something about the nature of church discipline. Then we'll look at why it was so vital for the church to act in this way, and we'll learn about the necessity of church discipline.

Firstly, the nature of church discipline. Look back at verses 2-5. Paul writes:

"Shouldn't you rather been struck with grief and have put out of your fellowship the man who did this? Even though I am not physically present, I am with you in spirit. And I have already passed judgement on the one who did this, just as if I was present. When you are assembled in the name of our Lord Jesus and I am with you in spirit, and the power of our Lord Jesus is present, hand this man over to Satan, so that the sinful nature may be destroyed and his spirit saved on the day of the Lord."

Paul has already made clear that the Corinthians don't require him to be physically present with them to judge the case. They have all the authority they need in God's word – the Old Testament. In any case, Paul says that effectively he is with them, in spirit. Paul instructs the church to meet together, and when they are assembled in the name of the Lord Jesus, and consequently with Paul in spirit, they are to "hand this man over to Satan."

Now, to us this sounds highly intolerant, and I'm sure it sounded just as controversial to the Corinthians. But what does Paul mean by this? Well, the world, the world which Christians are called to live in but set apart from, was viewed as Satan's realm, as belonging to Satan. So when Paul says that they are "to hand this man over to Satan," he's referring to excluding the man from the church community, and, effectively, handing him back to the world. In the words of verse 2, they are to put out of their fellowship the man who did this. Action must be taken, and in this case, the only action to take is the excommunication of this man, the breaking off of their communion with him.

But what was this exclusion to achieve? What was its purpose? Well, to answer that, let's look now at the necessity of the sentence, and we'll see that Paul says that the church had to act as he prescribed for two reasons – for the good of the individual and for the good of the church.

Look back at verse 5 again. Paul writes that they are to "hand this man over to Satan so that the sinful nature might be destroyed and his spirit saved on the day of the Lord." Far from being a vindictive act of revenge, Paul explains that the purpose of excluding the man from the church was that ultimately he might be saved.

Now, when Paul talks about the destruction of the sinful nature he's not talking about waiting until the man's death, at which point the body might die and set the spirit free – quite the opposite, in fact. Paul's point is that as a result of being excluded from the church, the man might recognise his sin and repent of it – in other words putting to death the sinful nature – and might therefore be counted amongst the saved on the day of judgement. One commentator puts it like this: "the purpose of exercising this discipline was not solely to punish, but rather to awaken." The longing would be that the man, after repenting of his sin, might be readmitted to the church, but in the absence of this happening, he couldn't be a part of the fellowship.

Well, if it was necessary for the church to exercise discipline for the good of the individual, it was also necessary, even more so, for the good of the church community itself. But why was this? Why was it essential for the church's well-being, that they acted in this way? Even if their actions might bring about the man's salvation, why was it essential to exclude him from their fellowship? Well, Paul goes on to explain in verses 6-8 why the church cannot tolerate sin in it's midst – irrespective of the exact nature of the sin, sexual or otherwise.

Look at what Paul writes:

"Your boasting is not good. Don't you know that a little yeast works through the whole batch of dough? Get rid of the old yeast that you may be a new batch without yeast – as you really are. For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed. Therefore, let us keep the Festival, not with the old yeast, the yeast of malice and wickedness, but with bread without yeast, the bread of sincerity and truth."

Paul compares the toleration of sin in the church with yeast in baking. In the same way that a little bit of yeast is enough to work its way through a whole batch of dough, Paul says that just a little sin can work it's way through a church fellowship.

We all love murder mysteries, don't we? I wonder which your favourite is. Coming from Oxford, I always enjoy Morse – it's fun recognising places I pass regularly. Maybe you prefer Midsomer Murders – although to be honest it's amazing that there's anyone actually left in Midsomer by now. Other people prefer Agatha Christie stories – maybe you like the fastidiousness of Poirot, or maybe you prefer the brilliance of Conan Doyle's Sherlock Holmes. Well, whichever you prefer, I'll place a small bet that at some point, a character has been bumped off by the villain by the time honoured method of dropping a small amount of white powder into their drink. It normally fizzes, so it must be poison.

The thing about poison, is that you really don't need very much of it to kill someone. If this sugar lump was made of cyanide (it's not, so don't worry!) it'd be enough to finish off at least six of us. And cyanide is, by poison standards, pretty pathetic. Well, Paul would say that to a church, the toleration of sin is like poison. It's fatal.

Well, Paul doesn't finish there. Not only is tolerating sin dangerous for a church, it's also completely inappropriate. Paul continues with his illustration of yeast and bread, and moves onto a related illustration, that of the Jewish Passover.

We're familiar with the story, although we don't have time to go into it in detail. It's described in the book of Exodus. Briefly, the Israelites were in slavery in Egypt under Pharaoh, who refused to let them go free. So God sent plagues amongst the Egyptians to demonstrate his power, and to persuade Pharaoh to let the Israelites go. And these plagues built up, culminating in God's decree that every firstborn child would die. But, in His mercy, God provided a way for the Israelites to be spared: they were to take a lamb, to kill it, and to daub the blood on the doors of their homes, and where there was blood, their children would be spared: the lamb would die for them.

Well, it worked. Pharaoh let the Israelites go free, although he soon changed his mind, and from that time on, the Israelites celebrated their release from slavery, and God's provision of a sacrifice to die for them, in their place, at the time of Passover. And one of the ways in which they celebrated it was to eat bread made without any yeast – in fact they were to remove all yeast from their houses completely.

Paul's point is this. In the same way that a lamb had had to die for the Israelites, Christ had already died for the Corinthians – he was their Passover lamb. They weren't to celebrate Passover to commemorate God's freeing of the Israelites from slavery in Egypt, far more they were to celebrate Christ's death for them, freeing them from slavery to sin, and meaning that they could be right with God. And Paul says that in the same way that it would have been completely inappropriate for the Jews to celebrate Passover with bread with yeast in it, it was completely inappropriate for the church to celebrate Christ's death, the new Passover (that's the Festival mentioned in verse 8), with the yeast of sin – verse 8 – present amongst them. They were to be like bread without yeast – bread of sincerity and truth, bread suitable for the celebration of Christ's death.

Well, how does one apply teaching like this? More particularly, how were the Corinthian Christians to apply this teaching? Well, Paul elaborates in verses 9 to 13.

He writes:

"I have written to you 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 to 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."

Paul has written to the Corinthians in the past, and although we don't have this letter, we can see that he has discussed how the church was to behave in regard to sexual immorality. Paul had told them "not to associate with sexually immoral people". Well, it seems that some in the Corinthian church had misunderstood what he meant, and had thought that Paul was saying that they shouldn't associate with any sexually immoral people, inside or outside the church. Given the sort of society that Corinth was, that essentially meant living in a Christian bubble, and not associating with pretty much anyone else.

Paul makes it clear that this is not what he had in mind. Look back at the passage: Paul says that he wrote to them 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 fact, says Paul, to do that you'd have to somehow leave this world! What Paul meant, and what he makes clear here, is that the Corinthians are not to associate with "anyone who calls himself a brother" – the word in Greek is adelphos and includes both men and women – "but [who] is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler."

Now, it's important to realise that Paul isn't saying that only perfect people can be in the church. Remember back in chapter one, that Paul wrote saying that he gave thanks to God for the people in the Corinthian church. And yet, if we look at chapter 6 verses 9-11 – do cast your eyes across the page to it – we learn that some in the church had led lives that were far from perfect. Paul writes:

“Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified by the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God”

Paul’s point is this. No-one in the Corinthian church was perfect, and some had a background that, even by the secular standards of the day, was openly sinful. And yet, by accepting the Lord Jesus Christ into their lives, and repenting of their sin, as commanded by Jesus, they could be washed by the Holy Spirit and justified – that is, made righteous – and sanctified set apart as holy. Perfection was not the question.

So who is Paul talking about? Well, he’s referring to brothers (and sisters) who described themselves as Christians and claimed to be so, but who were living lives that denied the Gospel. Paul says that the Corinthians are to have no association with those who were openly, continuingly, and unrepentantly living in a way that was against the teachings of God. And this hard teaching continues in verses 12 and 13. Paul writes:

“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’”

Paul makes it clear that the Corinthians are not called upon to cast judgement on those outside the church – God will judge those on the last day. But rather, the Corinthians are absolutely called, and charged to judge those inside the church. And, in the case where there is open, flagrant, unrepentant sin, action must be taken. And, if all else fails, Paul says, quoting from Deuteronomy, the wicked man must be expelled from the church community – not just, as we’ve already seen, that he might be brought to recognise his own sin, and repent of it, but also to protect the fellowship of the church.

Well, these are tough words, and they’re highly counter-cultural to us in 21st century Britain. But it’s important that we think about how we can apply them to our own situation, because they’re God’s words to us here today, here in Stokes Poges.

Firstly, there is a clear application for those of us in some form of church leadership. Paul is saying that, in the face of unrepentant sinful behaviour, the church is called to act in judgement. Paul makes it clear that action must be taken both for the good of the individual and the good of the church. And in the last resort, this action might culminate in having to exclude the member from taking part in some or all church activities. This isn't the first step: indeed Paul writes in elsewhere that one should "warn a divisive person once, and then warn him a second time. After that, have nothing to do with him." And he makes it clear that the attitude that should be taken is one of gentleness, treating him not as an enemy, but as a brother.

Paul also makes it clear that it's not the case that only sexual sins require this sort of action. Far from it: Paul expands his list to include immorality, greed, dishonesty, idolatry. And I'm sure that we could add to this list. So, for example, there are many in the worldwide and national church whose teaching directly contradicts Biblical truths. This is sinful, and it will damage both the individual and clearly the church community, if it remains unchecked. And so it is up to the church leadership to be guarding against such teaching, and exercising discipline should it appear in the church.

Well, that's just one example amongst many. But I guess that there're many here today who aren't involved directly in any form of leadership – so how should we apply this teaching?

Well, firstly, surely we should be praying for our leaders: praying that they might rest under the authority of the Scriptures; praying that they might act wisely when they exercise discipline; praying that they might act boldly, however unpopular or controversial their actions might be, praying that they might act and speak in gentleness, and love. We should be supporting our leaders at times when these sorts of issues raise their heads.

Secondly, we should be holding each other accountable. Now, I suspect that the particular issue Paul addresses here is not a live one in Stokes Poges, but equally I suspect that most of us found that list in verse 11 hit a little closer to home. We need to ask ourselves if we're falling into the trap of tolerating sin in our own lives? We might not think of ourselves as being idolaters, but have we stopped to ask ourselves what our little gods are that we live for from day to day? Are we living to provide for our families, or to be able to afford that holiday, or that new house, or that car. All good things, but not if they take the place of the one true God. We might not think of ourselves as being slanderers, but do we enjoy taking part in that juicy gossip in the office, or in the school playground? I suspect that all of us could think of a list of things that we do, that we know, hand on heart, to be sinful, and yet actually we're quite happy with, and don't even try to fight. I'm sure that exactly what they are will vary for each of us, but the point is that when we belittle our sins, or even dismiss them as not being sinful at all, we're belittling Christ's sacrifice for us. We're saying "Jesus, actually you didn't need to die for me, because my sins are so small, they're barely sinful – I don’t need your forgiveness." Are we dismissing Jesus in our lives? Are we celebrating His death at the same time as flaunting our dismissal of it? We must not tolerate sin in our lives. So let's help each other to fight the sins we know we commit: let's hold each other accountable. Why not get together with someone you know, someone you trust, and say to them, "I know I need to stop doing this. I know I need to change my behaviour. Will you help me, will you pray with me, will you challenge me?" We must rid ourselves of our toleration of sin.

Amen.

I'm Back!

Having been away for a while now, and greatly enjoyed it too (well, the holiday part of it anyway), I'm back! Expect more posts (possibly), some photos (eventually) and the odd enlightening thought (unlikely).

To get the ball rolling, as it were, have you come across the site Newsbiscuit.com? It's great. And I just loved this story (I think it's the photoshop job that does it for me...).

Have fun...