Chapter
13 : Secure in Correction
“He
who hates correction is stupid”
(Proverbs
12:1 )
In a previous Chapter we considered how creating a secure
church should enable people to more freely confess their sins and failures.
Now we are considering the secure church from the point of view of the
service or work that the church does, and we need, therefore, to consider
the corrective role of the church. I need to warn you in advance that
you are going to need to really think in this chapter. This area of
correction is potentially THE most difficult area in church life and
the more positive in direction is the church, the more difficult it
becomes. It is an area that has the potential for thoroughly upsetting
what might otherwise be a really secure church.
In this chapter we will focus on theory and in the next one the
practice of correction. Why a theory chapter? Well, over the years as
I have watched the life and movement of the church and as I have considered
this particular role of the church, I've concluded that it is one of
the most difficult, and also one which doesn't seem to be spoken about
much. Therefore we need to give quite a lot of thought to it.
13.1
Why Consider Correction
Why include chapters on correction and why in a book on
creating a secure church? There are a number of reasons:
1.
Scripture says so
The writer of Proverbs clearly believed that wisdom involved
correction as we see from the verse at the beginning of the Chapter.
The apostle Paul writing to the Galatians said “ If someone is caught
in sin, you who are spiritual should restore him gently .” (Gal
6:1). Similarly Jesus gave a strategy for correction (Mt 18:15 -17)
and emphasised the need to correct and be prepared to forgive again
and again (Lk 17:3,4). Paul also spoke of admonishing one another (
Col 1:28 , 3:16 ). The Bible thus clearly indicates that when we see
a brother or sister sinning we are to do something about it.
2.
Correction brings security
Correction breeds security for two reasons: first, when the church
knows correction is brought it knows there are boundaries that cannot
be crossed, and knowing there are boundaries to behaviour creates a
sense of security. Small children know this. Take away the boundaries
and allow a child to do what it will, it soon starts showing signs of
great insecurity. As soon as boundaries are set and maintained, the
child knows where it is and knowing where it is means it feels safe.
The second reason is that when correction is brought the rest of the
church know that justice prevails, and the absence of justice makes
people feel unsafe. When justice prevails people feel safe.
3.
Correction restores peace and harmony
Again Proverbs says, “ An offended brother is more
unyielding than a fortified city, and disputes are like the barred gates
of a citadel .” (Prov 18:19). Where there is offence or dispute
there is upset, disharmony, dissension, and division. All these things
are expressly against Jesus' desire for peace, harmony and unity (see
Jn 17). When we bring correction we restore these things to the body
and the body is better off.
4.
Imperfect Lives Need Correcting
The reality is that our lives are imperfect and therefore
need changing and change comes by correction. We covered this in the
previous chapter under the heading of Mentoring.
13.2
Varieties of Approach
Perhaps nowhere more than in this area of correction and discipline
in church life do different denominations, different streams and different
churches vary in their approaches. For some therefore, the things that
I am going to say are likely to be completely alien. For others they
will not go far enough, in fact they may feel that what I say might
inhibit them. Those are the dangers of writing for what could be a very
wide band or spectrum of readers.
1.
Little Accountability Extreme
For some of us in the church at large, authority may only
come in the form of a figure high up in the hierarchy a level or two
above us. In these situations the bishop is a spiritual managerial figure
who, with the help of others, tends to be the trouble shooter, and so
frequently at the local level accountability within the congregation
is unheard of in actual practice. Leaders in these churches have mostly
seen their role as caring (in a very loose way) and performing ‘services'
and proclaiming the Bible.
The sense of security in the congregation in these churches
comes from predictability of service, and perhaps a sense of comfort
from a traditional, formal spirituality, and not having anyone probing
too deeply. It is of course a false sense of security and the failure
of this style of approach is that the often zero-accountability can
mean a weak or dead form of Christianity where holiness is little understood.
2.
High Accountability Extreme
At the opposite end of the spectrum we have those churches where
authority has been largely seen to be in the hands of itinerant, second-level
authority figures (broader ministries) and in the local leaders. Historically,
at the end of the twentieth century, accountability in these churches
was a strong feature.
Leaders here saw themselves as having a God-given mandate
to proclaim and teach the truths of Scripture, including Scriptural
directions for Christian living, and ensuring that it was being
applied by the members . Correction under these circumstances almost
becomes synonymous with direction. A clearly proclaimed level of expectations
on the members, together with a tight mentoring system in the form of
elders, house group leaders or cell group leaders, produced a sense
of security that came from a rigidity of system and ‘knowing the rules'.
The failure of this system is that it produced an over
reliance of members on leaders, whereby the members were often unable
to think for themselves outside of the teaching they received. Holiness
in this system is understood as practice of stated particular disciplines
or activities.
3.
The Middle Ground
Somewhere between the above two extremes would, I suggest,
be the more likely Biblical model whereby:
•
teaching is clear, yet people are taught
to think and reason for themselves
•
there is accountability to local leaders
whereby obvious sin is challenged,
yet people are taught to make themselves accountable
to God for lesser
matters
•
godly wisdom is made available, through
specialist leaders, for those who
want to avail themselves of it, to help deal with difficulties
of life.
As I will go on to explain, I believe this third
model provides a fertile ground in which to create a genuinely secure
church. In the remainder of this chapter I will provide some thinking
to support this last model, and in the next chapter suggest ways in
which I believe it can be put into practice so as to create the loving
and caring environment that we have been speaking about throughout the
book.
13.3
Issues of Right & Wrong
One of the things we've been majoring on throughout this
book (perhaps because so frequently in the church it is forgotten) is
the fact that so often, as fallible human beings, we get it wrong. Of
course in the world of pluralistic thinking it is not fashionable to
say something is wrong, but in the church, as we've seen above, we are
required to distinguish between right and wrong.
Some of the things we get wrong are moral issues,
others are not. We need to make this distinction because the Bible seems
to give a mandate to leaders to correct that which is clearly sin, but
gives no such mandate to correct what may just be bad judgement on minor
issues. When we understand this it may help us feel more secure in church
government.
Moral
Standards
Wherever the Bible indicates a particular behaviour or
attitude is unrighteous, we have a moral issue. For instance the New
Testament speaks as follows against some of these and gives
the following negative-behaviour lists:
Eph
4:25-31 Therefore each of you must put off falsehood and
speak truthfully to his neighbour….. In your anger do not sin……. He
who has been stealing must steal no longer, but must work, doing something
useful with his own hands…….. Do not let any unwholesome talk come out
of your mouths….. rid of all bitterness, rage and anger, brawling and
slander, along with every form of malice
Eph
5:3,4,18 But among you there must not be even a
hint of sexual immorality, or of any kind of impurity, or of greed….
Nor should there be obscenity, foolish talk or coarse joking….. Do not
get drunk on wine, which leads to debauchery
We find similar prohibited-behaviour lists in Gal 5:19-21
and Col 3:5-9. There are also positive-behaviour lists, e.g.
Col
3:12-17 Therefore, as God's chosen people, holy and dearly
loved, clothe yourselves with compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness
and patience. Bear with each other and forgive whatever grievances you
may have against one another. Forgive as the Lord forgave you. And over
all these virtues put on love, which binds them all together in perfect
unity. Let the peace of Christ rule in your hearts, since as members
of one body you were called to peace. And be thankful. Let the word
of Christ dwell in you richly as you teach and admonish one another
with all wisdom, and as you sing psalms, hymns and spiritual songs with
gratitude in your hearts to God. And whatever you do, whether in word
or deed, do it all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God
the Father through him.
What these various verses tell us is that there are certain
behavioural standards in the kingdom of God , things that are acceptable
and things that are not acceptable, and other things we should positively
be reaching out to include in our lives as Christians. Bringing correction
when there is a failure of those negative-standards and bringing correction
where this an absence of those positive-standards, is what this and
the following chapter is all about.
A
Tendency towards Sin?
When we read the Bible and also observe human life, we
see that we all have the tendency to get it wrong. This is the thing
we call Sin. At its heart is human pride, and self-centred disobedience
to God. When we look at our lives we find that a lot of what we do (and
some theologians would say all of what we do) is tainted with
this Sin, with the exception of what we do in response to God .
In the Bible ‘faith' comes from hearing (Rom 10:17 ) and so faith is
responding to God, which is why Paul in Romans 14:23 said, “ everything
that does not come from faith is sin ”. However, measuring ‘faith',
deciding whether this came from God or not, is not always easy!
Deciding
what is Sin
There are many things that we do in life that don't fall
into the category of what we might call moral issues, and even if they
do we then have to consider how important they are. Choosing what wallpaper
to buy isn't a moral issue - unless it involves a husband totally going
against his wife's wishes with the aim of upsetting her! Buying a suit
is not a moral issue - you may have bad dress sense and the suit looks
terrible on you, but that's not a moral issue. Whether or not to buy
a newspaper is not a moral issue. Some of these things may involve wisdom
or the lack of it, but to call them moral issues would be taking it
too far.
Theologians have struggled with this throughout the
centuries of Church history so I am aware of yet again risking going
where angels fear to tread! Sometimes only God can know whether we are
sinning. Why is it important to work through these concepts? Because
of the attitude we have towards the need for teaching and correction
in the church, that we've spoken about already.
Yes, a sin is anything that is lawlessness, rebellion against
God, disobedience to God, missing the mark, overstepping the boundaries,
ungodliness, unrighteousness. These are the meanings that theologians
say are behind the words we find in Scripture for ‘sin', but trying
to categorise them in terms of practical applications is not always
so easy. Right, say theologians, we'll divide up actual sins into those
that are a deliberate turning away from God (mortal [producing spiritual
death] sins) and those that are done unwittingly (venial [pardonable]
sins).
The
Example of Apathy
Some would say that ‘apathy' or ‘indifference' is
a sin, because we are told to love God with all our heart etc., love
our neighbour as our self, and to love one another in the church in
a practical way. Therefore if there is ANY need around us, if we are
full of love, then we would seek to meet that need, so in failing to
do so we are guilty of apathy or indifference towards the needs of others.
We would also, the argument goes, have failed God in that
we would have ignored God's promptings to do something about those needs.
Years ago our awareness of need would have been limited to the village
or hamlet in which we lived. Today, with education and with the media
that we have, we are bombarded with information detailing the needs
of literally thousands of people groups around the world. Indeed it
has become a market place of need and many of us, finding this causing
emotional overload, simply shut down and ignore all need except our
own!
This has created a problem of how to meet needs,
and particularly a problem of how far the church should decide or dictate
how we should give. These are all things that contribute to or detract
from a sense of security in the church.
13.4
The Difficulty of Centralised Giving
So how do we try to cope with this as church? We accept that
we cannot meet every need with the limited resources we have and so
we ask God to give us wisdom to meet some certain, specific needs that
we can meet, and circumstances to which we can bring change. But who
is to decide? Again there is a massive market place of people and organisations
clamouring for our help or our money. Perhaps our church decides a worthy
and needy cause that they can support and calls for our money and loyalty.
Yes, in modern church life, ‘loyalty' becomes an issue and in
some circles those who do not conform to the desires and edicts in this
area, are considered substandard members. But is it sin to disagree
with the local leadership over a matter such as where we give? Some
think it is, while others of us would not be comfortable with that.
In a secure church there surely needs to be a balance between having
‘church good causes' recommended by the leadership, and personal choices
of giving by individuals.
Those of us who are leaders with big visions requiring big money
would not be happy with what they would see as competing demands on
their flock and threats to the fulfilment of their visions. Correction
for them would mean correcting the way of thinking of their people to
ensure all giving came into the needs designated by the church.
However much we seek to disguise it under the name of ‘faith',
pressure to give in these circumstances is just that - pressure
to give. Of course those who have been down this track and have the
big projects to show for it, justify the pressure (or deny it) by the
fruits of their activity through the big project. The end looks good
but was that how Jesus worked? Does the end justify the means?
13.5
An Example of Immorality
Let's consider something completely different but which is equally
difficult. Let's examine the circumstances of John, an ordinary Christian
young man, wondering about visiting an unsaved cousin of his, which
he does. Here we have a simple action in his life which seems to have
no moral content to it. Some of us in John's shoes might say, “I felt
the Lord tell me to go” which apparently makes it a spiritual journey!
At the very least others of us might wonder if the Holy Spirit prompted
John to go. A trivial example you may think. So let's add some detail.
How do you feel about it if I tell you that John's cousin
is a woman? No problem. Now I tell you she is a prostitute. Possibly
still no problem when you hear he wants to go to witness to her. Suppose
I tell you he goes in the evening on his own? If he's full of faith
(which is how he might put it) you might still expect a good outcome.
Suppose I tell you he went to see her, wanted to not appear an aloof,
‘holy' Christian, so accepted a drink, and then another, stayed on late
and was finally seduced by her!
At least there was sin at the end which is clear and obvious
according to Scripture. But was he sinning anywhere else along the line?
Was he simply being unwise? Is that sin? Suppose he tells you he had
really prayed about the whole thing and felt right about it right up
until the point of the second drink when he started losing focus!
Suppose I tell you that his church leader had encouraged
him (unwisely in retrospect!) to go to be a witness. Does that make
his action less problematical? Suppose I tell you that God had told
him not to go but he had been unsure if he was hearing God? You see
it's not always black and white. The end result may be, but the stages
along the way may not be so clear. In this particular instance wisdom
might have suggested he took a Christian girl along with him for protection.
Supposing he had someone lined up who had pulled out at the last minute.
The end result is the same but the stages are messy.
13.6
Lessons to be Learnt?
The way we view John, and what happened to him, tell a
lot about us, in fact what they tell about us is more important than
what they tell us about his downfall. You may have fallen into the trap
and started to assess John at the various times in the account. Pharisees
will condemn him and want to throw stones and put him out of the church,
and liberals would say it happens to all of us, so what.
But perhaps Jesus wouldn't follow
either of those courses. In John 8:1-11, which we looked at in an earlier
chapter, we saw Jesus accepting that there was sin but refusing to condemn.
Instead he sought restoration of life for the woman. For those of us
trying to create a secure church there are perhaps some obvious lessons
we ought to take on board from this fictitious story above:
1.
Corporate failure
The Pharisees in John 8 failed to realise the
following crucial things, so eager were they to condemn:
•
The potential for failure was in them.
We are all part of the same sinful human race, we all suffer from
what theologians call ‘original sin'.
•
‘There but for the grace of God' applies.
They hadn't fallen, simply because their life circumstances had protected
them. If we lived in a slum ghetto in one of the larger cities away
from the affluent West, we might not feel so strong about our convictions!
(not an excuse, just a reason!)
•
If the Jewish society had been working
properly, adultery should never have happened (see my comments in
a previous Chapter). If the Christian church was flowing in the love
of God, following the Spirit, filled with the wisdom of God, then
many of our failures wouldn't have happened.
2.
Concerned for restoration
Various people have commented that the Christian church
seems to be the only army that shoots its wounded. So often we seem
more concerned to wreak vengeance or judgement upon some poor, pitiful
individual who has fallen to the wiles of the enemy, than to restore
them.
The only times Jesus spoke strongly was
when he was having to break into the strongholds of uncaring, legalistic,
Pharisaical thinking of the religious leaders who should have known
better, and the only reason, I would suggest, that he spoke like that
was that he knew that they were so hardened that they would not repent.
Where there was a sinful but open heart, he spoke with gentleness with
the aim of restoration.
When a leader falls there is a revealing
of hearts in all those who look on. Consider, if a well known
leader falls, how would you react? The heart of Jesus grieves
and weeps, but in the twenty first century, it seems, so many rejoice
or walk away muttering, "Well it doesn't surprise me,"
The failure of any Christian leader is a loss to the Christian church
and our efforts should be focused into gently restoring this person
(Gal 6:1). Harsh words of condemnation and a separating away from this
'sinner' reveals hard pharisaical hearts, hearts that deserve the discipline
of God as much as that of 'the sinner'.
This is so important we need to stay with it for
a bit longer. David knew this experience, as we find it recorded in
Psalm 35. Speaking about those who came against him he said:
"when they were ill, I put on sackcloth and humbled
myself with fasting. When my prayers returned to me unanswered, I went
about mourning as though for my friend or brother. I Bowed my head in
grief as though weeping for my mother." (v.13,14)
This was how he had been when others
had been in need. He had poured himself out for them. Now see what follows:
"But when I stumbled they gathered in glee;
attackers gathered against me when I was unaware. They slandered me
without ceasing. Like the ungodly they maliciously mocked; they
gnashed their teeth at me." (v.15,16)
Somehow he stumbled and immediately all those he had cared
for turned on him. And these people were his people, not the ungodly!
But they behaved just like the ungodly. It should not be so!
It must not be so! Yet it seems that even in the church today,
supposedly the bringers of grace and mercy to the world, we still fail
in this way. It should not be so! It must not be so!
3.
The Inadequacy of the Law
The Law struggles to be applied in grey areas. The
truth is sometimes difficult to discern. Setting boundaries, unless
firmly set by God (such as “Thou shalt not commit adultery”), becomes
an arbitrary human past-time for the sake of trying to condemn. At the
end of a fruitless exercise, all we may be left with is that we are
all guilty, we've all failed, it's just a case of a bunch of sinners
trying to pin down a lonely sinner. Do I hear the creaks of consciences
shifting uneasily? Do I hear someone saying, “It sounds like you are
saying it's all right to sin, then?” No, I'm not, but it's giving me
hope that I may be in good company (Rom 6:1). They do say that whenever
you are preaching grace correctly, someone will accuse you of heresy!
No, this chapter is about correction, the fact that we need it, and
the fact that it is so difficult to determine when it is needed and
how it should be brought!
Some
Conclusions
What have we considered so far in this complex subject?
•
Categorising sin is sometimes difficult
•
When the Bible is specific about certain
wrong behaviours, we can likewise
declare them unacceptable
•
There is a distinction between wilful
and unwitting sin
•
A lot of things we do seem to have no
moral content.
•
Correction is obviously needed when there
is obvious sin, but we need to
be careful where the nature of the actions are
not so clear.
•
‘Correction' can be a disguise for leaders
working out their own visions and
bringing the people in line.
•
Because we all fail, none of us has the
right to be condemnatory.
•
When there is failure we should be looking
more for restoration than for
bringing judgement.
Some
Conclusions Applied
Let's go right back to the beginning of the book,
to Chapter 1 where we envisaged a Pastor, again by the name of John,
who walked into a church business meeting only to find the entire group
of leaders walk out on him after demanding his resignation. What
would have been a far more caring and graceful approach to that?
Well, first it is to recognise
that Pastor John is on his own and, quite obviously, it's been like
that for some time. Surely what is needed here is for other leaders
to try to come alongside John before it gets to crisis point, to build
relationship with him and then, from a position of trust to start talking
about some of the concerns being expressed? If it has got to a point
of no return and John has reached burnout but doesn't recognise it,
surely the caring and compassionate approach is to offer him a paid
holiday or sabbatical so that he can recharge his batteries and regain
perspective? If we are seeking to be a caring and compassionate
church, then that must be extended to John as well? As we noted
above, the outcome of correcting this situation should be the restoration
of John, not casting him out?
13.7
Styles of Correction
Having thought about the nature of ‘wrong' activities,
we then have to consider how we go about correction in some more detail.
When many of us think about correction we have a very negative view
of it. Words like ‘heavy shepherding' stir up horror stories of couples
who had to consult their shepherd before choosing the wallpaper for
their front room, or individuals who were not allowed to marry by the
domineering leader. When it comes to correction many of us seem to have
tunnel vision. We can only see correction coming in one way, direct
confrontation involving discipline, possibly resulting in the exclusion
of an unrepentant sinner.
Models
of Correction from the Bible
Why do we have this tunnel vision in respect of correction?
Because we use the most common Old Testament prophet model, that of
a denouncing orator! We see in the Old Testament the picture of God
coming to bring a word of correction through his prophet who, in our
mind's eye, stands on a rocky outcrop and denounces failure. Like Jonah
we deliver the word of rebuke and watch for fire to fall. But is that
actually the full picture? Have we an accurate perception of correction
or is there something more involved? Very often that does seem
to be the way the thing was but when we look more closely we find something
very different.
1.
Jonah
Jonah, despite being someone who heard God (1:1), had some funny
ideas about God. First of all he thought he could run away from God
(1:3). He knew God as Almighty Creator (1:9) and he was sure that his
sin had brought divine retribution ( 1:12 ). In desperation he was a
praying man (2:1-9) and had some idea of the concept of God being a
God of salvation (2:9). When eventually he was repentant and obedient
and brought the word to Nineveh , the word had great effect and the
entire city responded wonderfully! When God did not bring his judgement
on them, this thoroughly upset Jonah (4:1). He professes to know that
God is a gracious and compassionate God etc. (4:2) but is still upset.
He doesn't realise that grace is there for the repentant, so the Lord
has to give him a simple object lesson (4:6-11). Jonah was upset about
a plant, but God had been upset about a city full of people.
Jonah seems to have had the same spirit as James and John
(Lk 9:54 ) when they wanted to call down destruction. The footnote there
adds that some manuscripts include, “ for the Son of Man did not
come to destroy men's lives, but to save them ” which, although
possibly being of questionable origin certainly is true to Jesus' heart
(see also Mt 9:12 ,13). When it comes to the need for correction, how
many of us would much rather see justice meted out instead of mercy
and grace? Yes death is deserved, but something more wonderful is available
instead.
2.
Ezekiel
Ezekiel was the prophet who had amazing visions of God,
and visions of the glory of God. Through Ezekiel came such devastating
denunciations of Jerusalem (e.g. Ch.16). Ezekiel was completely unsparing
when it came to sin yet he was quite clear about the reality of God's
heart. We saw it earlier in the book but we need to hear it again here:
Ezek
18:32 For I take no pleasure in the death
of anyone, declares the Sovereign Lord. Repent and live.
When God spoke such strong words of denunciation
the purpose was to bring Israel to its senses so that they would not
have to be punished, so that they would be saved. If God does bring
discipline into our lives, as the Bible promises (Heb 12:4-12), it is
to get us free from the things that would pull us down and destroy us.
If I as a parent did not delight in inflicting painful, scriptural
discipline to my children when they were young and rebellious, how much
more do you think God doesn't take delight in bringing discipline
to us. I much prefer the days I'm now in when my children are mature
and we talk and share together in full understanding.
3.
David and Nathan (2 Sam 12)
David has sinned. It is clear and obvious: adultery and
murder and abuse of power. Here surely is a case for a mighty denunciation,
but it didn't work like that. First of all remember that the Bible describes
David as a man after God's own heart (1 Sam 13:14 / Acts 13:22
). He's a man who can badly get it wrong, yet he's also a heart man
who can be mightily moved by the hardness of others (2 Sam 3:39 ).
So when Nathan the prophet comes to David to correct him, notice
that way he goes about it. He paints a parallel picture (12:1-4) and
when David's emotions rise against the injustice, Nathan is able to
say, “ You are the man !” (v.7). He then goes on to describe
the sin and the discipline that is coming upon David and David simply
acknowledges, “ I have sinned against the Lord .” It is then
that the word of grace comes: “ The Lord has taken away your sin.
You are not going to die .” (v.13). The incredible thing here is
that amazing as the multiple sin of David was, his repentance still
opened the door for the love, grace and mercy of God to flow. David
was saved, even though there was yet further sin to come in his life.
Whenever sin was followed by true repentance, salvation followed. That
was the picture clearly painted in the Old Testament.
4.
Jesus
When we observe Jesus with people, we find a variety of
responses in him to them. To the hard hearted Pharisees and priests
of Jerusalem who would plot his death, he spoke strong words of truth.
He knew there would not be a turning so, for the sake of the onlookers
(and to perhaps even provoke their action to bring his death) he simply
declared the truth about them.
For truth-seeking Nicodemus he gently chastened and provoked
towards the truth. For the immoral but questioning Samaritan woman he
led her into the place of confession. We've seen in an earlier chapter
how Peter felt sufficiently secure to speak out in front of Jesus and
we saw there how Jesus corrected him and showed a way ahead. Jesus did
not have a set of rules to follow. Rather, according to the person before
him and their attitude towards him and towards sin, he varied his approach
to use the right method for the right person, and always, wherever it
was possible, he sought the restoration of the individual.
Some
Conclusions?
What
can we conclude from what we've considered here?