1 Corinthians 5 - an outline / handout

 

The Necessity of Excommunication

 

Chapter 4: Being stewards of the grace of the cross means taking repentance and change seriously that we might be a holy covenant community

 

• A shocking sin (v1)
• The sinfulness of puffed-up acceptance / celebration of sin (v2)
• A serious public clear unrepentant sinner should be “handed over to Satan” (vv3-5)

 

(1) For the sake of the salvation of his soul (v5)

 

(2) For the sake of the purity of the church’s Passover Feast (vv6-12)

 

Good news?

 

Us?

 

(The Book of Common Prayer Communion Service and The Canons of the Church of England - B 16 Of notorious offenders not to be admitted to Holy Communion)

 

On funerals and the Christian gospel

Over the course of my ordained ministry, I must have conducted hundreds of funerals. And yet each one is special and unique. It is always a privilege to be involved. And often I find out something fascinating even about those I have known quite well. There may be periods or areas of their lives that some of us knew nothing about: that service in the Navy, the early job as a baker, the passion of jazz or the prize-winning gymnastics.

 

I can sometimes go quite a long time without taking a funeral and then several seem to come along at once. Recently there have been four. To stand in church with the coffin, or at the graveside, or in the crematorium remains a stark reminder of our mortality. This end will come to us all (unless the Lord Jesus returns speedily).

 

So death and the world to come have been much on my mind. Alongside this, I was also at an event for Christian ministers when we were sitting around discussing the gospel. What is the essential good news of the Lord Jesus which the church is trying to communicate to the world? A number of those present wanted to emphasise the real day-to-day benefits of faith. And quite rightly so. Christianity is not just pie in the sky by and by when we die, but ham where we am. One even audaciously said that giving a hungry person baked beans from the food bank is the good news. Now, I can see that food is good news to the hungry. And they may not be in a place to receive any other message than this tangible demonstration of love. There may be ethical issues too about giving out rice and Christ.

 

But I think we dare not withhold Christ from people – from anyone. Christ is what – whom - the Christian church must always offer. He is our USP. Unless we get to explicitly holding out the real Jesus of the Bible, we might as well join some secular organisation (even if our motivation is quietly “religious” or inspired by the Gospels).

It is essential that we Christian have much to say for this life of course. We believe in life before death. But we must also have something to say about the Last Enemy and the looming eternity. Permit me a lengthy quote from the New Testament because it is directly relevant to these questions: What is the gospel? And what does it say to our dying race? The Apostle Paul wrote to the Christians in Corinth:

“Now, brothers and sisters, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain.

For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas [=Peter], and then to the Twelve [Disciples / Apostles]. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles,  and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born….

And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied.

But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.” (1 Corinthians chapter 15, part of verses 1 to 22)”

The whole chapter would repay thoughtful reading. It would be a very suitable passage for a Christian funeral. An essential part of the Christian message is that the crucified Jesus lives as Lord. He gives an indestructible life to any who will trust in him. That coffin is not the end of the story. For those who have faith in Jesus, nothing is in vain.

 

May God bless you with joy and peace in believing both for Wednesday morning and for the ages to come.  

Unburdened by doctrine or served by healthy doctrine?

 Parish Magazine Item for August 2024

From The Rectory

 

I won’t be saying here or from the pulpit how I voted in the general election. Perhaps there is a good case for keeping these things private. You know, discussing religion or politics might end up in an argument! And I shall certainly be praying for our new Prime Minister. I could easily have written about many things Tory or other candidates have said with which I disagree. But I would like to highlight a prominent statement by Sir Keir.

 

Standing on Downing Street, the newly electing PM has promised us "a government unburdened by doctrine." 

 

Charitably, he means he will be pragmatic and not doctrinaire or ideological. 

 

However, a government entirely without doctrine is neither possible nor desirable. 

 

We cannot imagine that, even if his Manifesto was a little thin, Sir Keir will really approach every issue entirely without beliefs and seek to work out what works. We do not believe he has a blank sheet of paper and nor should he. One only has to ask: “What works for whom? To achieve what?” We are back to doctrine. We all have and need these fundamental beliefs and guiding principles.

 

The British Army would tell him that you need your doctrine worked out, understood, shared, applied and open to revision. It is no good turning up in a battle and launching a three-year study with options for how the enemy might be defeated. You will find yourself overcome while you worry about rules of engagement or methods of attack.

 

Even if Sir Keir has a very broad and ill-defined aim such as “the flourishing of the British nation”, he will still need doctrines about what constitutes the good life, who shares in the British nation, and how advancement for many or all might be achieved by governments. Politics actually gets almost theological pretty quickly, it seems to me.

 

We do not want a government burdened by false doctrine, but served by true, good and sound or healthy doctrines, which are open to reformation if there are new arguments or evidence, and which may be adapted to changing circumstances. 

 

Likewise, Christians have sometimes used “doctrine” as a sort of boo-word. It can sound a bit boring or irrelevant. And wouldn’t love be better than dogma? But in fact this is a false dichotomy. Belief and behaviour belong together. Doctrine ought to lead to delight and duty.

 

Granted the church too could be too ideological, doctrinaire and dogmatic. The old slogan: “In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, love” still holds good. There could be inappropriate theological hair-splitting or unreasonable degrees of intellectual enforcement, but these are unlikely to be the main dangers for most of us in the C of E.

 

Our creeds are an attempt (in response to errors of their days) to state some of the most fundamental Christian doctrines. The Apostles’ Creed and the Nicene Creed continue to provide a basis for broad Christian unity. We might want to add something about grace and salvation, the cross, the Scriptures or ethics, since these have been matters of great controversy since the early centuries when our creeds were agreed.

 

But I think we (church, army, government, individuals) can all be clear that we need a certain amount health-giving doctrine. We cannot avoid beliefs. The question is where we will get them from and how they will guide us. The church goes back to the Bible, the Word of God written, aided by her traditions and reason, as she seeks doctrines which will serve her common life afresh in this generation.

The Revd Marc Lloyd

"a government unburdened by doctrine"

Standing on Downing Street, the newly electing PM has promised us "a government unburdened by doctrine." 

Charitably, he means he will be pragmatic and not doctrinaire or ideological. 

However, a government entirely without doctrine is neither possible nor desirable. 

We cannot imagine that even if his Manifesto was a little thin, Sir Keir will really approach every issue entirely without beliefs and seek to work out what works. What works for whom? To achieve what? We are back to doctrine. 

The British Army would tell him that you need your doctrine worked out, understood, shared, applied and open to revision. It is no good turning up in a battle and launching a three year study with options for how the enemy might be defeated. 

Even if Sir Keir has a very broad and ill defined aim such as the flourishing of the British nation, he will still need doctrines about what constitutes the good life, who shares in the British nation, and how advancement for many or all might be achieved. 

We do not want a government burdened by false doctrine, but served by true, good and healthy doctrines, which are open to reformation if there are new arguments or evidence, and which may be adapted to changing circumstances. 

Sir Keir also offered actions not words. In a speech. And it would be petty to quibble that words are actions. But let us hope that what Keir does is perhaps a bit better thought through than what he says, or tells us he believes.  

Disagreeing and assuming harmony: reading the Bible again

 I have sometimes been surprised that people more learned and cleverer than me read some Bible texts so differently from the way I do.

Our assumptions or presuppositions make a big difference. 

A huge question is whether we are inclined to read a text in its canonical context (that is, as Holy Scripture) and whether we assume it is in harmony with the rest of the Bible and the Christian tradition of not. If this is the Word of God, we should look for unity in it, whilst acknowledging its rich variety. 

It is obvious that no two texts are exactly the same. If they were there might be little point in having them both. Jesus, Paul, Peter, James, John and Mark all have distinctive things to say in their different voices. 

But do we assume that Paul got Jesus wrong? 

That Peter and Paul couldn't agree?

That Paul and James had a different gospel? 

Or that John contradicts Mark?

And that is before we try to bring Old and New Testaments together. 

In my experience, biblical scholars are sometimes especially prone to make a difference into a contradiction unnecessarily. But is a reasonable harmonisation possible? If so, why not embrace it?

A difference of emphasis need not be a repudiation of substance. 

Someone obviously thought that these texts could be read coherently together as they collected them up. 

The great tradition knew about the law of non-contradiction and has affirmed all these texts as infallible. The differences are not a new discovery and were not thought an insurmountable problem or a barrier to affirming all these texts as true. 

Augustine and Aquinas may have erred in many ways, but we should take their sense that the Bible's many voices constitute the voice of God to us seriously. Our Anglican formularies commit us to such a view. The human Scriptures are the Word of God to us - and God does not contradict himself. 

Each bible text enriches our understanding. It qualifies but it does not cross out the other texts. 

Leadership, accountability, 1 Corinthians 4 and how to read the Bible

 

In 1 Corinthians 4, Paul has some pretty strong things to say about his accountability to God alone: I do not care if I am judged by you or by any other human court. Let us wait for God’s judgement.

 

This could be a disastrous text if we applied a particular spin on it in a simplistic way.

 

As always, we must read the text in context and alongside other texts. The text is “true” and has an important and useful meaning, but we must not read it in a particular way and then totalise or absolutize its meaning and apply it to other contexts unreflectively. We must always say, “this Bible text is obviously correct and relevant to us (we know that: it is the Word of God), but in what sense is what it says true for us and what does it mean in our context?”

 

Any text can be used or abused. And it isn’t hard to see how this text could be license for the most unaccountable maverick self-indulgent and frankly dangerous off the rails ministry practices – even potentially for illegality.

 

One might say Paul was an Apostle. Quite right. He was uniquely called and authorised by Christ compared to ministers today. But even this doesn’t “solve” the issue as we know that Paul held Peter publicly accountable for his conduct. Even the Apostles did not, or should not, act as they please and say, “O, God alone can judge me: I am the Authorised Ambassador of Christ, don’t you know!” The Apostles were not perfect and infallible and they knew it. They were open to learning from others.

 

So if there are some things the Bible text does not mean, what does it mean?

 

The broad thrust in context is clear, true and useful, I think.

 

Christian leaders (and indeed all believers) are ultimately responsible to God alone. God is the ultimate judge. It is vanishingly unlikely, but it is possible that God will be true and every man a liar and that it will be you against the world. If this seems to be the case, it should give you serious cause, but it might just feel as if all your circle think you are mad. You should still do the right thing. Though of course your conscience might need educating.

 

We can see the particular relevance of saying all this in 1 Corinthians 4 if there is a temptation for charismatic leaders to win a following for themselves by their worldly wisdom, learned rhetoric or supposed power. In the context of division and factions with groups seeking to attach themselves to impressive or influential patrons, what Paul says makes perfect sense.

 

You are called by Christ. Responsible to Christ. Ministry is not a popularity contest. We are not holding a referendum on the Word of God.

 

It obviously does not mean that leaders (or anyone else) should fail to listen to others, or follow rules, or can never be held accountable to any human standards or tribunals. Not least, Paul’s whole argument is a correction, a rebuke, a warning, a call to repentance and reform, to conform ourselves to the cross of Christ and the counter-cultural wisdom of God which has us on display as the scum of the earth, called to humble self-sacrificial service, not arrogantly grandstanding and asserting our independence or untouchability.