Vermox For Sale

Posted on Sep 24, 2007 in challenge, church by Wes Kenney 35 Comments

Vermox For Sale, I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral peopleâ€”not at all meaning the sexually immoral of this world, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world. Vermox us, But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, 250mg Vermox, Vermox ebay, reviler, drunkard, Vermox uk, Vermox india, or swindlerâ€”not even to eat with such a one. For what have I to do with judging outsiders, Vermox paypal. 100mg Vermox, Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge. God judges those outside, 200mg Vermox. â€œPurge the evil person from among you.â€

- 1 Corinthians 5:9-13

I have been preaching through 1 Corinthians on Sunday mornings, and have for the last two weeks dealt with the very challenging topic of church discipline, Vermox For Sale. 150mg Vermox, The passage above really struck me as I prepared and preached this message.

It struck me because I came to realize that we take this very clear teaching of scripture and implement it exactly backwards. That is to say, 50mg Vermox, Vermox mexico, we are often very harsh and judgmental toward those who are "of this world," tending to avoid even talking to them or acknowledging them, Vermox japan, 750mg Vermox, much less engaging them in the kind of meaningful relationship that might lead to an opportunity for the sharing of our faith.

Yet when it comes to thise inside the church, we are reluctant to say or do anything that might come across as judgmental, 10mg Vermox. 30mg Vermox, We ignore the plain application of this verse ("Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge?"), preferring instead to misapply those passage that warn against passing judgment.

Clearly, 500mg Vermox, Vermox australia, this is judgment is not meant to be carried out on an individual level, but rather, 40mg Vermox, Vermox usa, "when you are assembled in the name of the Lord Jesus," that is, Vermox canada, 1000mg Vermox, as a church exercising the authority of Christ in disciplining an erring brother. But our distaste for the discipline called for in this passage, Vermox overseas, Vermox craiglist, which I wrote about in a previous post, often makes us far too harsh toward the behavior of the lost (which is, 20mg Vermox, Vermox coupon, after all, in accord with their nature), and far too tolerant of the behavior of those who are a part of the church and who desparately need the church's loving discipline.

For the sake of the witness of the church, this backwardness needs to be turned around.

About the Author

Wes Kenney

Comments (35)

Bob Cleveland Sep 24 2007 - 3:08 pm

Amen and amen. It’s pretty explicit.

Strangely, the only times I’ve been involved in real church discipline have turned out gloriously. In one case, a marriage was apparently saved (even 20 years later).

Reply
Jake Barker Sep 24 2007 - 4:01 pm

And praytell what would be the behaviors that would lead to this form of discipline?

Reply
Wes Kenney Sep 24 2007 - 5:26 pm

Jake,

The specific behavior that is mentioned in the context is a man openly living in a sexual relationship with his stepmother. I would suggest that any behavior in which a church member is engaged that is contrary to the clear teaching of scripture, and of which they are unrepentant after private confrontation with the goal of restoration (Matthew 18) makes them a candidate for church discipline.

Reply
Bowden McElroy Sep 24 2007 - 6:12 pm

I’ve always been confused about why we so often get mad at the world for simply acting like… the world.

Reply
Les Puryear Sep 24 2007 - 6:23 pm

Finally a Wes Kenney post I can agree with.

BTW, how’s church discpline going at your church? Do you have a process in place approved by the church? Have you exercised church discipline in your church? If so, how did it go?

I’m curious to see how other churches are logistically handling this.

Les

Reply
Jake Barker Sep 24 2007 - 9:54 pm

Wes,
I wasn’t refering to the Scripture, I’m familiar with it….I was asking what behaviors that you would consider appropriate for church discipline. Specific behaviors please.

Reply
jasonk Sep 24 2007 - 10:26 pm

Good post, and a good point. I think, though, that one should be careful to define just what sexual immorality really is. When one approaches a church member for the purpose of disciplining them, does one consider the lust in one’s own heart as sexual immorality? Or the porn one sneaked a look at? And let’s not forget that this passage also talks about greed. What do we do with that? And are there church leaders who are swindlers? What about them?
My point is not that we should avoid church discipline–I don’t have any good solutions there. My point is that we tend to focus on the big stuff–sexual immorality, and ignore the things we may be guilty of ourselves, like lust, greed, etc. I was studying Philippians 2 this week, regarding the attitude of Christ. He didn’t regard equality with God something to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking on the form of a bond servant. He was not proud or conceited. Do we discipline those who refuse to take on the mind of Christ, and act proud and conceited?
My question is, when it comes to church discipline, where does it start, and where does it end?

Reply
Jeff Richard Young Sep 24 2007 - 11:12 pm

Dear Brother Wes,

Hear! Hear!

Love in Christ,

Jeff

Reply
Tim Rogers Sep 25 2007 - 9:11 am

Brother Jake,

I do not intend to break in on your conversation with Brother Wes, but…

:>)

Seriously, by asking that question in such a way, are you not asking him to list specific actions instead of dealing with the real issue of church discipline–matters of the heart?

I agree with Brother Wes on this, and I do not know whether you agree or disagree, but I do believe his objective is clear–restoration to fellowship with God and man. While I agree there is a paradox (separation brings restoration) that seems illogical, that is the clear teaching of the Scripture. This is not the only paradox the Bible promotes; if you want to be free, become yoked, if you want to live, you must die, etc. etc.

While specific actions are prohibited in Scripture, the text points to the heart of the individual. For Brother Wes to list specific actions that need to be dealt with through church discipline would be legalism on his part. I that is too great a task for him to accomplish. Church discipline is not about legalism, it is about fellowship.

Blessings,
Tim

Reply
Jake Barker Sep 25 2007 - 9:39 am

Tim & Wes,
You guys are dancing all around the subject. The question was and still is….What types of behavior would result in some form of church discipline? Surely you must have something in mind as to what action/in-actions would result in church discipline. I use the following for examples ONLY, being seen in the vicinity of a bar, becoming pregnant out of wedlock, gossiping, failure to attend services more than X number of times? The very nature of discipline requires an infraction before discipline can be administered. Do you not agree with that statement? It appears to me that you can’t name the infractions but will certainly know the infraction when it occurs…..do you (plural) see the incongruity of your statement? That is like a child being disciplined without knowing what the rules are.

Reply
Wes Kenney Sep 25 2007 - 9:47 am

Jake,

The answer to your question lies in a well-written church covenant. In this way, everyone understands the expectations. Church covenants have largely become historical relics, and they need to be reclaimed as documents that outline our mutual accountability to one another as members of Christ’s church.

When done properly, a church will rarely act to discipline a member because sin is confronted privately (Matthew 18) in a loving way with a view to the restoration of the offender’s relationship, first with God, then with the body of Christ. When there is repentance in private confrontation, the matter is resolved at that point.

Reply
Bob Cleveland Sep 25 2007 - 10:07 am

Jake:

Well … if a church started with the listed sins .. sexual immorality (that sure catches unmarried pregnancy in most cases), drunkenness, swindling, greed, reviling, idolatry … that’d be a step. And I think that the Elder(s), if Spirit-led, could easily discern any others that apply.

The fact that some are difficult or uncomfortable to define is irrelevant, and does not alleviate the responsibility. I don’t envy Pastors (or Elders, where applicable) in that respect. I’ve BTDT.

Reply
Jake Barker Sep 25 2007 - 10:38 am

Boys,
Who gets to define sin? Is that the little old lady in the 3 pew right side? Is it the deacon board? Wes, you started off rightly with the “covenant” but is that a covenant with the traditions of man as rules of God? Might I remind you of the words of our Master as recorded in Mathew 13 24-30.

Reply
Wes Kenney Sep 25 2007 - 10:43 am

Jake,

I thought that the description I gave of a covenant as being “well-written” would suffice. Church discipline is just that: an action of the church. It is not determined by one “little old lady,” or by a “deacon board.”

When the church writes and agrees to its covenant, it can therein spell out the kinds of actions that would result in church discipline. That “well-written” document would be guided by the Word of God when defining sin, and it would be agreed upon by the members of the church, acting as the church.

Reply
Jake Barker Sep 25 2007 - 11:12 am

I give up….you guys have not a clue of the law of unintended consequences. I’m just glad I’m not a part of your congregation.

Reply
jasonk Sep 25 2007 - 11:50 am

I think I understand Jake’s point. And I have a soft spot in my heart for what he is saying. Church history is replete with examples of well-meaning people wanting to do the right thing through church discipline, then completely screwing it up in the process, because their list of sins worthy of disciplinary action, whether contained in a covenant or not, is picky and choosy. Do we exercise discipline on the person who gives the most money to the church, or to the “head deacon,” and do we apply it equally? Do we deal with the wife of an influencial member when she gossips, or let that one slide because we don’t want to raise a fuss?
Church covenants are notorious for adding the traditions of men. That is a problem. The covenant I used to see on the walls of most churches contain the sentence, “we will refrain from the sale or use of any alcoholic beverage.” That’s fine if everyone wants to agree with that, but do you discipline a member who violates it, seeing that total prohibition is not contained in Scripture?
Yes, this is a huge conundrum, gentlemen, and can lead to many a long deacons meeting.
I think that the missing elements here are love and community. We have lost sight of developing true, deep, lasting relationships with people in our churches. As a result, we fail to “earn the right” to approach another and lovingly restore them to a right relationship with Christ. When we discipline, it comes off as harsh, judgmental, and holier than thou. We need to get back to the real purpose of the church–fellowship, love, family. Then there won’t be a problem.

Reply
volfan007 Sep 25 2007 - 12:03 pm

if’n we catch anybody makin’ moonshine, then we’d “church” ‘em for sure. if’n we catch anybody cattin’ around on thier spouse, then we’d “church” ‘em. if’n we catch anybody stealin’ thier neighbors hawgs, or chickens, we’d “church” ‘em. but, if’n we catch anyone stealin’ anyones coon dawgs, then we’d probably lynch ‘em.

david

Reply
Jake Barker Sep 25 2007 - 12:05 pm

Halleujah, bless you jasonk, you are the sole person on this post that understands just what the ramifications of such an idea (church discipline) can become.

Reply
Jake Barker Sep 25 2007 - 12:10 pm

Frankly Hillbilly (Vol), I can’t seem to find the Scriptural prohibition against the making of alcohol. All I can find is Jesus making some mighty fine wine at a wedding in Caana.

Reply
Tim Rogers Sep 25 2007 - 12:20 pm

Brother Jake,

Please do not give up and walk off. I feel this is an excellent debate going on. I constantly try hard to walk that line of doing what is right and at the same time being aware of what my actions may bring.

As Brother Wes stated, the church covenant is the place to begin. We look at Scripture and in the church covenant we define how we as individual congregations live out the Scripture. Who decides when church discipline is implemented? It is the church. If the church, through their constitution and bylaws has given that authority to the Deacon Body, then the Deacon Body enacts it and carries it through. If the church has given that authority to the little old lady in the 3 pew right side, then she decides.

The list of sins and how to proceed is clearly spelled out in Scripture, thus for us to give an exhaustive list, as I said, would be legalism. We are not legalistic we are Scripturalistic. (:>))

Blessings,
Tim

Reply
Tim Rogers Sep 25 2007 - 12:28 pm

Brother Jason,

I feel that you statement; “When we discipline, it comes off as harsh, judgmental, and holier than thou. We need to get back to the real purpose of the churchâ€“fellowship, love, family. Then there wonâ€™t be a problem.” is a little naive. Are you saying that the church at Corinth did not have fellowship?

Certainly I agree that we must have fellowship and a love for each other, but that is a given whenever someone enters into the local body. Just as you would not discipline my child, while in my presence, and I would not discipline yours, so too in church discipline it is the local body that decides where discipline starts and how.

Let me say again, that love and fellowship are the keys and we use church discipline in order to restore not see revenge.

Blessings,
Tim

Reply
Jake Barker Sep 25 2007 - 12:42 pm

Tim,
“The Church” is made up of people…..and people interpret Scripture differently….agreed? And Scripture is not totally plain on just what is and what isn’t a sin. Yes, certain actions are labled sinful, however others that are rooted in man-made tradition are not Scriptural sins. Take Hillbilly’s “makin shine” for example…Jesus was guilty of that, was he not? The SBC is notorious for man made tradition cloaked in scriptural prohibitions. I suggest that many of us should concentrate more on removing the log from our own eye(collectively) than trying to get that speck out of the folks eye that is sitting in the pew next to us.

Reply
Wes Kenney Sep 25 2007 - 12:49 pm

So Jake, to be clear, are you suggesting that the biblical mandate to carry out church discipline be ignored? Or are you suggesting that there is no such biblical mandate? Or something else?

Short of ignoring the clear teaching of scripture, I’m not sure I can offer anything with which you will agree.

Reply
Jake Barker Sep 25 2007 - 12:59 pm

We could start with the 10 commandments and then as Jesus did temper them with love and forgivness ala the samaritan woman at the well. Whoops….but that wouldn’t be baptist would it

Reply
jasonk Sep 25 2007 - 2:56 pm

Sorry, I’m having a hard time typing, from the laughter over my brother Tim’s comment: “Certainly I agree that we must have fellowship and a love for each other, but that is a given whenever someone enters into the local body.”

A GIVEN?! Tim, where do you go to church, because I want to join right away :>) I have never been to a church where true fellowship and love are a given. That’s because the devil creeps in and tries to steal our joy. He makes a man lust after a young lady. He makes the young lady jealous over another person’s clothes. He makes the old guy mad that the preacher went too long. He makes the ladies gossip, the men curse, the preacher become filled with pride, etc. Love and fellowship are certainly not a given, not anywhere, as long as the enemy has his way.

Let me rephrase my comment. If the church acted like we are supposed to act, we wouldn’t need to worry about discipline nearly as much. That’s because the approach we would take when confronting sin in our midst would be from a heart of love and concern. And we would have earned the right to make the approach. That’s all I am saying. The culture we are in does not lend itself well to church discipline. Too many people hopping from church to church (guilty), and never taking the time to put down roots. If I get mad at the preacher for preaching too long, or the worship leader for singing the wrong kinds of songs, I leave and find another church (not guilty), and I never have the chance to experience true love and fellowship–the kind that give others the right to reproof and correct me, or vice versa.

Reply
Bob Cleveland Sep 25 2007 - 4:24 pm

Jasonk: I don’t mean to put words in Tim’s mouth, but within the body we’re to have fellowship and love with one another .. we’re supposed to do that, and that’s a given. When we don’t, we miss the mark.

Jake: I listed the sins mentioned in 1 Corinthians 5, specifically. Which of those is subject to interpretation, or misinterpretation? Which is not plain?

Misinterpreting those mandates has been a problem in my experience, on occasion. But not NEARLY the problem that ignoring them has been.

Reply
cb scott Sep 25 2007 - 5:05 pm

Wes,

Well done.

I also think you along with Tim answered Jake very well.

cb

Reply
cb scott Sep 25 2007 - 5:14 pm

Bob has made excellent points also, but the one that really grabs my heart is Vol. Not only should those that do such be thrown out, but made to repay the cost of the dog or chicken, especially if the chicken was a good layer or a fryer.

cb

Reply
Bob Cleveland Sep 25 2007 - 8:26 pm

CB: I thought fryers were Catholic or Anglican .. you know .. like Fryer Tuck?

Reply
cb scott Sep 25 2007 - 9:39 pm

Bob,

Fryer was Tuck’s occupation. That is the only reason Robin Hood let him stay in Sherwood Forest. He was a really good fry cook. You know Robin would not have kept him around otherwise. Robin Hood was a Southern Baptist. You know he had no use for Catholics

cb

Reply
Bob Cleveland Sep 25 2007 - 9:58 pm

CB: Robin’s a HOOD? I thought he was a pastor.

Reply
jasonk Sep 25 2007 - 10:28 pm

Thank you Bob. Of course, the church is supposed to have love and fellowship, but most of the time, we don’t. At least not the way we should. That is why discipline becomes a very challenging thing to do. In addition, if you put a person out of the church for some sin they are blatantly committing, they can walk down the street, and that church will receive them as members without question. Talk about challenging!

Reply
volfan007 Sep 26 2007 - 10:22 am

cb,

also, have you been to my blog lately? you know, dawgs 26
ugly, weak elephants 23

saban gets bit!

cb, i love ya, bro. i’m just funnin’ with ya.

jake, if yall had a practicing homosexual in your church that was very vocal and public with his homosexuality…so there was no doubt about what he was….would your church do nothing about this?

what about people shacking up?

i’m just curious.

david

Reply
Jake Barker Sep 26 2007 - 4:23 pm

Hillbilly,
He or she would be churched in a flash. As for shacking up??? I don’t know, I suspect that there are a couple of folks doing it but it is not my business to stick my nose in their business. I suspect also that our pastor is counseling with them but again that is not my business….as are a couple of messy divorces. That type of problem (divorce/co-habiting) is between them, the pastor and God. In a previous lifetime I was run off from a methodist church for filing church complaints against a couple of Oklahoma clergy for performing a sodomite wedding ceremony. That forced the bishop to revoke their ministerial credentials and de-frock them.

Reply
Tim G Sep 27 2007 - 10:32 pm

Great post!

We have done church discipline at all three churches I have pastored. We simply follow Matt and let it work. Funny how we discovered that doing it the simple Biblical way always worked and worked well. Some have repented and been restored, others chose to stay in sin and were dismissed from the church.

It really works!

Reply