Great Anecdote on the Blessings of Mutual Congregational Accountability

Yesterday through our local NPR station (listening to NPR is a regular form of espionage that I practice) I became acquainted with the story of Delsie Bailey. Ms. Bailey is a sophomore at the University of North Carolina–Chapel Hill who became pregnant in high school. She is a devout Christian and the daughter of an elder in her church. Although the blog of the organization with which she volunteers refers to her as "a huge proponent of using protection," as you will hear in the audio of the interview, her message to teens is to abstain. WARNING: Her story is the third feature on the audio, and you'll have to skip down past the halfway point to get to her poignant account.

But the best part of the story, in my estimation, has nothing to do with premarital sex or pregnancy out of wedlock. Ms. Bailey describes in the interview the day in which she stood before her 400-500 member congregation, admitted her sinfulness, and informed them of her pregnancy. Many would fear that she would face a barrage of judgmental condemnation, but you've got to hear her description of what happened next.

Maybe ignoring sin and its destruction in the lives of our fellow believers and church members isn't the loving thing to do at all. Maybe we deprive one another of something important that we all need when we cover up our failures.

Selfishness Masquerading as Church Discipline

There is a line across which discipline becomes abuse. This is true when it comes to the raising of children. Tragic stories of child abuse are all too common, ranging from horrific beatings to incestuous atrocities. On the other hand, I was spanked as a child, and I certainly didn't need any less of it. Never was it abusive.

Discipline is not just for children. In giving us the blueprints for Jesus' church, the New Testament introduces us to church discipline: The discipline of church members by the church membership. As with parental discipline, there is a line across which church discipline becomes abuse.

Enter the case of Libby Ashby. She took a job starring in a television commercial advertising a treatment for erectile disfunction. Such commercials are usually low-brow, and this one is no different, although I find some of those whistling Enzyte commercials to be more explicitly immoral. That fact notwithstanding, even Ms. Ashby stated, "I don't think the ad is honourable. It offends a lot of people."

In an interview with an Australian journalist, Ms. Ashby revealed that her home church has disfellowshipped her because of her participation in the ad. She did not reveal the identity of her congregation, and I have not been able to locate on the Internet any account of any journalist investigating the matter further. What follows is based solely upon Ms. Ashby's account, which is the only information that is available.

The actions of this Australian congregation, in my analysis, cross the line from biblical church discipline to abuse. Although other factors can make the difference between discipline and abuse, the most common difference between the two—whether we are speaking of parental discipline or church discipline—is that discipline works on the behalf (although without the consent) of the receiver of discipline, but abuse works to gratify the desires or needs of the abuser. Abuse is selfish.

• Biblical church discipline tries to achieve repentance and restoration, not the elimination of a "problem."

  From 10,000 miles away, I wouldn't normally second-guess a local congregation as to whether Ashby is repentant, but she doesn't come across as somebody who is stubbornly unrepentant. About the commercial, Ashby said, "It was against my better judgement to it. I don't like to offend people." Her motivation for taking the job was financial: "My VISA was calling out for mercy." She is a single parent. Ashby further said, "The bible speaks very openly about sex in an honourable way, but I don't think the ad is honourable. It offends a lot of people."

  Does that sound like a rebellious, stubbornly unrepentant woman to you?

  But even if, by some measure not apparent in her public interview, Ashby actually is unrepentant, it doesn't appear that her repentance is the condition for her restoration to church membership. Ashby said, "[My church has] said I would not be reinstated until the ad comes off the air." Until the ad comes off the air? What if she is already repentant and the ad is still running. If she is presently unrepentant, what if she is still unrepentant when the ad stops running? Is the timing of this advertising campaign within Libby Ashby's control at all? I seriously doubt it.

  The focus of the church is on the ad campaign because the ad campaign embarrasses them. This is not an action of biblical church discipline; it is an exercise in public relations at the expense of a member of the Body of Christ. This is abuse.

• Biblical church discipline addresses violations of God's commandments, not congregational emotions.

  When a church disfellowships people as a knee-jerk reaction to congregational embarrassment or outrage, the congregation is not practicing biblical church discipline. Don't get me wrong—violations of God's commandments often also involve extremes of congregational emotion. I'm not saying that a congregation should never exercise church discipline when it is emotional. I'm merely saying that a congregation should sometimes exercise church discipline when it is not amped up with negative emotions.

  I don't like the ad. I wouldn't want my wife or my daughter to have participated in the ad. Was Ms. Ashby's participation in the ad a sin? Here's what it wasn't. It didn't show or even insinuate that she was with anyone other than her husband. It didn't show or even insinuate that she and the man in the commercial had recently completed or were incipiently preparing for sexual intercourse. She was modestly clothed, as was the man in the commercial (as far as camera point-of-view was concerned...and he was probably wearing Bermuda shorts under that terrycloth robe). Nobody cussed. I've seen far more skin in the commercials for the World Series while I've typed this post.

  The plot of the commercial did amount to a crude joke. And it was a crude joke watched by an awful lot of people. But it isn't sinful for a married couple to use a drug to help with erectile disfunction. Serve as a pastor long enough, and you'll encounter people for whom this problem is real. I'm not comfortable saying that Ashby has not sinned in some way by making this commercial, for the Bible does encourage us to behave in a wholesome and dignified manner. My point is not to exonerate Ashby, but simply to highlight a fact: The embarrassing nature of the ad is more readily apparent than is the sinful nature of the ad.

  In the case of biblical church discipline, the first task is to determine that the offending Christian has indeed committed a sin. The second task is to make certain that the offending Christian understands precisely how she has committed a sin. Nothing about Ashby's interview remotely suggests that she knows what she's done wrong other than generally to embarrass her church.

  Wouldn't it be nice if, when Libby Ashby did something that turned out to be an embarrassment for her, she had some people around her who, seeing her realization that she has made a mistake, would love her and help her through her season of notoriety?

• Biblical church discipline is congregational, not enforced by a single person or a small group.

  We don't know any details about the process used to disfellowship Ms. Ashby. For all we know, the entire congregation voted to sanction her. it is the kind of situation that might prompt a congregation to do just that.

  But I've known of other situations, even right here in the DFW Metroplex, in which pastors have summarily excluded members from the congregation, not by congregational vote, but by oligarchical fiat. The grounds for dismissal are sometimes not any alleged sin other than having disagreed with the pastor on some decision that was important to him. When the pastor can kick a member out of the congregation just for disagreeing with him, that's not church discipline, that's abuse.

Biblical church discipline is self-sacrificing. It means that a congregation subjects themselves to an ordeal that often would be much less trouble if left alone. Biblical church discipline often causes embarrassment—brings into the open an embarrassing situation that otherwise would have remained quiet—rather than covering it up. The congregation voluntarily endures the ordeal of biblical church discipline because unrepentant sin is dangerous to the unrepentant Christian. The congregation sacrifices their tranquility for the sake of the errant member's spiritual vitality.

Church abuse is, on the other hand, selfishness masquerading as church discipline. It resembles less the Gospel of Matthew than the Government of Machiavelli. It may aim to eliminate embarrassments, but it actually is an embarrassment, a disfigurement of the Body of Christ. The Chief Shepherd lays down His life for the sheep. The undershepherds, and the healthy portion of the flock as well, ought to do likewise.

The Most Important Thing Happening Right Now in the Southern Baptist Convention

Pretty pretentious (or portentious?) title, huh?

The most important thing happening in SBC current events right now is the Executive Committee's consideration of whether Broadway Baptist Church, Fort Worth, TX, is or is not in "friendly cooperation" with the Southern Baptist Convention. Why do I believe this to be the most important thing presently ongoing in the SBC?

Do I believe that this case is important because homosexuality is the most important issue presently facing our convention? No. The SBC's answer to the question of homosexuality is, for the moment, clear. We'll see where it stands one generation from now, with researcher after researcher declaring an upcoming generation of "evangelicals" who are "more tolerant on issues such as gay rights and homosexuality" (John Turner, quoted in Christianity Today online article here). But I think we have reason to hope that the Southern Baptist Convention is distinct enough from evangelicalism at large to stick with the Bible while evangelicalism slides off into public relations. Whatever. But my point here simply is that the SBC, before showing Broadway Baptist Church the door, is already sufficiently on-the-record on the question of homosexuality.

Homosexuality is an important issue, but not nearly the most important issue facing us at present. But there are issues involved in this case that are very important for Southern Baptists.

Biblical Church Discipline and Regenerate Church Membership are among them. The very heart of this case is the idea that Broadway Baptist Church is responsible for those whom it admits into membership. Reports indicate that one of the most important questions posed in the last EC meeting simply asked Broadway's representatives something along the lines of, "If you knew for certain that a person seeking membership were an ongoing, active, unrepentant homosexual, would you still receive that person into membership?" It is a good question, and the committee did not receive a good answer, to my knowledge.

Broadway's defense, up to this point, has been that it has never taken any sort of a vote to place the church in favor of homosexuality. Unless it does something like that, Broadway's representatives argue, it has not "act[ed] to affirm, approve, or endorse homosexual behavior." (SBC Constitution, Article III). I'm hoping that the Executive Committee is preparing to decide that a church is indeed acting to affirm, approve, or endorse behavior when (a) the church knows full well that its members are engaged in that behavior, and yet (b) no disciplinary action whatsoever is taken by the church with regard to that behavior—no preaching, no formal disciplinary action, not even any passing over such a one for positions of responsibility in the congregation.

I believe that this action, if taken, will be an important milestone in our needed strengthening of biblical ecclesiology within our convention. It will be a clarion call to our churches to remember that membership does matter and that we are indeed responsible for the spiritual health of all of those who are members in our congregation. Particularly this is true for those of us in church leadership "who will give an account" (Hebrews 13:17) for these folks. At least with regard to homosexuality, the message from our convention will be clear: Loving and redemptive discipline toward known practicing homosexuals in the church is the only biblical option for our churches.

That lesson, once learned with regard to homosexuality, needs to be extrapolated to a great many public and grievous sins that muddle our testimony of Christ, weaken our evangelistic effectiveness, and diminish the holiness of the Bride of Christ.

And that brings us to the final reason why this is the most important thing happening right now in the Southern Baptist Convention: Because this question is all about the local church. We've had a Conservative Resurgence among our national institutions. Similar things need to happen in some of our state conventions. Discussions are underway regarding a Great Commission Resurgence to serve as extension and successor to the Conservative Resurgence. These are all good things. But none of them are the thing that we need most.

What we need is a Local Church Reformation, fomented by Personal Revival for some, and Regeneration for others. To the degree that the case of Broadway Baptist Church reminds us about how profound is the need for reformation and revival in our churches, this is a good thing—indeed, it is the most important thing happening right now in the Southern Baptist Convention.

UPDATE: As it so happens, the good folks over at BaptistTheology.org have just posted an article by Dr. Gary Ledbetter entitled "Is There a Church within Your Church?" I just read the article and I see that it addresses some of the same points that I have addressed in this blog post. The major difference is that Gary's article is so much better written.

One Story Concludes; Another Opens

Some of you will recall that FBC Farmersville unearthed a sexual predator in our midst in February 2007. A few weeks ago I received a subpoena calling for me to testify for the state at his trial in October. Then, two weeks ago, plea negotiations resulted in a deal. At a soon-upcoming sentencing hearing, James Souder will (if all goes as anticipated) receive a sentence of seven years to be served in state prison, followed by ten years of probation, and all accompanied by registration as a sexual offender for the remainder of his life.

It is a good deal. The victims will not have to testify at trial, but they will receive some justice for the way that they were violated in the way of actual time spent in prison. The sexual offender label provides some hope that James Souder will not find it quite so easy to find victims at another church in another town someday later.

Might I say something controversial: James Souder is a sinful man, but he is not beyond redemption. In our last meeting, when he confessed his guilt to me in my office after being confronted with the evidence, I told him that someday he would have finished serving his sentence for these offenses. Presuming that I'm still living and able, I told him that I wanted to go with him to his next pastor at his next church, somewhere away from here. Once there, I want to sit down with his next pastor and say, "James Souder has some good qualities about him, but he has this problem. He needs a church full of people who will hold him accountable and make certain that he is never, ever, ever alone with another young teenaged boy."

I figure that's a better plan than him just surfacing somewhere without any warning or accountability in a new church. It gives Jim a way to bring up the subject and get it right out into the open before anybody "finds out." It gives the new church full warning about the special ways that they need to beware Jim's temptations. And it reminds everyone that God's objective for us all is our conversion and then our sanctification through the action of His Holy Spirit and the mutual relationships of the church.

I'll be sure to report back seven years from now on how it all went. :-)

But I and my church are so thankful to see some sort of resolution on this case that has hung over our heads for so long and has occupied so much of my thought and energy lately.

In the same week, one of our precious members was shot in the stomach by a shotgun-wielding prowler on his property. This took place in the wee hours of a Sunday morning. Later in the week, on the same day that James Souder formally entered his plea, this man's wife—a faithful church member and a friend to so many in our congregation—was arrested for "hindering apprehension or prosecution." As it turns out, the shooter was her partner in an adulterous affair that had been ongoing for many months. She had sent him a text message while the police were looking for him, and that text message was the reason for her arrest. You'll find the sermon that I preached that next Sunday here.

I invite you to pray for the Cox family as they wade through turbulent waters. And I invite you to pray for me as, day-by-day, I try to shepherd a flock with not nearly the wisdom to do so.

The Wrong Response to the Right Thing (Finally)

Senator John Edwards is finally doing the right thing. He was wrong to cheat on his wife. He was wrong to lie about the affair to the public. If he continues to lie to the public, that's wrong, too.

He's also wrong about so many of his political positions and decisions.

But today John Edwards is apparently doing the right thing: He's asking for forgiveness. He's not doing it for show (it isn't because of him that we know about it, so at least he's not doing it for show very well). He's simply admitting that he was wrong and asking people to forgive him. By people, I mean his former advisers, donors, supporters, and campaign staffers, who are reportedly receiving private phone calls from a contrite Edwards.

Fox News is reporting that Edwards's staffers—at least some of them—are rebuffing Edwards's requests for forgiveness. One reportedly told Edwards brusquely, "I don't want you to call me again." That's the wrong response to the right thing.

And the whole matter is germane to the question of biblical church discipline. The same Jesus who gave us the procedure for the exclusion of errant members in Matthew 18:15-20 is also the One who, in the very next breath, told us in verse 22 that we are to forgive a brother "up to seventy times seven." So, if John Edwards were a member of First Baptist Church of Farmersville, it would be our duty to accept his request for forgiveness, to forgive him entirely, and to welcome his continued membership in the church. To abandon church forgiveness is just as problematic a sin as the abandonment of church discipline. Indeed, it may be a more problematic sin, for the refusal to forgive produces a repugnant stench in any matter of church discipline, leading many godly people in their rejection of an unforgiving spirit to go too far and reject biblical restorative church discipline along with its mutant clone.

I'm willing to presume that the former Edwards supporters in the Fox News piece are all lost people. But if any of them are not, they've committed a very public sin and have been disobedient to their master.

Write-Offs

The April 15 tax deadline is looming large on the calendar. Spending my formative years in a family business, one of the major tax decisions I recall being batted around in Dad's office each year was the subject of write-offs. For every custom job we would always manufacture a little more product than the customer ordered. That way, if something broke on the assembly line, or even if the customer broke a lamp in installation and wanted to order a replacement, we wouldn't be eight weeks away (or even longer for a single piece) from being able to deliver. But usually the products don't break, and those extras surely accumulate on the shelves over the course of a year. Then there's the problem of the occasional cancelled order or returned merchandise. For all of that inventory in the dusty parts of the warehouse, the question each year was what to write off.

The advantage of writing something off is that you can reduce the value of your inventory (and thereby your taxable income) by the entire cost of the product. But if you ever manage to sell it in the future, you have to declare the entire sales price as profit, without any allowance for the cost of the item (or the added difficulty in accounting). In the final analysis, writing off inventory is the same thing as abandoning all realistic hope of the merchandise ever being worth anything.

In the process of recovering biblical church discipline in churches, there is always the fear that a church will be perceived as unloving and intolerant if it exercises the Christ-commanded prerogative of disciplining its membership. The premise seems to be that churches have abandoned church discipline because we have grown to be more accepting of one another's faults—that a restoration of biblical church discipline is an abandonment of acceptance.

Perhaps a growing tolerance accounts for some small percentage of the causes for laxity in church discipline, but I think a far greater contributor is the growing ease with which we write off fellow members, not some growing acceptance of them. I have been guilty of blithely allowing members to wander into sin or abandon church fellowship with very little reaction on my part. God forgive me, but there have been times in my pastorate that I really didn't even notice until much later. And I've heard more than one dear brother in ministry say that there's nothing wrong with his church that a few funerals wouldn't correct. Do we so easily write off our brothers and abandon hope that "He who began a good work in you will be faithful to complete it"?

The right way to restore biblical church discipline, I am convinced, is to recover a sense of mourning over brothers and sisters in sin. An absence of mourning over a wandering brother is a sign of arrogance (1 Cor 5:2). Oh, Father, grant that we might have hearts that yearn for a fellowship of faithfulness with all of our fellow congregants in Christ!

To make my point more poignantly, I give you Michael W. Smith:

Poster Boy for Church Discipline

I wonder: Is J. Davis Mallory still a member of a Marietta, GA area Southern Baptist church?

(HT: Big Daddy Weave)

By the way, Mallory is one of our recipients of that "Christian worldview" promulgated by a formerly-Baptist institution (Stetson University) that proclaims to exist "For God and Truth."