1

INHERITORS OF THE KINGDOM: CHURCH DISCIPLINE AND THE CALL TO SEXUAL HOLINESS IN 1 CORINTHIANS 5-6

by Jeremy M. Kimble ETS Midwest Regional 2015

The degree to which our sexual ethic has shifted over the last century in our culture has been

nothing short of astounding. Albert Mohler writes of this phenomenon, “Western society is

currently experiencing what can only be described as a moral revolution. . . . What makes the

current moral and sexual revolution so different from previous moral revolutions is that it is

taking place at an utterly unprecedented velocity.”1 As the ethos of our culture continues to

practice and commend ways that are contrary to God’s will (Rom 1:32), the church is given an

opportunity to live as salt and light in the world in a more exacting fashion (Matt 5:13-16). The

church, acting as the instrument through which entrance into the kingdom of God has been

granted (Matt 16:19), reflects the holiness of God (1 Pet 1:14-16). One of the key ways this

holiness—specifically in relation to sexual holiness—should be expressed is through the exercise

of church discipline.

The practice of ecclesial discipline has deep biblical moorings that must be clearly seen

and properly adhered to in order for a local church to function properly.2 There are a number of

1 Albert Mohler, “Biblical Theology and the Sexual Crisis,” July 23, 2014, Online:

http://erlc.com/article/biblical-theology-and-the-sexuality-crisis. 2Though there are few recent books dealing directly and comprehensively with the issue of church

discipline in comparison to other ecclesiological issues, the following would be a starting point for those desiring to delve into this biblical doctrine in greater detail: Jay E. Adams, Handbook of Church Discipline: A Right and Privilege of Every Church Member (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1974); Eric J. Bargerhuff, Love That Rescues: God’s Fatherly Love in the Practice of Church Discipline (Eugene Or.: Wipf & Stock, 2010).; Mark E. Dever, ed. Polity: Biblical Arguments on How to Conduct Church Life (Washington, D.C.: Nine Marks Ministries, 2001); Marlin Jeschke, Discipling the Brother (Scottsdale, Penn.: Herald Press, 1979); Jeremy M. Kimble, That His Spirit May Be Saved: Church Discipline as a Means to Repentance and Perseverance (Eugene: Wipf and Stock, 2013); J. Carl Laney, A Guide to Church Discipline (Minneapolis: Bethany House, 1985); Mark Lauterbach, The Transforming Community: The Practice of the Gospel in Church Discipline (Carol Stream, Ill.: Christian Focus, 2003); Jonathan Leeman, The Church and the Surprising Offense of God’s Love: Reintroducing the Doctrines of Church Membership and Discipline (Wheaton: Crossway, 2010).; Thomas C. Oden, Corrective Love: The Power of Communion Discipline (Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing, 1995); James T. South, Disciplinary Practices in Pauline Texts (Lewistown, N.Y.: Edwin Mellen Press, 1992); Gregory A. Wills, Democratic Religion: Freedom, Authority, and Church Discipline in the Baptist South, 1785-1900 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1997).;

2

texts one could allude to in relation to the idea of discipline and holiness in a generic sense, but 1

Corinthians 5-6 deals specifically with the concept of excommunication and sexual sin. Here the

apostle Paul is dealing with a particular issue in the church at Corinth and speaks to the need for

that body of believers to exclude a certain individual from their midst because of his unrepentant

sin. In chapter six he then briefly instructs the Corinthians to avoid lawsuits with other believers,

but then delves back into the issue of sexual immorality. Paul makes clear that the unrighteous

will not inherit the kingdom of God, and that includes those who are involved in sexual

immorality, which is why the practice of church discipline is so crucial.

This paper will demonstrate that due to its identification with the kingdom of God, the

church must exercise discipline to clearly identify its membership, call the church to sexual

holiness, and serve as an ethical witness and influence to the world. After a survey of the overall

context of 1 Corinthians, this paper will then spend ample time on the exegetical details of 1

Corinthians 5-6. Following this section attention will then focus on the theological realities

entailed by the data within these chapters. Specifically, the issues of the kingdom of God,

ecclesiology, ecclesial discipline, and sexual holiness will be addressed in their relationship to

one another. Finally, this paper will evaluate the ethical implications that stem from the

exegetical and theological findings.

NT Context

As 1 Corinthians 5 is considered in detail, it will be helpful to briefly look at the context of the

book as a whole to see the specific issues Paul is addressing. Paul begins his letter with a

salutation (1:1–3) and a prayer of thanksgiving for the Corinthians (1:4–9). He then immediately

delves into the issues facing the church that have come to his attention, starting with the problem

Daniel E. Wray, Biblical Church Discipline (Carlisle, Penn.: Banner of Truth, 1978).

3

of disunity (1:10–17). The apostle seeks to point out the folly of the wisdom of the world (1:18–

25) and boasting in personal ability (1:26–31), pointing them instead to the power of God (2:1–

5). He further contrasts spiritual and worldly wisdom (2:6–16), and then more specifically

addresses the divisions that exist between them (3:1–9). All of the ministers whom the

Corinthians had been boasting in were subject to evaluation by God (3:10–22), and as such there

was no reason to boast in them. Paul then identifies himself as a model apostle (4:1–20) and as

such the Corinthians should respect him as they would other leaders. The remainder of the letter

is spent addressing specific moral issues, such as a disciplinary issue with an immoral church

member (5:1–13), lawsuits amongst church members (6:1–11), sexual ethics (6:12–20), marriage

and divorce (7:1–40), food offered to idols (8:1–11:1), matters related to Christian worship

(11:2–34), spiritual gifts (12:1–14:40), and the resurrection (15:1–58).3

Thus, as noted above, 1 Corinthians 5 is a rebuke of the church for not properly dealing

with a specific issue of sexual immorality in the proper way.4 Chapter 6 continues this rebuke of

sexual immorality, and begins to more precisely connect this issue the church’s identification as

God’s kingdom subjects. With the overall context of these chapters in mind, this passage will

now be analyzed in greater detail to show the cohesion of Paul’s argument for the exclusion of

this individual, along with the more sweeping entailments for a Christian sexual ethic.

1 Corinthians 5:1-13

3 This summary was derived from Andreas J. Köstenberger, L. Scott Kellum, and Charles L. Quarles, The Cradle, the Cross, and the Crown: An Introduction to the New Testament (Nashville: B & H Academic, 2009), 482–92.

4 Ciampa and Rosner elaborate, “In 4:18–21, a transitional section, Paul threatens the Corinthians with stern discipline if they do not acknowledge his authority. In 5:1–2 he rebukes the Corinthians for their inaction and tells them to remove the offender. In 5:3–5 he supplies authoritative support for this action. In 5:6–8 he offers further motivation, appealing to the spiritual self-interest of the Corinthians’ church: whereas removing the offender will benefit them, allowing him to remain will harm them. In 5:9–11 he further facilitates the offender’s removal by correcting a misunderstanding: it is such offenders within, not outside, the household of faith whom they must shun. Finally, in 5:12–13 he asserts the Corinthians’ responsibility to act and closes the section with a weighty command from Scripture.” Roy E. Ciampa and Brian S. Rosner, “1 Corinthians,” in G. K. Beale and D. A. Carson, eds., Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007), 705.

4

Paul begins his confrontation in 5:1-2 by addressing the nature of the sinful deed itself, as well as

the church’s response. There is a kind of sexual immorality occurring within the church that is

not even acceptable among the pagans,5 namely that a man “has his father’s wife” (5:1).6 The

issue of sexual sin was a cultural issue Paul addressed often in his letter,7 but Paul seems to be

more forceful in his tone with this issue, and clearly states in this context that this should be a

clear-cut conviction for the church. Thus, this man was involved in a knowingly sinful

relationship and committing an offense that should certainly be recognized by a Christian

church.8 Paul indicts the Corinthians for being arrogant rather than mourning over this serious

issue (5:2).9

Paul then exhorts the Corinthians to take care of this issue in a corporate fashion.10

5 Hays notes, “The word ethnē, translated by NRSV and most English translations as ‘pagans,’ is Paul’s

normal word for ‘Gentiles’ (i.e., non-Jews). His use of this term here offers a fascinating hint that he thinks of the Gentile converts at Corinth as Gentiles no longer (cf. 12:2, 13; Gal. 3:28). Now that they are in Christ, they belong to the covenant people of God, and their behavior should reflect that new status.” See Richard B. Hays, First Corinthians (Interpretation; Louisville: John Knox Press, 1997), 81.

6 This is a somewhat ambiguous phrase, which makes it difficult to know for certain what has happened to the father, and if there has been a death or divorce. However, as Fee notes, “In either case what had been forbidden by all the ancients, both Jewish and pagans, is the cohabiting of father and son with the same woman.” Fee warrants this claim in his commentary by citing both Jewish and Greco-Roman law regarding this type of sexual immorality. Gordon D. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987), 200. See also Hans Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians: A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians (trans. James W. Leitch; Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1975), 96; Hays, First Corinthians, 80–81.

7 So Fee who asserts, “That is why porneia appears so often as the first item in the NT vice lists, not because Christians were sexually ‘hung up,’ nor because they considered this the primary sin, the ‘scarlet letter’ as it were. It is the result of the prevalence in the culture, and the difficulty the early church had experienced with its Gentile converts breaking with their former ways, which they did not consider immoral.” Ibid.

8 Paul is likely referencing Lev 18:7-8 in his thinking here (cf. Lev 20:11; Deut 22:30; 27:20). Robert E. Moses, “Physical and/or Spirital Exclusion? Ecclesial Discipline in 1 Corinthians 5,” NTS 59, no. 2 (April, 2013): 172.

9 When Paul tells the Corinthians that they ought to “mourn” rather than be arrogant, some, such as G. G. Findlay, “St. Paul’s First Epistle to the Corinthians,” The Expositor’s Greek Testament (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1910), 808, take that to mean a mourning over the impending loss of the sinning brother. However, the word is only used elsewhere in the NT in 2 Cor 12:21 where its sense closely parallels the concept of godly sorrow or repentance (cf. 2 Cor 7:8–11). Paul, therefore, appears to be imploring this church to mourn over this man’s sin, as well as their own sin of arrogance, because they are culpable and corporately responsible for the actions of individuals within their covenant community. For further commentary on this point see Ciampa and Rosner, “1 Corinthians,” 706. Hays, 1 Corinthians, 82; Paul Sevier Minear, “Christ and the congregation  : 1 Corinthians 5-6.,” Review & Expositor 80, no. 3 (June 1, 1983): 343; Brian S. Rosner, “‘Ouchi mallon epenthēsate’: Corporate Responsibility in 1 Corinthians 5.,” New Testament Studies 38, no. 3 (July 1, 1992): 472.

10 The fact that the “assembly” deals with the sin issue in a corporate manner is comparable to the judgment scene found in Deuteronomy 19:16–20 (note also this text in Deuteronomy includes the command given in 1

5

Though he is not physically present, Paul states that he has already passed judgment on this

individual (5:3), but this would not be sufficient. Bargerhuff asserts, “For the discipline to be

enacted properly and fully in accordance with Jesus’ teaching, the formal assembly of the

church, along with its communal power and authority to bind and loose, must be formally

instigated.”11 Thus, when they assemble in the name of the Lord Jesus, and the power of the Lord

Jesus is with them (5:4), they are to deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, in

order that he might ultimately be saved in the day of the Lord (5:5).

The content of 1 Cor 5:5 has been the subject of much debate as to its proper

interpretation. While some commentators believe the “destruction of the flesh” refers to a curse

that leads to physical death,12 it seems more persuasive to read this text as referring to the man’s

sinful nature being destroyed as he is excluded from the community of faith and put back out

into Satan’s domain.13 South contends for the latter interpretation and states, regarding the

connection between 1 Cor 5:5 and 1 Tim 1:20, “Here is the only true verbal parallel to 1 Cor. 5.5

in the NT and it clearly excludes the ideas of the offenders’ deaths, since both Hymenaeus and

Alexander are not expected to die but to learn something and correct their behavior.”14 Another

reason for espousing this interpretation is the fact that Paul is speaking of eschatological

salvation. Thiselton rightly notes that if 1 Cor 5:5 is referring to an eschatological salvation, then

Corinthians 5:13b) where punishment takes place before the congregation (19:20a) and God (19:17; cf. Lev 24:14, 16; Num 15:35; 35:24). So Ciampa and Rosner, “1 Corinthians,” 707.

11 Bargerhuff, Love that Rescues, 161–62. This is in keeping with Matthew 18:15–20, where heaven’s sanction reinforces the assembled, gathered church who excommunicates the unrepentant sinner, pronouncing divine discipline and judgment on sin. See also Hays, First Corinthians, 84.

12 See, for example, Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians, 97–98.; David Raymond Smith, Hand This Man Over to Satan: Curse, Exclusion, and Salvation in 1 Corinthians 5 (Library of New Testament Studies 386; London: T & T Clark, 2008), 57–182.

13 See David E. Garland, 1 Corinthians (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament; Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2003), 169–77. For a comprehensive understanding of this interpretation see James T. South, Disciplinary Practices in Pauline Texts (Lewiston, N.Y.: Mellen Biblical Press, 1992), 38–68; idem, “A Critique of the ‘Curse/Death’ Interpretation of 1 Corinthians 5.1-8.,” New Testament Studies 39, no. 4 (October 1, 1993): 539-561.

14 South, “A Critique of the ‘Curse/Death’ Interpretation of 1 Corinthians 5.1-8,” 39:551. So also Fee, 1 Corinthians, 209–13; Rosner, “‘Drive out the wicked person,’” 32–33.

6

the curse/death interpretation would seem to understand Paul as speaking of a post-mortem

opportunity for salvation. This cannot be the case, and so it seems more likely that the verse is

referring the man’s sinful nature that must be destroyed. Thus, the discipline enacted upon this

man is, seemingly, restorative and eschatological in nature.15

In the final two sections of this chapter we begin to see Paul’s rationale for such a

seemingly harsh call to discipline. The apostle begins by reiterating that their boasting is not

good, and asks rhetorically whether or not they know that “a little leaven leavens the whole

lump” (5:6). Paul commands the Corinthians to cleanse out the old leaven,16 knowing that

although in only a little part of the church, the evil would inevitably spread through the whole

community if left unchecked. He then grounds this command in the fact that Christ, our Passover

lamb, has already been sacrificed (5:7), and thus they should “celebrate the festival” in the

appropriate way (5:8).

Jesus instituted the Lord’s Supper during a Passover meal with his disciples,17 and pointed

to the elements of the bread and wine as signifying his broken body and shed blood as a

propitiation for sin (Luke 22:14–23).18 This symbolic language is drawn from the heart of

15 Anthony C. Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians (NIGTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000),

397-99. 16 Thus one must take into account Paul’s saying regarding leaven. “Leaven is a little portion of a previous

week’s batch of dough that had been allowed to ferment. When added to the next batch, the leaven made the bread rise. It carried with it the slight risk of infection, especially if the process was left to go on indefinitely.” Ciampa and Rosner, “1 Corinthians,” 708. See also John H. Walton, Victor H. Matthews, and Mark W. Chavalas, The IVP Bible Background Commentary: Old Testament (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2000), 85. Each year the Israelites, in part perhaps as a health provision, had to cleanse their homes and the temple from all leaven (Ex 12:14–20; Deut 16:3–8). The unleavened bread from the Passover and Feast of Unleavened Bread would supply some “fresh” leaven and start the process anew for the next twelve months of baking bread. See Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, 401; Garland, 1 Corinthians, 178–81.

17 For a detailed discussion affirming the fact that the Last Supper was a Passover meal see Andreas J. Köstenberger, “Was the Last Supper a Passover Meal?” in Thomas R. Schreiner and Matthew R. Crawford,, eds., The Lord’s Supper: Remembering and Proclaiming Christ Until He Comes (Nashville: B & H Academic, 2010), 6–30.

18 For a helpful summary of the typological movement of exodus, Passover, to new exodus accomplished in Christ, and signified in the Lord’s Supper, see James M. Hamilton, “The Lord’s Supper in Paul: An Identity-Forming Proclamation of the Gospel,” in The Lord's Supper, 86–88. He states, “Jesus presents his body, broken for His people, as the new exodus replacement of the bread eaten in the Passover feast commemorating the exodus from

7

Israel’s story, the celebration of the Passover commemorating Israel’s liberation from bondage in

the land of Egypt. Paul assumes not only that his Corinthian readers will understand this

symbolism but also that they will identify metaphorically with Israel. The Corinthians, in view of

Christ’s sacrifice, must repent of their sin and celebrate the festival with sincerity and truth by

removing this sinful individual, who is considered “the old leaven, the leaven of malice and evil”

(5:8).19 Thus, Paul is pointing in this section to a pattern of cleansing, which in this case,

connotes cleansing the church of sin.

In the final section of this passage, Paul reminds the Corinthians not to associate with

sexually immoral people (5:9), but “Their nonchalance about the man who entered into an

incestuous relationship with his father’s wife reveals that this warning was not taken seriously.”20

In addition to this, it appears that the Corinthians misunderstood Paul’s admonition. While the

Corinthian church thought Paul was referring to the sinful people of the world (5:10), Paul was

in fact telling them to not associate, or even eat,21 with unrepentant sinners who are within the

church (5:11). Paul’s demand referred to the question of order in the community: its intention is

not to shut Christians off from the world, but to clarify their standing in the world.

Egypt. Just as Israel was instructed to remember what took place at the Exodus by celebrating the Passover (Exod 12:14; Deut 16:3), so Jesus instructs His disciples to continue to partake of the bread that is His body for His ‘remembrance.’” See Ibid., 87–88.

19 Fee notes that this admonition from Paul may also have a connection to excluding unrepentant sinners from the Lord’s Supper. “It is just possible, however, that this further reference to celebrating the Feast also includes an allusion to their sitting at the Table of the Lord. There is no way to tell for sure, although an allusion to the Table in the context of expelling a brother would certainly be fitting, especially in light of the command in v. 11 that they may not even eat with him.” Fee, 1 Corinthians, 218. So also James M. Hamilton, “The Lord’s Supper in Paul,” 95–96; Ray Van Neste, “The Lord’s Supper in the Context of the Local Church,” The Lord’s Supper, 378–79.

20 Garland, 1 Corinthians, 184. 21 In reference to the final prohibition in 5:11, Fee tentatively argues, “At the very least it means that the

incestuous man is to be excluded from Christian fellowship meals, including the Lord’s Table (see on 11:17–34). As in Jude 12, such a person would be ‘a blemish on their love-feasts.’ The question is whether eating meals in more private circumstances is also in view. It is arguable that limiting it to the Lord’s Table would make the ‘not even’ unnecessary; that is, one may assume that he would not partake of the Table; they are ‘not even’ to carry on social ordinary social intercourse with him.” Fee, 1 Corinthians, 226.

8

Regarding the list of sins Paul provides in this particular context,22 Rosner asserts that a

distinct connection can be made between the sins recorded in 5:11 and the OT quotation in 5:13.

The representative list of sinners that the church is to judge (5:12b) is in one sense a list of covenantal norms that, when broken, automatically exclude the offender. Paul lists ‘sexual immorality’ first, since that is the issue at hand. But what governs his choice of the next five vices in the catalog? Paul gives a clue in 5:13b: the sins to which the Deuteronomic formula ‘Expel the wicked person from among you,’ which Paul quotes, is connected in Deuteronomy form a remarkable parallel to the particular sins mentioned in 5:11.23

Thus it appears that Paul is exhorting the Corinthians to deal with the sin in their midst—while

allowing God to judge those who are outside the church (5:11–12)—by expelling the unrepentant

sinner from their midst, and this is in keeping with an OT pattern of exclusion.

Thus, after making his argument, Paul concludes that he does not judge outsiders, since

that is God’s concern; rather he, and the church with him, are to judge those in the church (v.

12). He then substantiates his case by quoting the saying from Deuteronomy: “Purge the evil

person from among you” (v. 13). This phrase can be found in Deut 13:5; 17:7; 19:19; 21:21;

22:21, 22, 24; 24:7 (cf. Judges 20:13), and it should be noted that the verb “expel” used in the

LXX of these passages from Deuteronomy occurs only here in the NT.24 This particular quote

seems to form a particular pattern for the way in which Israel dealt with sinful members of the

community. Exclusion in the NT era of redemptive history is a present judgment by the church

standing as a declaration that the unrepentant individual is not demonstrating the lifestyle of a

22 Fee notes, “This is the first of the vice lists in the Pauline letters. Such lists were a common feature of Hellenistic Judaism, and they regularly recur in Paul in a variety of contexts (1 Cor 6:10–11; 2 Cor 12:20–21; Gal 5:19–21; Rom 1:29–31; Col 3:5, 8; Eph 5:3–5; 1 Tim 1:9–11; 2 Tim 3:2–5; Titus 3:3; cf. Mark 7:21–22; 1 Pet 2:1; 4:3; Rev. 21:8; 22:15).” Fee, 1 Corinthians, 225. See also James W. Thompson, Moral Formation According to Paul: The Context and Coherence of Pauline Ethics (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2011), 87-110.

23 Ciampa and Rosner, “1 Corinthians,” 709. So also Hays, First Corinthians, 88; Michael Newton, The Concept of Purity at Qumran and in the Letters of Paul (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985), 95–96; Brian S. Rosner, Paul, Scripture and Ethics: A Study of 1 Corinthians 5-7 (Leiden: Brill, 1994), 68–70; idem, “’Drive out the wicked person,’” 30; Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, 417.

24 Ciampa and Rosner, “1 Corinthians” 709. In regards to the actual citation itself, “The texts in LXX Deuteronomy and 1 Corinthians are identical, apart from changes that suit Paul’s epistolary context: the verb changes from a singular future indicative to a plural aorist imperative.” See Rosner, “Deuteronomy in 1 and 2 Corinthians,” 121.

9

Christian in their actions, and as such if they do not repent they may likely find themselves under

the final judgment of God (cf. Matt 7:21–23).25 This may be one reason why Paul chose to cite

this particular Deuteronomic formula, to remind the Corinthians that sinful individuals were

executed in the nation of Israel for unrepentant sin, and now exclusion from the church signifies

the reality of death, but it refers more poignantly to God’s final judgment and spiritual death.26

1 Corinthians 6:1-20

Paul then moves into chapter six and begins to deal with brothers in the church going to court

against one another. Cook notes that chapters five and six are not as different as they first appear.

Paul asserts in chapter five that the church has a duty to judge those within its membership, while

it is God who judges those outside the church. He now rebukes the church for permitting two

believers to submit personal grievances for judgment before the unconverted in secular courts.

The basis for Paul’s anger is twofold: first, the church again fails to understand who they are in

Christ, seen in their permitting such an action to take place; and second, the litigation damages

the community’s gospel witness.27

Thus, in 1 Cor 6:1-11 Paul vigorously opposes this behavior, judging it to be audacious,

and vigorously showing his disdain (6:5a). The apostle’s case against these lawsuits comprises

two points: in 6:1-6 he insists that Christians ought to be able to settle their own disputes, and in

6:7-11, going a step further, he contends that Christians ought to behave in general as citizens of

25 While exclusion or excommunication can and should be considered a declarative, eschatological sign of

God’s future judgment in the present, it should also be emphasized that, “According to [1 Corinthians] 5:5b exclusion is undertaken not only to benefit the community and the individual in the present, but to assure the salvation of the sinner in the future.” Rosner, “‘Drive out the wicked person,’” 34. So also Fee, 1 Corinthians, 214; South, “Critique of Curse/Death,” 559.

26 For greater exegetical details on this argument see Kimble, That His Spirit May Be Saved, 16-62. 27 William F. Cook, “Twenty-First Century Problems in a First-Century Church (1 Corinthians 5-7),” SBJT

6, no. 3 (Fall, 2002): 47.

10

the kingdom.28

This specific example of wrongdoing paves the way for Paul to reiterate and expand his

point regarding how Christians must relate to sin, specifically sexual immorality. Cook helpfully

observes, “The connection between verses 1-8 and verses 9-11 is that the mindset that refuses to

lay aside one’s rights for the gospel is similar to the mindset of those who commit the sins set

forth in the vice list.”29 This can be seen even more clearly when one notes that there is a

linguistic link that should be seen in relating 6:1-8 to 6:9-11. Verse 8 indicts the Corinthians for

their behavior in the lawsuits: “But you yourselves wrong (adikeite) and defraud.” The warning

follows in verse 9: “Do you not know that the unrighteous (adikoi) will not inherit the kingdom

of God?” The link in the adik words demonstrates that the warning is addressed to the same

persons engaged in the lawsuits, and perhaps concomitantly the prideful and passive Corinthian

congregation. Therefore, it follows that the warning is addressed to the believing community in

Corinth, and verses 9-11 are not directed at unbelievers.30

The vice list in 6:9-10 contains ten items, six of which are repeated from 5:11.31 The

focus of this section will be on three items in this list, namely, sexual immorality, adultery, and

homosexuality, which are really in keeping with the main thrust of 1 Cor 5-7. Sexual immorality

(porneia) is used six times in the Pauline corpus, five of which come from 1 Cor 5-7. This is a

generic term that refers to every kind of unlawful sexual intercourse.32 While Paul specifies the

28 This summary is derived from Rosner, Paul, Scripture, and Ethics, 94. 29 Cook, “Twenty-First Century Problems in a First-Century Church,” 48. 30 See Thomas R. Schreiner, Run to Win the Prize: Perseverance in the New Testament (Wheaton:

Crossway, 2010), 33; Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, 242; Garland, 1 Corinthians, 196. 31 In connecting the vice lists of 1 Cor 5 and 6, Rosner notes the covenantal thread in relation to

excommunication. “Deuteronomic expulsion formulae involving the verb ָּבַער (“utterly remove) are consistently associated with the covenant motif (e.g. Deut 17:7, 12; 19:13, 19; 21:9, 21; 22:22, 24; 24:7). The word ָּבַער is translated by �ξαίρω in the LXX of Deuteronomy. It is one of these formulae that Paul quotes in 1 Cor 5:13, denoting the connection that people are expelled because of a breach of covenant.” Rosner, Paul, Scripture, and Ethics, 65.

32 Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, 385. See also Garland, 1 Corinthians, 156.

11

term in 5:1 to refer to an incestuous relationship, one should note that he broadens his meaning in

5:11 and 6:9 to condemn sexual sin in general (Deut 22:21-22, 30). Paul also condemns

“adultery” (moichoi) refers to those guilty of sexual relations of any kind outside of marriage

(Exod 20:13; Lev 20:10; Deut 5:18; cf. Luke 18:11). The final two terms have been the subject

of intense scrutiny,33 but it will suffice to say for this paper that the terms refer to the static

(malakoi) and active (arsenokoitai) partners in consensual homosexual acts.34 Gagnon rightly

demonstrates that these terms “are correctly understood in our contemporary context when they

are applied to every conceivable type of same-sex intercourse.”35 Paul, however, does offer hope

in verse 11, noting that the Corinthians walked in these ways, but were washed, sanctified, and

justified. As such, not only are they forgiven, they can truly change and live out their identity as

citizens of the kingdom of God.36

Though Paul does include other vices in his list, he continues in verses 12-20 to deal with

the issue of sexual immorality. He does so now even more pointedly, dealing especially with

sexual intercourse with a prostitute. Apparently some men of the libertine branch of the

Corinthian church were engaging in sexual relations with prostitutes.37 This was likely a

33 A survey of any commentary on this passage in 1 Corinthians will garner a layout of the various views.

For a thorough exegetical, theological, and ethical treatment of this subject that demonstrates the fact that God views homosexuality as sin, see John S. Feinberg and Paul D. Feinberg, Ethics For a Brave New World (Wheaton: Crossway, 2010), 307-85; Andreas J. Köstenberger and David W. Jones, God, Marriage, and Family: Rebuilding the Biblical Foundation (Wheaton: Crossway, 2010), 199-222.

34 See Garland, 1 Corinthians, 211-14. 35 Robert A. J. Gagnon, The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics (Nashville:

Abingdon, 2001), 330. For further thoughts on this reality, see Ciampa and Rosner, The First Letter to the Corinthians, 242, who state, “Paul’s opposition to all homosexual behavior (clearly targeting those who engaged in it freely and willingly; Rom 1:18-32) seems to derive from Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, which represent absolute bans. . . . Paul opposed homosexual behavior on the basis of creation theology and because it is marked as a vice in the Torah and was stressed as a vice by Jews.”

36 See Daniel R. Heimbach, True Sexual Morality: Recovering Biblical Standards for a Culture in Crisis (Wheaton: Crossway, 2004), 187-88.

37 Mackie notes, “The city of Corinth was long associated with sexual immorality, as attested by Aristophanes (frag. 354), Plato (Resp. 404D), and Strabo (Geogr. 8.6.20). . . . In addition to brothels, the sale of sexual services occurred in taverns, restaurants, inns, dinner parties, bathhouses, theaters, amphitheaters, markets, fairs, and even temples.” Scott D. Mackie, “The Two Tables of the Law and Paul’s Ethical Methodology in 1 6:12-20 and 10:23-11:1, CBQ 75, no. 2 (April, 2013), 319-20.

12

common practice among many of the men before they were saved out of paganism. Paul quotes

what appear to be slogans from this libertine segment of the church (“all things are lawful for

me,” vv. 12-13a).38 Mackie observes, “Though this maxim was possibly deduced from Paul’s

teaching, those espousing it in the Corinthian community apparently had failed to recognize the

absolute claim of Jesus on the lives of his followers.”39 The believers at Corinth were called to

flee sexual immorality (6:18), knowing the body is meant for the Lord, not sexual immorality

(6:13-15), the creation ordinance of marriage puts sexual activity solely within the confines of

marriage (6:16-17), and our body is a temple purchased by the blood of Christ (6:18-20).40

To summarize, Paul deals directly with a situation of sexual immorality within the

church, with a call to excommunicate the offending party to both warn and encourage repentance

and restoration (1 Cor 5:1-13). Paul then deals litigation between brothers (6:1-8), and then

returns in greater detail to the issue of sexual immorality (6:12-20). And in the middle of this

section Paul exhorts the Corinthian believers not to behave as the unrighteous whom God will

exclude from final blessing, but according to their true identity as the cleansed, sanctified, and

justified people of God (6:9-11).41 Thus, church discipline for Paul is a means of identifying who

will or will not be an inheritor of the kingdom based on how they are living out their identity,

and this certainly includes their sexuality.42 Not inheriting the kingdom means you are not

38 Cook, “Twenty-First Century Problems in a First-Century Church,” 49. 39 Mackie, “The Two Tables of the Law,” 315. 40 Mackie asserts, regarding this passage, “In Paul’s initial response to this dualistic diminishment of

somatic existence (6:13b-18), participatory soteriological imagery predominates, as he repeatedly establishes that the believer’s embodied existence enjoys a direct connection to Jesus’ resurrected existence. The “body (σώµα). . .is for the Lord, and the Lord for the body” (6:13b). And just as Jesus was raised bodily, so they will be raised bodily (6:14). They are “members” (µέλος) of his body (6:15), and “united” (κολλάω) with him as “one spirit” (πνεύµα, 6:17), comparable to a married couple becoming “one flesh.” This claim is reinforced by Paul’s assertion that the Holy Spirit presently dwells within the believer’s “body,” like YHWH in the temple (6:19). Contrary to the apparent community slogan offered in 6:13a, which devalues somatic existence, the believer’s body is of the utmost consequence.” Ibid., 321.

41 Rosner, Paul, Scripture, and Ethics, 118. 42 Ciampa and Rosner assert, “The vice lists in 5:9-11 and 6:9-10 have obvious relevance to the paragraphs

in which they occur. They also function as a thinly veiled threat as Paul deals with other subjects in the letter. Those

13

presently a part of the people of God and you will not obtain eternal life (cf. Gal 5:21; Eph 5:5).

Schreiner asserts, “That entering the kingdom involves eschatological salvation is clear from

Paul’s confidence about his future states in 2 Timothy 4:18: ‘The Lord. . .will save me into his

heavenly kingdom.’ Those who give themselves over to unrighteousness will not enjoy end-time

salvation but will face God’s judgment.”43 Paul thus connects church membership and discipline

to the believer’s identity in the kingdom of God, but how these connections come about is

worthy of further attention.

Theological Synthesis

The kingdom of God, denoting his rule and reign, is a central motif to the biblical storyline,44 and

is crucial for rightly understanding the identity, ethic, and mission of the church. Building on the

exegetical details of 1 Cor 5-6 and noting the key placement of the kingdom theme there, we will

now look at the topic of kingdom more broadly and see how it applies to the ecclesiological

realities of membership and discipline. Even more specifically observations will be made

regarding the ethical implications of these realities for the pursuit of sexual holiness within the

church, as well as our witness to the world.

Kingdom-Driven Ecclesiology

guilty of such sins will not inherit the kingdom and ought to be excluded from the congregation in Corinth.” Ciampa and Rosner, The First Letter to the Corinthians, 243.

43 Schreiner, Run to Win the Prize, 34. See also Thomas R. Schreiner, The Race Set Before Us: A Biblical Theology of Perseverance and Assurance (Downers Grove: IVP, 2001), 296. Cook reiterates this point, saying, “Paul’s warning should be understood seriously; however, he is not referring to isolated and temporary acts, but rather a way of life that is the focus of one’s attentions and affections. Paul’s warning is analogous to those in Galatians 5:19-21 and Ephesians 5:3-7. Paul was concerned that those who profess to know Christ but practice wickedness not be deceived into believing that they are Christians.” Cook, “Twenty-First Century Problems in a First-Century Church,” 48.

44 For several works affirming this point, see John Bright, The Kingdom of God: The Biblical Concept and its Meaning for the Church (Nashville: Abingdon, 1953); Graeme Goldsworthy, The Goldsworthy Trilogy (Carlisle: Paternoster, 2000); George Ladd, A Theology of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993); Thomas R. Schreiner, The King in His Beauty: A Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testaments (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2013).

14

The kingdom of God was not some novel concept that Paul, or even Jesus, conjured out of thin

air. While Jesus filled this term with fresh significance, and Paul and the other apostles preached

its realities, the Jews were well aware of the kingdom program of God through the proclamation

of the Law and Prophets.45 From the very beginning God was on a mission to bring about the

fullness of his kingdom through his covenants.46

In one sense God has always been exercising his power and sovereignty over all things

(Deut 2:5, 9, 30; 4:19; 29:25-26; 32:8; 2 Kings 19:15; Ps 29:10; 96-98; 145; Isa 6:5; Jer 46:18).

In another sense, God exercises kingly authority over his subjects who, out of faith in him and

love for him, serve him as kingdom subjects (Ex 15:18; Num 23:21; Deut 33:5; Isa 43:15). It is

with these kingdom subjects that God makes certain covenants, in order to give them a mandate

for creation (Adam; Gen 1:26; 2:15-17; cf. Hos 6:7), deliver from his wrath (Noah; Gen 9:8-13),

establish a people with a land (Abraham; Gen 12:1-3), a law (Moses; Exod 19:3-6), and a king

(David; 2 Sam 7:8-16), culminating in the salvation and transformation of that people, and

ultimately all peoples (new; Jer 31:31-34; Ezek 36:25-27). Thus, the storyline of the OT revolves

around Israel as God’s chosen nation of kingly priests (Ex 19:5-6) manifesting God’s glory to the

nations. God’s particular kingdom in Israel breaks into creation in order to have restorative

impact on the more general, universal kingdom of God.47

However, Israel ultimately failed in their mandate to live as God’s kingdom subjects,

succumbing to the idolatry of the nations around them instead of being a transformative

presence. God, therefore, sent his people into exile, but promised to bring them back to their

45 Christopher J. H. Wright, The Mission of God: Unlocking the Bible’s Grand Narrative (Downers Grove:

InterVarsity, 2006), 308. 46 For a more detailed exposition of this reality see Peter J. Gentry and Stephen J. Wellum, Kingdom

Through Covenant: A Biblical-Theological Understanding of the Covenants (Wheaton: Crossway, 2012). 47 This summary was derived mainly from Bruce K. Waltke, “The Kingdom of God in the Old Testament:

Definitions and Story,” Christopher W. Morgan and Robert A. Peterson, eds., The Kingdom of God (Theology in Community; Wheaton: Crossway, 2012), 49-71.

15

land. Though the Davidic line of kings had failed, one from the tribe of Judah (Gen 49:9-10)

would come forth. He would restore the throne of David (Amos 9:11-15) and establish his

government (Isa 9:6-7; Dan 7:13-15). However, this coming king was also referred to as the

Servant (Isa 42:1-4) who would suffer and die on behalf of his people (Isa 52:13-53:12). Thus, in

many Jewish minds, the expectation for this Messiah would be that of a conquering king,48 but as

Jesus came and revealed the realities of his kingdom one would see a kingdom that was

inaugurated through the work of the Servant49 and would one day be consummated in the coming

of the King.

Jesus proclaims that the kingdom is a present reality in his preaching (Matt 3:2; 4:17;

10:7; cf. 24:14), healing (Matt 4:32; 9:35), and casting out demons (Matt 12:28). It is also a

future reality in that Jesus will return and usher in God’s total rule over the entire cosmos (Matt

7:21-23; 25:31, 34).50 Thus, according to Turner, “it is not that the kingdom does not involve a

concrete realm. It is rather that the kingdom exists as a microcosm today and as a macrocosm

when Jesus returns.”51 In keeping with Jesus’ emphasis, the kingdom of God was a frequent

theme in Paul’s preaching and writing (Acts 19:8-10; 20:24-25; 28:23, 31; Rom 14:17; 1 Cor

4:20; 6:9, 10; 15:24, 50; Gal 5:21; Eph 5:5; Col 1:13; 4:11; 1 Thess 2:12; 2 Thess 1:5; 2 Tim 4:1,

18), and also appears several times in the other apostles’ writings (Heb 1:8; 12:28; James 2:5; 2

Pet 1:11).

The church, as a community of citizens of this inaugurated kingdom, aims to live

corporately as loyal subjects of the king. Allison argues from Matt 16:16-19, a key text on rightly

48 Robert W. Yarborough, “The Kingdom of God in the New Testament: Matthew and Revelation,” in ibid., 104-8; Craig Keener, The IVP Bible Background Commentary: New Testament (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1993), 138.

49 For an excellent work on the relationship between atonement and the kingdom see Jeremy R. Treat, The Crucified King: Atonement and Kingdom in Biblical and Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2014).

50 Andreas J. Köstenberger, “The Church According to the Gospels,” Kendall H. Easley and Christopher W. Morgan, eds., The Community of Jesus (Nashville: B & H Academic, 2013), 39.

51 David L. Turner, Matthew (BECNT; Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008), 43.

16

understanding the church’s relationship to the kingdom, “Specifically, the church is the

instrument through which entrance into the kingdom is granted, as the church has been entrusted

with and employs ‘the keys of the kingdom of heaven’ (v. 19).”52 These keys have to do with the

gospel and people’s response to it. Those who repent of sin and embrace Jesus Christ by faith are

“loosed” from their sin, death and condemnation, domination by the world, and enslavement to

the Evil One. Oppositely, those who refuse to heed the good news are “bound” in that persistent,

hellish nightmare.53 Accordingly, Allison continues, “those who have been loosed from sin are

incorporated into the church as citizens of the kingdom of God.”54 Thus, the church, as the

community of the kingdom, provides entrance into the kingdom through the proclamation of the

gospel, and its newly born citizens live as kingdom people under the sovereignty of the king.

God has allowed the church to exercise the authority of the keys, not only in admission into the

church, but also, if needs be, removal from the church (Matt 18:15-20).

Church Discipline and the Pursuit of Sexual Holiness

Jesus calls for a systematic process to be followed in regards to church discipline, meeting with

the offender individually, with several witnesses, and finally before the whole church (18:15-17).

If the sinner will not repent after this final step, they are to be excommunicated and treated as a

“Gentile and a tax collector.” After these instructions, Jesus assures the hearer that whatever is

bound on earth by the church is bound in heaven and whatever is loosed on earth is loosed in

52 Gregg Allison, “The Kingdom and the Church,” Christopher W. Morgan and Robert A. Peterson, eds.,

The Kingdom of God (Theology in Community 4; Wheaton: Crossway, 2012), 189. For further exegetical details and warrant for this interpretation regarding Matt 16:16-29 and Matt 18:15-20 as it relates to this topic, see Kimble, That His Spirit May Be Saved, 37-47.

53 For more commentary on this notion of binding and loosing see D. A. Carson, Matthew in EBC (Tremper Longman and Donald Garland, eds.; Rev. ed.; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2006), 368, 373-74; R. T. France, The Gospel of Matthew (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007), 925; Joel Marcus, “The Gates of Hades and the Keys of the Kingdom (Matt 16:18–19),” CBQ 50, no. 3 (1988): 443–55; David L. Turner, Matthew (BECNT; Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008), 407–8.

54 Allison, “The Kingdom and the Church,” 189.

17

heaven (18:18).55 In Matt 18:18 one can see linguistic connections that lead back to 16:19, as

Jesus uses the exact same phraseology in regards to “binding and loosing.”56 As such, the

disciplinary measures delineated in Matt 18:15-20 seem to be a specific application of the church

using the keys of the kingdom.57

Paul, understanding this reality of the kingdom and its subjects in both the OT and the

teachings of Jesus, demonstrates continuity with this line of thinking in his application of church

discipline in the Corinthian church. The Corinthians live in the era of redemptive history where

the kingdom and the new covenant are in fact inaugurated actualities. Paul had written to them

previously not to associate with sexually immoral people (5:9), which the Corinthians took as

referring to those outside the church (5:10). Paul, however, is referring to those inside the church

who claim to be a “brother,” but are guilty of sexual immorality, greed, idolatry, reviling,

drunkenness, or falsehood (5:11). The church is not called to judge people outside the church,

but inside the church (5:12). They are to purge the evil person from among them, and let God

judge those who are outsiders (i.e. unbelievers; 5:13). A few verses later Paul uses his expanded

55 Pennington notes, regarding the use of “heaven and earth” terminology in the Gospel of Matthew, that

another clear function of Matthew’s heaven and earth contrast theme is to provide a clear identity for the followers of Jesus. Matthew wants his hearers to understand that those who follow Christ are the true people of God and to encourage them with this reality. Jesus defines this new or true people not by ethnic pedigree, including having Abraham as one’s father (3:9-10; 8:11-12; 23:9), nor by positions of honor (23:2-11), but as those who do the will of the Father who is in heaven (7:21; 12:50), as those whose lives bear the fruit of following God’s commands from the heart (3:7-10; 7:15-23; 12:33-38). This theme creates a heaven-oriented identity for the disciples in the midst of a hostile earthly world. The world is depicted as bipartite—heaven and earth—and Jesus’ disciples are the true people of God aligned with heaven, as opposed to the rulers (Roman and Jewish) on earth. In this way, Matthew’s heaven and earth theme is an important part of his ecclesiology (see esp. 16:17-19; 18:14-20). See Jonathan T. Pennington, Heaven and Earth in the Gospel of Matthew (SNT 126; Leiden: Brill, 2007), 348.

56 In Matt 16:19 and 18:18 the words used for “binding” and “loosing” are δεδεµένον and λελυµένον. 57 So Carson, who claims, “If the church, Messiah’s eschatological people already gathered now, has to

exercise the ministry of the keys, if it must bind and loose, then clearly one aspect of that will be the discipline of those who profess to constitute it. Thus the two passages are tightly joined: 18:18 is a special application of 16:19. Again, if we may judge from Paul’s ministry, this discipline is a special function of apostles, but also of elders and even of the whole church (1 Cor 5:1–13; 2 Cor 13:10; Titus 2:15; 3:10–11)—an inescapable part of following Jesus during this age of the inaugurated kingdom and of the proleptic gathering of Messiah’s people. The church of Jesus Christ is more than an audience. It is a group with confessional standards, one of which (viz., ‘Jesus is the Christ’) here precipitates Jesus’ remarks regarding the keys. The continuity of the church depends as much on discipline as on truth. Indeed, faithful promulgation of the latter both entails and presupposes the former. Carson, Matthew, 374.

18

list of vices, and tells the Corinthians, “Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the

kingdom of God?” (6:9). Thus, it appears that through the act of excluding a member from the

congregation, a church is declaring the one who was inside is really outside the church and the

kingdom of God, and this is due to their sin and lack of repentance, which is a demonstration of

their lack of true faith in Jesus (6:9–11; cf. Matt 7:21-23).58 In other words, exclusion in the NT

as a present judgment by the church is a declaration that the unrepentant individual is not

demonstrating the lifestyle of a Christian in their actions, and as such if they do not repent they

may likely find themselves under the final judgment of God.59 In order for the church to maintain

its new covenant identity as the kingdom community, discipline must be exercised, and this

certainly relates to the pervasive sinful issues that relate to sexual immorality.60

Ethical Implications

John and Paul Feinberg note, “The twentieth-century saw major changes in humankind’s

understanding of and use of human sexuality. This includes not only the sexual revolution of the

latter half of that century, but also the rise of various misunderstandings of sexual orientation and

of morally permissible sexual activity.”61 Certainly the world has gone askew in their sexual

mores, but as the church we must also be called to accountability. The church, as God’s kingdom

58 This understanding of the passage can also be seen in 5:5. The difficulty of interpreting this verse was

alluded to earlier, but if one understands the verse as referring to exclusion from the church for the destruction of the person’s sinful flesh, then the latter half of the verse should be viewed as eschatological. Thus, this discipline enacted by the church is proleptic in nature, judging in the present in a way that warns of future judgment by God should the individual not repent of their sins. Excommunication, therefore, aims to be restorative, but also serves as a sign of judgment. See Michael Scott Horton, Covenant and Eschatology: The Divine Drama (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2002), 272; Kevin J. Vanhoozer, The Drama of Doctrine: A Canonical-Linguistic Approach to Christian Theology (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2005), 425

59 See Hamilton, God’s Glory in Salvation Through Judgment, 567–68. See also James M. Hamilton, “The Church Militant and Her Warfare: We Are Not Another Interest Group,” SBJT 11, no. 4 (December 1, 2007): 76.

60 For an insightful treatment of how God refers to the breaking of his covenant as spiritual adultery, see Raymond C. Ortlund Jr., God’s Unfaithful Wife: A Biblical Theology of Spiritual Adultery (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2003).

61 Feinberg and Feinberg, Ethics For a Brave New World, 267.

19

community, must seek to reestablish its identity as the people of God and live as salt and light

before a world that desperately needs tangible examples of sexual holiness.

For the Church

Köstenberger and Jones observe, “At the heart, therefore, sex in the service of God proceeds in

the protected sphere of monogamous marriage.”62 God created a man and woman to be joined

together for a lifetime of covenantal marital faithfulness (Gen 2:24). This, therefore, excludes all

illegitimate forms of sexual expression that are outside biblical parameters: homosexual

relations, premarital sex, adultery, prostitution, lust, and other sinful practices. Each of these

practices involves a violation of the original covenantal context between the Creator and the man

and woman into which marriage was placed in God’s plan.63 This pattern of sexuality solely

within the confines of a monogamous marital relationship is one of many ways to live faithfully

under the kingdom rule of God, and those who claim to be Christian and choose to veer from this

pattern should be subject to ecclesial disciplinary measures that are direct, as well as humble and

introspective (Gal 6:1-3).

The pattern which Jesus set out in Matt 18:15-20 does not seem to be the norm of many

churches today,64 and yet it embodies the essence of discipleship. Churches are the subject of

sexual sin, and at times very little is done about it by way of correction and formative training.

62 Köstenberger and Jones, God, Marriage, and Family, 84. See also Ash, who states, “The proper ethical

context in marriage is not a series of isolated acts of sexual union, but rather a lifetime of faithful union.” Christopher Ash, Married for God: Making Your Marriage the Best It Can Be (Nottingham: InterVarsity, 2007), 201.

63 Köstenberger and Jones, God, Marriage, and Family, 84. 64 For a specific portrayal of the decline of discipline among Southern Baptists see Stephen M. Haines,

“Southern Baptist Church Discipline, 1880–1939,” BHH 20, no. 2 (1985): 14–27; Gregory A. Wills, Democratic Religion: Freedom, Authority, and Church Discipline in the Baptist South, 1785-1900 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1997). Wills helpfully summarizes the state of Southern Baptist churches after the Civil War, which could seemingly serve as a summary for virtually any present denomination: “No one publicly advocated the demise of discipline. No Baptist leader arose to call for an end to congregational censures. No theologians argued that discipline was unsound in principle or practice. No ‘freedom’ party arose to quash the tyranny of the redeemed. It simply faded away, as if Baptists had grown weary of holding one another accountable.” Ibid., 9.

20

We must constantly exhort one another, so that we are not hardened by the deceitfulness of sin

(Heb 3:12-13). As churches, we must recognize our identity as the community of God’s

kingdom, knowing we will not achieve perfection until the kingdom is consummated, but

striving for the holiness without which no one will see the Lord (Heb 12:14). Rigney, in

addressing the disintegration of our culture and churches as it relates to sexual ethics, asserts that

we must preach the whole counsel of God without apology in an increasingly intolerant society.

Through right preaching and the pursuit of godliness corporately, we are called to repent of the

sins that have gone unaddressed amongst our own ranks. We must not be guilty of condemning

society for their sexual woes whilst hypocritically committing our own sexual sins (Rom 2:17-

24). We must be vigilant to bear fruit in keeping with our repentance, and winsomely

demonstrate how our kingdom identity shapes our approach to sexuality.65 This, at times, will

require discipline, but it will serve a witness to the world, and discipline is always done in hopes

that the sinner will be joyfully restored.

For the World

While in this inaugurated and not yet consummated kingdom the church cannot dictate the

behavior and morality of the world, it can certainly put forth a transforming influence through

faithful presence.66 Again, Rigney helpfully observes, “The centrality of faithfulness in little

cannot be overstated. . . . The crying need of the hour is for millions of Christians to realize that

their primary contribution in the culture war may be reading bedtime stories to their children,

dating their spouse, and looking for opportunities to cheerfully, sacrificially, and practically

65 Joseph Rigney, “Cultural Disintegration and the Revival of a Moral Imagination,” August 4, 2014,

Online: http://www.canonandculture.com/cultural-disintegration-and-the-revival-of-a-moral-imagination/. 66 This statement is derived from the overall thesis of James Davison Hunter, To Change the World: The

Irony, Tragedy, and Possibility of Christianity in the Late Modern World (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010).

21

love their neighbors.”67 In other words, in the area of sexuality, the church has a unique

opportunity to influence and transform society by being faithful to know and apply Scriptural

truth regarding sexuality to their own context, in keeping with their kingdom identity.

Certainly others have argued extensively for ways in which the church can and should have

cultural influence,68 but for our purposes the point is that the church, in acknowledging and

embracing its kingdom identity, can establish norms that will shape the overall culture.69

Conclusion

Living in a culture awash in sexual immorality, to the degree that many have become numb to its

realities, it is time for the church to be jolted awake by the realities depicted in God’s Word

about this topic.70 Gregg Allison avers, “Living in the midst of an increasingly tolerant society,

whose tolerance of kingdom-shutting sin tragically spreads, the church must be in the world and

for the world, but never of the world in the sense of compromising with its sin.”71 Due to its

identification with the kingdom of God, the church must exercise discipline to clearly identify its

membership, call the church to sexual holiness, and serve as an ethical witness and influence to

the world. We thus seek to live out identity as a kingdom community bought by Christ, knowing

our pursuit of holiness glorifies God by displaying his holiness (1 Pet 1:15-16).72

67 Rigney, “Cultural Disintegration and the Revival of a Moral Imagination.” 68 See, for example, the classic work H. Richard Niebuhr, Christ and Culture (San Francisco: Harper and

Row, 2001), and an updated analysis of this work in D. A. Carson, Christ and Culture Revisited (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012).

69 For more on this in relation to same-sex unions, see Denny Burk, “How Will Gay Marriage Impact Your Marriage,” August 4, 2014, Online: http://erlc.com/article/how-will-gay-marriage-impact-your-marriage.

70 For a work that truly does this, see Heimbach, True Sexual Morality. 71 Gregg Allison, “The Kingdom and the Church,” 204. The meaning of the phrase “for the world” denotes

a care for the world and a devotion to its wellbeing. Elsewhere Allison states, “The church’s engagement of the world with particular concern for those in need stems first from the fact that its members are called to carry out the cultural mandate; the church has a responsibility to ready its people to obey this mandate in a biblically and theologically informed manner. See Gregg Allison, Sojourners and Strangers: The Doctrine of the Church (Foundations of Evangelical Theology 5; Wheaton: Crossway, 2012), 460.

72 Christopher W. Morgan, “The Church and God’s Glory,” in The Community of Jesus, 233.