There’s a shocking story at the beginning of 1 Corinthians 5. A man is committing sexual immorality with his stepmother. As I read this passage today, it was of particular interest because of some of the things we are wrestling with in the Body today. We are, hopefully, coming out of a season where many in leadership did unspeakable things without accountability.
Sadly, New Testament elders have not done their jobs in holding leaders accountable. But now that we live in the age of social media, victims are beginning to speak out. And let’s be honest, it’s messy. It is unsettling to some to see someone called out in public for sexual sin. What about due process? Again, many of these people sought to follow biblical protocol but were blocked by the very people who were supposed to be protecting them. It is always best if there is due process, where the accused can give a defense. But we have erred in protecting the powerful over the victims. That leads me to something that caught me by surprise.
The guy is sleeping with his stepmom!
I was reading through the account of 1 Corinthians 5 this morning and noticed something astounding. The “accused” here is not offered due process. Paul is quite angry that they have not removed him from fellowship, but they actually like his behavior (which leads me to believe there has not been a trial or investigation). Paul says, “I have already pronounced judgment on the one who did such a thing.” The Greek word kekrika is strong and means in this context to “make legal decision, decide a legal question of right or wrong (Jn 18:31; Ac 23:3); or condemn, judge as guilty (Jn 7:51);”1 the passage itself, see below, is not about the man’s immorality as much as it is about Paul's anger that the church has not enforced discipline on him.
It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that is not tolerated even among pagans, for a man has his father’s wife. And you are arrogant! Ought you not rather to mourn? Let him who has done this be removed from among you. For though absent in body, I am present in spirit; and as if present, I have already pronounced judgment on the one who did such a thing. When you are assembled in the name of the Lord Jesus and my spirit is present, with the power of our Lord Jesus, you are to deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord. (1 Cor 5:1-5)
Now, I can see many reasons for Paul bypassing due process. Corinth was not Ephesus, with pastor Timothy putting things in order. There were many problems—divisions (1 Cor 1:10), immorality (5:1-5), abusing the Lord’s Supper (11:17ff), abusing freedoms (10:23ff), and idolatry (10:14). Clearly, the leadership was not operating efficiently. And if anybody had the authority to simply make a blanket decision of judgment, it would be the apostolic father of the Corinthian congregation, Paul. Nevertheless, someone trained in church government could have accused Paul of ruining this man’s reputation by judging him without due process.
How does Paul know about this man? It appears he read something on social media! At least the social media of their day, “It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you.” Is Paul listening to gossip? This quite possibly came from Chloe’s household: “For it has been reported to me by Chloe’s people that there is quarreling among you, my brothers” (1 Cor 1:11). Were Chloe's people/household a bunch of gossips? It's more likely that they were horrified that this man's immorality was being celebrated and begged Paul to intervene. Elders need the freedom to discuss leadership issues without being accused of gossip. Gossip is more connected to a heart attitude. Leaders discussing how to deal with someone practicing perversion in their congregation is not gossip. Nor is it “the spirit of accusation,” as some cry when a leader is being held to account.
Social media and scandals
I use the term social media above tongue and cheek. Social media is definitely not the place to air unfounded accusations against anyone. But it can be a last-ditch effort, where someone who has not received justice and where the church has not been willing to listen, for someone to get the world’s attention.
There was a situation a few years ago where a young man tried to reach out to a major leader because of serious accusations of sexual immorality. The major leader would not meet with this man. He did not want to hear about the sexual sins of his protégé. In frustration, the young man posted the allegations online. This did have a positive effect, as it led to a judicial process that declared the evangelist unfit for ministry. In this case, going public was a last resort. But I also remember another minister ripping into the young man as if he had done a horrible thing when, in fact, he likely saved others from being victims.
I point out that even Paul, on this occasion, went outside the normal due process and made a public judgment. I think it is the exception, not the rule. The rule is first Timothy 5:19—new Testament elders receive accusations and investigate. In this situation, Paul felt like he had enough information about the situation that there did not need to be a trial or an investigation; he simply passed judgment. Personally, I would love to see every congregation adopt a protocol to deal with accusations safely and properly. But we can’t be so concerned with protocol that we penalize a victim for going to the media. Sometimes, people are angrier over improper protocol than they are over the sexual offense that is being exposed. In fact, the same major leader who did not want to hear about his young evangelist’s perversion claimed that the people who were exposing the man were doing worse things than the perverted evangelist by confronting him publicly.
Turning one over to Satan
Paul’s judgment was redemptive. His hope was that by bringing judgment on this man and kicking him out of the congregation, “turning him over to Satan for the destruction of his “sinful nature” sarx, his spirit would be saved. Paul’s goal was this man’s salvation. It's probable that Paul's meaning, though much debated, is that he would be removed from the congregation and go through a satanic trial much like Job (hopefully, not as intense—and for a different reason—clearly, Job was a righteous man and the Corinthian man was not.) Paul’s intention was that through the satanic trial, the man would return to the Lord.
We can see that in 2 Corinthians 2:6-8, the man repents, and Paul calls for him to be restored into fellowship. Paul asks the Corinthian congregation to receive him back in their fellowship and forgive him, reaffirming their love for him.
The lesson for us is that in whatever we do, our goal should be redemption—redemption for victims and perpetrators. Jesus died for sinners. All sinners. We should not tolerate those who would victimize believers under their authority (Matt. 18:1-6), but as we carry out discipline, our goal should be to see the one who has sinned come back into the light.
1 James Swanson, Dictionary of Biblical Languages with Semantic Domains: Greek (New Testament) (Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1997).
