Church Discipline and Personal Privacy

By Bruce Mills

I have been following the situation with Grace Community Church of Jacksonville with great interest. For the reader who is completely oblivious to the secular media's reporting of this matter, let me give you a basic summary of what has been taking place.

A member of the church by the name of Rebecca Hancock became involved in an ongoing sexual relationship with her boyfriend. Ms. Hancock is a divorced mother of two adult children, ages 18 and 20. When the church's elders became aware of the situation, they confronted Ms. Hancock about her sin of being involved in a sexual relationship outside of marriage, a clear violation of Scriptural mandates. Following the pattern established by Jesus in Matthew 18:15-17, they first confronted her privately, then with two or three witnesses. When Ms. Hancock refused to repent of her sin and stop her immoral relationship, the elders then wrote her a letter explaining to her that unless she did so, they had no choice but to follow the next step of the process and tell the church about her sin so that the church members could then call her to repentance.

But Ms. Hancock decided that she would "out" herself and go public with her sins before the church had an opportunity to follow through with its plan to inform the congregation. So she contacted a Jacksonville television station and informed them of what was taking place. Needless to say, once the story broke, it became a major news event. It was picked up by countless newspapers and even national news broadcasts. I saw a story about it on one of the local television stations here in the Tampa Bay area.

Despite her alleged desire to avoid the church shaming her by informing its congregation of a couple of hundred people, Ms. Hancock informed the nation of her sin. She even posed for a newspaper photograph standing in front of the church. And every story carried the explanation that she wanted to avoid having her two children, who are still actively involved in the church, be embarrassed to have to sit in church while the pastor informed the congregation about their mother's sin. Interestingly, she doesn't appear to be at all concerned about their embarrassment at seeing their mother's sin publicly confessed and discussed on television and in the newspaper.

Ms. Hancock also admits she is still involved in the sexual relationship with her boyfriend, but claims to be a Christian who loves Jesus. However, she doesn't seem to make the connection that genuine love for the Lord results in the desire to obey His commands, and that includes His commands against adultery and fornication.

In past years, such a story would never make the eighth page inside column of a newspaper, much less the front page with a color photo. But our society has become so consumed with personal religion and personal rights, that for anyone to come along and call what anyone else is doing "sin" is simply considered to be outrageous. I went to the web site of the Florida Times-Union, Jacksonville's biggest newspaper, and read the readers' comments which they posted in regard to the story about Grace Community Church's treatment of Ms. Hancock. The readers were overwhelmingly slanderous of the church and outraged that any church group would dare to discipline one of its members. There were threats to attend the church and disrupt the services, slanderous comments about the sexual activities of the church leadership, and lots and lots of comments regarding how Jesus said "Judge not lest you be judged" (Matthew 7:1). Of course, not a single person who posted a comment realized that it was also Jesus who laid out the process of church discipline in Matthew 18.

However, the interesting twist in this story is that Ms. Hancock states that she has left the church, no longer considers herself a member of the church, and intends to send the church a letter stating such. I'm sure there is an attorney somewhere who is coaching her to do so in order to set up a basis to sue the church for "slandering" her character publicly after she has removed herself from submission to the church leadership's authority. Hopefully, Grace Community Church's constitution provides that a member who is in the process of being disciplined by the church cannot resign his or her membership to avoid that process.

Regardless, this story merely presents an opportunity to observe the difference between light and darkness and the requirements of Scripture versus man's self-deterministic bent. I predict that we will see more and more efforts made within the court system in coming years to declare such actions of church discipline illegal because of its alleged infringement on personal privacy. Pastors and churches may pay a price for obedience to the Word of God in this area.

We need to pray for Grace Community Church and its leaders to stand firm in the faith and to obey the Word of God regardless of the cost. This is a difficult situation for them, but God is using it to accomplish His sovereign purposes. Jesus said, "I will build My church,and the gates of of Hades will not overpower it" (Matthew 16:18). So as difficult as it may be, our Lord will be honored, His church will be purified, and Satan will not achieve the ultimate victory.

To the Praise of His Glory

by Bruce Mills

I taught Romans 5:12 in my Sunday School class yesterday. The text reads, "Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned." Let me just say at the beginning that attempting to explain the complete interpretation of that verse would take far more space that would be reasonable for this blog.

But there was a rather significant question which arose from one of the ladies in the class. Although these were not her exact words, her question generally centered around the following concepts: "Why did God create man and allow him to sin? After all, God could have created man so that he would not or could not sin, so why would He foreordain to allow sin to come into the world?"

That is one of the most significant theological questions anyone can ask, because it focuses on the issue of the origin of sin and evil and why God allowed it to occur. God could have just wiped out Adam and Eve after they fell and started over. So why didn't He? Let me give you the only explanation which makes sense to my feeble, finite mind. These thoughts are not original with me, but they make this very difficult concept as understandable as is possible to the human mind.

We have to begin by considering God’s creation of the angels. Why did God create the angels? To give Him glory. But angels are incapable of fully understanding the character and nature of God. They were created in perfect holiness, so they understand God's attributes of holiness, righteousness, and majesty. But there are certain characteristics of God's nature that they don’t understand, including His grace, mercy, compassion, and forgiveness. And yet those attributes are a part of the nature and character of God.

Why don’t they understand those attributes? Because they were created in holiness which means they have no need for God's forgiveness, grace, mercy, or compassion. Those characteristics only have meaning where there is the guilt feeling of sin, and a holy angel has no such feeling. Perhaps it is for that reason that the holy angels long to look into the gospel of salvation (1 Peter 1:12).

So holy angels were created to praise, glorify, and give honor to God, but they can only do so from a limited perspective because they were holy beings from the beginning. So there was a whole aspect of God’s nature which needed to be glorified, praised, and exalted that holy angels couldn’t understand.

But then the angels sinned and fell. Revelation 12:4 says a third of the angels followed Lucifer in his rebellion against God. And when they did that, they were damned to hell forever and were instantly unredeemable. No fallen angel was ever redeemed. No fallen angel was ever saved. No fallen angel was ever forgiven for that fall. Because angels were not created as procreative beings, but were individually created, they fell individually. And so they were damned forever. There is no possibility of redemption for fallen angels.

So there was a whole dimension of God's character that would never be praised and never be fully glorified unless God created some people who would have the capacity to fall, and then having fallen, could be redeemed. Then flowing out of their redemption would come an understanding of God’s grace, mercy, compassion, and forgiveness.

We Christians understand those concepts because we know how guilty we were and how greatly our sin had offended God, and how great God's grace was in forgiving us of that sin. Where we have trouble in comprehending God's character is with the things the angels understand—God’s holiness, justice, righteousness, and perfection. Because we were born in sin and have never been absolutely holy, righteous, or perfect, we have trouble understanding those attributes. But we understand God's mercy and love. We are amazed by it, but we understand it.

And I think that’s the reason, as best as my feeble mind can understand it, why when Adam sinned God did not say, "That's it; it's over. I'm going to wipe man out and start over." Rather, He said, “Now I will pour out My love and grace and mercy on him by sending My Son to redeem fallen sinners. I want the glory of which I am worthy.”

And if we should ever think God is out of line for wanting that glory, then that shows how little we understand about His worthiness. He deserved the praise from those who would understand His grace.

And that’s why, when having redeemed us, Ephesians 3:10 says He uses the church to teach the angels about His manifold wisdom. Because by observing His actions toward us, they learn things about God’s character which, without us, they would never understand. And if the purpose of creation and heaven and eternity is the eternal praise of God, then it’s fitting that He would allow sin to continue to exist, so that His Son's victory over sin and death might result in glory that would otherwise have never been possible.

Maybe this helps you understand this whole issue a little bit more. So, “through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned.” We all sinned in Adam. But nevertheless, He allowed us to be born in order to call us to redemption so that we could be to the praise of His glory forever.

Who is Jesus?

By Bruce Mills

It is the Christmas season, so I would like to consider the message of Christmas—that God the Son became incarnate as the man Jesus, lived among us as God in flesh, and even died for us, atoning for our sins. Most of thhis material is not original with me. I found it several years ago, but I don’t recall where. So with that disclaimer, let me begin.

Of all the doctrines that we study and talk about in Christianity, the doctrine of the divinity of Christ is the one absolute foundational doctrine that a person must agree with or else that person cannot be called a Christian, even if in name only. This is the doctrine that Jesus, that baby in the manger, was God in human flesh. Unless a person considers Christ to be God, he cannot call himself a Christian.

So how did the early church establish the doctrine of the divinity of Christ? Let’s take a look. After the emperor Constantine was converted to Christianity in AD 312, he issued an edict that granted tolerance to the Christian religion and, in essence, proclaimed Christianity the religion of the empire.

He inherited a church that was seething with discussion regarding the person of Christ. To most modern American Christians, the study of theology is limited to a seminary or Bible college classroom, but in those days, everyone was caught up in the debate.

Constantine was confused by these theological debates, so he was persuaded to convene a general council at Nicaea to resolve the bitter disputes. He hoped a consensus could be reached and reconciliation brought about. If not, the church could not unite the empire. In those days, religious unity was the foundation for political unity.

There were two main views that were debated in various parts of the empire. The first view was that Jesus was a created being who was subordinate to the Father.

Back in the previous century (about AD 250), Origen, a theologian from Alexandria in Egypt, asserted that the Son was subordinate to the Father. He sometimes even referred to the Son as the Θέος Δεῦτερος—the second God. Yet strangely, he also claimed to believe in the deity of Christ. Exactly what he meant by the subordination of the Son to the Father is unclear.

Arius, a pastor in Alexandria, took Origen’s view a step further. He said if the Son has a different essence from the Father, it is logical to suppose that He is a created being. Arius said, “If the Father begat the Son, he that was begotten had a beginning of existence, and from this it was evident, that there was a time when the Son was not.”

Arius taught that the Son was created out of nothing, but that he was the first and the greatest of the beings brought forth by God. Through the Son the world was created. The Son was worthy of worship because He was adopted by God.

Arius’ views became quite popular within the culture of the day. He was very influential because he was skilled in communication. He put his ideas into jingles, which soon became popular with the common people in the marketplace or children at school.

Many cults today find their champion in Arius. The Jehovah’s Witnesses, for example, believe that Christ is a god but not fully God. One of their founders, Charles Russell, said, “Being God’s first creation, he was with the Father in heaven from the beginning of all creation, Jehovah God used him in the creating of all other things that have been created.”

The opposite view was defended by the great theologian and apologist Athanasius (ca. 296–373). A champion of orthodoxy, he insisted that Jesus Christ was fully God and had the same essence as the Father. Specifically, he argued for the doctrine of the Trinity, that God was a tri-unity.

He affirmed that the following propositions could be held without contradiction: (1) Christ and the Holy Spirit are both fully God; (2) both are, in some sense, distinct from one another and from the Father; and (3) God is one.

Athanasius believed the three persons of the Godhead were not separate, which would lead to polytheism, but shared oneness of substance or essence. He realized that “only if Christ is God without qualification, has God entered humanity, and only then have fellowship, the forgiveness of sins, the truth of God, and immortality been certainly brought to men.”

So the stage was set for one of the most important church councils in history. The consideration of this matter should be of special concern to us at this time of year when we celebrate the incarnation of Christ. Who exactly was it that was born in Bethlehem on that starry night? Was it a created sub-god or God Himself in human flesh?

Now, Constantine realized that these differences were about to tear his Empire apart. He had chosen to move the capital of the empire from Rome to Byzantium (later the city would be named Constantinople in his honor; the modern name is Istanbul). So he asked the delegates to come to Nicaea, just 25 miles from the new capital. Thus in AD 325, 318 bishops met to wrestle with the question of the diety of Christ and the Trinity.

Consider the circumstances. Here were men who had been persecuted for their faith just a few years before. Many of them could show scars of their days of torture. Yet now, because of the conversion of Constantine, they went openly to the council, all expenses paid by the emperor!

Arius was invited to state his views, that Christ was a created being, that he was the first and the greatest of the created beings, but created nonetheless. He forcefully proclaimed, “The Son had a beginning, but God is without beginning.” He argued his position at great length while the assembly of bishops listened in total silence.

One of the bishops listening that day became more and more upset as Arius presented his views. This bishop had been thrown into prison and suffered terribly for his faith under the reign of the last Roman emperor Diocletian, and he was outraged at what he was hearing.

Suddenly he got up, crossed the room, and slapped Arius across the face. That bishop was none other than Nicholas of Myra, the man we know today as St. Nicholas, whose name was pronounced Sinter Klaus by the Dutch settlers of New Amsterdam (New York City).

Because of his uncontrolled outburst of anger, Nicholas was briefly stripped of his authority as a bishop and imprisoned overnight, but shortly after the council concluded, he was restored as the Bishop of Myra.

But the important thing to remember about St. Nicholas, the man about whom the secular legend of Santa Claus later developed, is that he was a man who stood for the truth of the full divinity of Jesus Christ against the prevailing heresy of the day.

The rest of the council of bishops considered Arius’ arguments, and shortly thereafter agreed with Nicholas, denouncing it as heresy and blasphemy. That much was settled.

Athanasius then stood to present his position. At the time that Athanasius gave this great argument and helped establish for all time the fundamental truths of Christian orthodoxy about the divinity of Christ, he was only 29 years old! He was a young man! He had begun to study for the ministry at the age of 16 and by the age of 22, had distinguished himself for his theological essays he wrote which served as apologetics against various heresies and in favor of orthodox doctrine.

In fact, at the time of the Council of Nicaea, he wasn’t yet a bishop. He was a leader in the Alexandrian church, but he only accompanied his bishop to the council to present his theological position. It wasn’t until three years later when his bishop died that he was appointed bishop of Alexandria.

Athanasius stood before the council and argued that Christ was “true God of true God, begotten not made, of one substance with the Father.” He was so forceful that after several days of debate, there was a consensus developing toward his view. So at that point, Constantine stepped in and sided with Athanasius. And thus the Nicene Creed emerged, which states, in part:

“I believe in one God the Father Almighty; Maker of heaven and earth and of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds, God of God, Light of Light, Very God of Very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father…”

All but two of the bishops signed the creed. Those two, along with Arius, were sent into exile. But unfortunately, the debate was far from settled. Arianism continued to spread through many of the churches and subsequent emperors sided with whatever party had the majority at the time.

Athanasius continued to oppose Arianism with such tenacity that when told that everyone was opposing him, he said, “Athanasius against the world!” He was driven into exile five times, but he never wavered in his commitment to the full deity of Christ.

Later the Arians began to disagree among themselves and their influence waned. The council of Rome (341) and the council of Constantinople (381) ratified the Nicene Creed, which is the basis of orthodoxy to this day.

So why is this important? There are many today who say that debating and being dogmatic about doctrine is theological hairsplitting. But the theologians of past centuries understood that all other social and moral issues cannot compare with the significance of the doctrine of the deity of Christ. Because the real question to which the answer is crucial is this: Is Jesus Christ capable of being the Savior of mankind?

Even if Christ were the highest and most noble creature of God’s creation, God would then only be indirectly involved in the salvation of fallen man. Salvation would have cost God little. One of His creatures would have suffered for mankind; God would have simply delegated the “dirty work.”

But could salvation have been brought about if God had delegated the suffering to one of his creatures? No. Only God Himself can reconcile man to Himself. As the great Anglican bishop of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, H. C. G. Moule, put it: “A Savior not quite God would be like a bridge broken at the farthest end.” Only God can satisfy His own requirements. A savior less than God would be disqualified; God must do it Himself.

The deity of Christ must also be affirmed to keep us from idolatry. Christ here on earth accepted the worship and prayers of people without a hint of embarrassment. He also forgave sin. The Jews of His day understood the implications with clarity and asked, “Who can forgive sins but God only?”

If Christ is not God, then God has not saved us, and the worship that Christ accepted and his ability to forgive sins would have been blasphemous.

But this brings us to the question, why is it that thousands of people who believe in Christ will be lost? The answer is, they have believed in a Christ who is not qualified to save them. They believe in a mystical Christ, or a human Christ, or a created Christ. Or they believe in the cosmic power of the New Age movement that they call “the Christ.”

But the most sincere faith one can possibly have, if placed in a Christ who is unable to save, will not get us to heaven. The question comes back to, which Christ saves? And to answer that question, we must return to the Nicene Creed. Only an incarnate Christ who is fully God qualifies to be a Savior.

The deity of Christ, then, is the foundation of Christian doctrine. It is not enough to believe in Christ, but to believe in a Christ who is able to save. The amount of faith is not as important as the object of faith.

I recall being in New York at the Word of Life Conference Center one winter and looking out at Schroon Lake, all frozen over. The people there told me that every year they hold an ice fishing tournament on the lake and the ice freezes so thick that the fishermen drive their trucks out on the lake. But they also said that every year, there are fishermen who will go out a little too early in the winter, thinking the ice will hold them, but it isn’t quite thick enough yet, and their trucks end up going through the ice into the lake.

You see, their faith that the ice will support them isn’t nearly as important as the thickness of the ice itself. Faith alone does not save; only faith in a person qualified to save brings salvation to the human heart. Not all who say “Lord, Lord,” will enter into the kingdom of heaven. The Christ of the cults is unable to pay the penalty for sin. To believe in a Christ who is less than God is to have faith that is misplaced.

The Council of Nicaea divided Christendom forever. On the one side are those who speak well of Christ but affirm that He is less than God; on the other are those who believe He is “God of very God.” These two streams of thought flow in different directions never to meet.

We should be grateful that those men like Athanasius and Nicholas who have preceded us in the history of the church insisted that we believe in the Christ who is God. In His own person He unites God and man; in His death He reconciles man to God. Salvation or damnation; heaven or hell. That is what Nicaea was all about.