Excommunication - 1 Corinthians 5:2-5

There was more than one issue with the church member who was having sex with his stepmother, Paul also “reproved the Church in Corinth for failing to take disciplinary measures against the sinning member.” This begs the question, why is it important for consequences to be dished out to sinning members? It doesn’t seem like this member was coming to the Church leadership, confessing what he did and desired repentance. So would it be the place of the “bishop” of the church in Corinth to take the hearsay or rumors and confront the alleged offender? 

Thinking about how we do it modernly, I was always under the impression that if the person didn’t come to the bishop to confess, then the bishop just kind of minds his own business, but it seems like that isn’t the case, and honestly, now that I think about it, I can’t think of a single time in which that has been the case. It must be such a delicate balance between what a bishop hears and what they talk to their members about. I would hate to be the one that has to decide what a valid complaint is and what’s not. 

Paul’s writings are very difficult to understand, especially to go verse by verse and break it down, but he advises that the church “gather together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, to deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.” This is a very difficult statement to understand but it seems like what it might mean is for the leaders to join together in the Spirit and remove the offender from the protection of God and allow that person to be under the influence of Satan. 

This would be excommunication, which is the harshest punishment that the Church has. But what is significant about excommunication is that it is not meant to be permanent, it is designed to be a stepping stone on the road to repentance. It’s interesting because there was a talk by Dallin H. Oaks at this most recent conference that talked about “Be kind to LGBT people, but remember what our standards are.” For a really long time I’ve advocated that we should want LGBT people in our meeting houses, coming to our services and participating in our wards. But I wonder if there is any correlation between Paul’s teachings here and my own opinion.

I don’t think that anyone is harmed by participating in our worship services to the extent that they are worthy to. And I see no reason we should be exclusionary in who we allow into our meetings and association. I’ve always said, let anyone in who is willing and then let the bishop determine worthiness for ordinances. If we consider most churches, their worship services consist of an hour or two of sermon and then dismissal.

There typically is not a requirement for membership, and there is almost never any next level participation past baptism, such as the temple. I see no reason why we couldn’t invite LGBT members to our services in a fashion similar to what other churches do, come for an hour or so to talk about Jesus and then any other commitment or ordinance would be up to that individual to qualify for, just like any straight member.

It seems like the problem that Paul is having isn’t that his congregants are struggling with their natural urges, but that they are giving in to them and committing acts contrary to the commandments of God. So why is it important to do what Paul advises here and remove people from church membership who commit cardinal sins? Let’s think about the difference between someone who commits the sin and someone who is just struggling with the temptation. I think the obvious one here is the person who committed the sin has actually crossed over the boundary there, whereas the person who is struggling with the temptation is keeping that beast at bay for the time being.

The actual, physical act of committing the sin is a big deal, and in order for the action to be counted as wrong, it has to be voluntary. This means that rape, sexual assault, or anything else that happens against your will is not a sin, and in fact makes you a victim and causes you trauma. The person who has willfully broken their covenants is no longer entitled to them, but God has allowed a way for that person to not only repent of their sins, but to be put back into the same good standing they had before, like nothing ever happened. 

Let me just put out there that I seem to be pretty critical of someone breaking commandments, and while I hope that I am never one of them, I have definitely been on the wrong side of the bishop’s desk before, I have done my time in the dirt and I have learned a lot from it and would like to think that I’ve grown. The concept of repentance is interesting though because once a person commits to returning to the gospel, I believe that the concept of “nothing cements loyalty like a betrayal” takes affect. I know that’s how it happened for me, I remember the pain of repentance and I never want to go through that misery again, and I never want to lose the spiritual strength that I’ve gained since. Between those two things, I am motivated to withstand temptation.