Fornicators - 1 Corinthians 5:6-13

The dilemma that a bishop must have is how much weight to put into rumors of misbehaviors and at what point and how to confront the accused about them. That must be really difficult. But why would he have to initiate a conversation about misdeeds if that person wasn’t ready to bring it up themselves? Is there even a point? Is there a benefit to holding someone accountable for their actions before they are ready to give them up and repent?

Let’s take a specific scenario, let’s say that a married man in the ward is having an affair, or better yet, let’s consider the situation that Paul spoke of specifically, in which a man is having a sexual relationship with his stepmother. It doesn’t say whether or not that man is married, so I’m not going to make any assumptions here. But Paul is unhappy that the church leadership in Corinth hasn’t brought formal disciplinary charges against the offending man.

If the man himself didn’t come to the church leaders to confess, then what would the benefit be of confronting the man before he was ready to repent? Paul gives us some answers to that question, such as “therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.” I think that the word “feast” here means one of the Jewish Holy Days, such as the Passover, where unleavened bread is eaten.

Paul is using a metaphor of the Passover to explain that just like the purity of the unleavened bread is important for the Passover, so is the purity of the church membership. The IM quotes President M. Russell Ballard as teaching, “In the scriptures, the Lord has given direction concerning Church disciplinary councils. The word council brings to mind a helping proceeding- one of love and concern, with the salvation and blessing of the transgressor being the foremost consideration.

Members sometimes ask why Church disciplinary councils are held. The purpose is threefold: to save the soul of the transgressor, to protect the innocent, and to safeguard the Church’s purity, integrity, and good name… The miracle of the gospel is that we all can repent. Church government calls for Church disciplinary councils. But the Lord’s system also calls for restoration following repentance. Disfellowship or excommunication is not the end of the story, unless the member so chooses.”

I’m thinking through all of my knowledge of people who have committed serious sin and what happened to them in terms of their standing in the Church. I have known, and have been, a serious offender in the Church and while I’m going through all the examples that I can think of, it seems that usually what determines someone’s degree of discipline has to do with their level of activity and covenants that they have made.

I used to be so shocked when someone goes in-active after they came home from their mission, because it seems to me like that would be the ultimate commitment right there. But the older I get and the more I myself experience, the more I realize that staying committed to the gospel is almost a daily thing, regardless of the amount of testimony or foundation that someone has.

There seems to be a couple of different tipping points in someone’s behavior that triggers Church discipline. The first seems to be based on someone’s activity level. If someone is inactive, and their lifestyle doesn’t have a negative impact on the Church, then I think that typically, the leadership just waits until that person is ready to come back and repent. But if a member’s lifestyle or behavior does have a negative impact on the church, then it seems that this is the point where church discipline comes in. 

For instance, if someone is active in anti-Mormon propaganda, regardless of church activity level, then church discipline is initiated. There have been several instances of this happening, mostly in Utah, where active members of the Church were pushing for a change in policy and then wouldn’t desist when the Church asked them to. And I think that’s the breaking point, there is no one who is excommunicated because they have a differing opinion, the action comes when someone’s differing opinion is publicized loudly and continues even after the Church leadership has asked them to stop.

This doesn’t mean that all those other opinions are wrong, if someone has an opinion on something, I mean, yes, sometimes those opinions are completely doctrinally inaccurate, but I would guess that most times there is a lack of understanding there that can be explained, eventually. But the point is, when someone has a differing opinion, instead of having faith that the answer and understanding will come in time as we keep the commandments and follow prophetic counsel, it doesn’t mean that that opinion isn’t valid, just that it isn’t time yet. And I guess, really, when we consider faith in God’s timing, part of that includes timing in his answers and confidence in his appointed leaders when they tell us to cease and desist.

The other time that I can think of where a disciplinary council is called on is when the member insists on both being active in the church AND committing grievous sin. This goes back to the three reasons that President Ballard talked about. The transgressor is called out on their actions, told that that behavior is not acceptable for a member in good standing and given the chance to repent, even if disfellowship or excommunication has to happen first. This puts a boundary on what is acceptable behavior and what is not. 

Because really, the kind of person who will attend church regularly, while engaging in activities contrary to it’s teachings openly, has some other ego issues going on there. There is a whole psychology behind people who do this kind of thing, break the rules and then flaunt it, demanding acceptance into that society. This is the part where “protect the innocent” comes in to play. People come to church to hear the good word of God, and if there is someone there who is also a member but is actively committing serious sin, so many times that person interputs the proceedings or the lesson or makes a scene which distracts from the Spirit.

There is also the innocence of the people who are affected by the sin, such as friends, family members or spouses. As someone who grew up in the Church in an abusive household, I would have given anything for my bishop to confront my parents and say “what you’re doing is not ok.” And I’d imagine that that’s how it is how the spouses or family members who love the transgressor. Imagine that your husband is committing adultery, or being abusive. Now imagine going to church and trying to heal or even consulting the bishop for guidance and the only response from him is “my hands are tied until he decides to repent.” Now imagine that same person hearing from the bishop, “I’m sorry that this is happening to you, but it’s unacceptable and we will be meeting with your husband to address this issue.”

Allowing people to openly commit sin while professing church activity induces a culture of acceptability of serious sin. Because, really, excommunication is serious in the church, but looking at it from the outside, that isn’t really that big of a deal, it’s like being kicked out of a club you didn’t like anyway, it might hurt your feelings but not much else. If someone has lost the Spirit to the point where they feel comfortable going to church knowing that they are breaking major rules, then hurting their feelings isn’t necessarily going to induce major, repentative change. At that point they might be looking to justify their actions, make it common place to assuage their own guilt, etc. And that creates a toxic culture in which people are devalued and not fed the good word of God. 

Along the same line, Paul advised “Do not keep company with fornicators,” which is a pretty interesting concept as I look back in my life. I used to think that my husband would never cheat on me because none of his friends were cheaters. I saw a pattern of cheaters being friends with other cheaters, and non-cheaters not really having too deep a relationship with cheaters. I was totally wrong in that assumption about my husband, but the concept remains valid.

As I went through my divorce and everything that went with it, I really saw people’s reactions to my husband’s behavior and learned a lot about the different types of people out there. The IM quotes Elder Neal A. Maxwell as saying, “do not company with fornicators- not because you are too good for them, but as C.S. Lewis wrote, because you are not good enough.” The implication that I read into that statement was “because you are not good enough to withstand the temptation that they bring around you.”

We had a pretty detailed discussion about the power of sex a few days ago and it’s one of those things draws one in so heavily that it’s SO difficult to resist, even when you are highly motivated to not give in. If you associate with someone who is a cheater or someone who doesn’t keep the law of chastity, their disregard for it can give you just enough reason to pause and ask yourself, “is it really that big of a deal?” then the rationalizations start and you wear down your own resolve. Better to not even get yourself in that situation in the first place.

It’s like trying to eat better then buying junk food at the store and bringing it home with you. It is completely contrary to your goals and will only sabotage your progress. That doesn’t mean that we should mistreat others, even those who commit grievous sin, Jesus didn’t and he was surrounded by them all the time. He was kind, and friendly, but he didn’t engaged in rationalizations, he didn’t do anything with them, but he treated them with the respect that other human beings are entitled to. That should be a guide point for us.