“CHURCH” DISCIPLINE

 

There is probably no area in which both Christians and churches are so lax as in the area of discipline. This article is an attempt to compile the New Testament teachings on this subject so that we can review these scriptures collectively and solidify our knowledge of this subject. This should enable us to take those actions, which are most pleasing to the Lord in this regard.

 

As with all other subjects, we need to recognize that, separate from individual action, “the church” can do nothing. It only accomplishes the work, which God has given it when individuals recognize their personal responsibilities. As individuals, we can either act independently or in concert with the rest of the church. We will be our study with a review of our individual responsibilities, most of which require independent action. This will be followed by a consideration of our collective responsibilities. Finally, a section will be devoted to a general discussion of the meaning of fellowship and withdrawal.

 

 

INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR DISCIPLINE

 

We often hear complaints concerning a lack of discipline, and there is generally an element of truth in most of them. Before we attempt to place blame, however, recognize that all formal disciplinary actions begin with individual action (Mt. 18:15-17). It is only when these individual actions fail to obtain an acceptable response that the entire church must get involved.

 

To involve the church prematurely is a breach of our Lord’s instructions, as is the involvement of anyone who need not be involved. However, this does not excuse any of us from our personal obligations.

 

Let us review some New Testament teachings so that we can better understand our responsibilities in this regard:

 

1. God does not want us to do anything, which would indicate our approval of sin (2 Cor. 6:14 - 7:1), especially that committed by other Christians.

 

2. It is the responsibility of those who are “spiritual” to communicate with and attempt to restore those who are “overtaken in any trespass” (Gal. 6:1-2).

 

3. The considerations of discipline apply to doctrinal issues (i.e., “going beyond that which is written”) as well as moral matters (2 Jn. 9-11).

 

4. The principles of Mt. 18 instruct us to restrict those who are involved to those who are necessary to bring about repentance, recognizing that if it is not forthcoming more individuals, and ultimately the entire church, must be involved.

 

5. The primary motivation for initiating this action is the love for the soul of the offender

(1 Cor. 5: 5; Gal. 6:1-2; 2 Thess. 3: 6-15). If, in fact, this is not the motivation for our

actions, then our problem is not with the offender, it is with ourselves. We need to     

address this before we will be able to help others (Mt 7:1-2).

 

6. A secondary motivation is to keep the church pure and free from the reproach of the world(1 Cor. 5:6).

 

There might be some question as to whether the instructions in Mt. 18 apply to all disciplinary actions, since most versions include the terms “against you” in verse 15. [A footnote in the American Standard version indicates that many ancient manuscripts omit this, but let us assume that it, in fact, belongs in the text.] Those who assert that Mt. 18:

15-17 does not apply in general make a distinction between sins against individual Christians (“against you”) and sins, which are against God (but not “against you”). We challenge the reader to come up with an example of a sin which would be against God but which would not be against every Christian with which the offender associates. Allowing that such an example could be found, we ask: would such ever be the subject of disciplinary action? Finally, even among those who make such a distinction, most still believe that Mt. 18:15-17 applies to all disciplinary actions in principle, since it is the only example which we have for dealing with issues of this type.

 

Thus, departures from the pattern of Mt. 18 should only be made when other principles might be violated. At least two examples of this are presented in the New Testament. In 2 Jn. 10 the apostle specifies immediate actions to be applied probably because it involves public teaching. [Clearly, those who put themselves in a position of influencing others must be dealt with in a more timely way due to their ability to inflict damage on the cause (see also James 3 and Acts 8:18-24). Similarly, in Gal. 2, Paul immediately withstood Peter to the face to counter the negative influence of Peter’s public sin. We can also see cases in which a woman (or perhaps a novice) might have difficulty applying Mt. 18 without consultation (or possibly assistance) from others. Similarly, it would be ill advised for a man to privately confront a woman about certain sins. But these are exceptions which neither disproves the rule nor the principles upon which it is are based. The principle of love and concern for the sinner, which leads us to desire a resolution with the minimal involvement and pain to everyone, cannot be refuted.

 

Those initiating disciplinary action need to be very concerned that they do not compound the sin (and possibly further contribute to it) by using improper means of addressing it. We recognize that sin in approaching discipline does not justify the first sin. [We have seen this smokescreen used all too often]. However, given the above scriptures, those who are attempting to administer discipline can also be guilty of sin if they do not approach this responsibility with love or apply the specified methods if at all possible.

 

In summary, our individual responsibilities to one another in this regard are quite simple. The problem is not that we fail to understand them; it is that we fail to do them.

 

 

 

 

COLLECTIVE RESPONSIBILITY FOR DISCIPLINE

 

We saw above that a single individual who observed sinful behavior on the part of another initiates all church discipline. Once the required individual actions are taken, it is the responsibility of every Christian in the congregation to act in a loving way, which will bring about repentance. The Bible provides us with the following directives:

 

1. When the first three actions specified by Mt. 18: 15-17 are not successful in bringing about repentance, collective action is commanded (Mt. 18: 17, 1 Cor 5:1-5, 13).

 

2. “Withdrawal” from one who is in error is a congregational action (Mt. 18:17; 2 Thess. 3:14); there is no indication in the scriptures that this action should be taken without first following the “due process” provisions given in Mt. 18:15-17.

 

3. There is no such thing as an individual withdrawal or partial fellowship. An individual is either in fellowship with a local congregation (and hence every member of it) or he is not. The alternative is for each of us to judge each other individually in these matters, which leads to chaos in the local congregation (Ja. 4:11-12). This type of dividing of the local congregation was condemned in 1 Cor. 1:10.

 

4.              Wisdom and mature judgment (by “ye who are spiritual” Gal. 6:1) are required in implementing these actions. Actions, which clearly have no hope of either restoring the individual or providing any benefit to the local congregation, are counterproductive. Thus, someone who has left the area or who makes no pretense of being a member of the local congregation does not fit into the pattern for congregational action. [We are not stating that other actions and communications might not be appropriate.] Further, every act of immaturity does not warrant the initiation of action. We readily admit that often there can be considerable difficulty in discerning the difference between immaturity and rebellion. However, judgments are required in the execution of all of our Lord’s commands.

 

5.              Once that disciplinary action has been taken, there are two areas that are impacted. There must be a delivering up to “Satan’s kingdom” (1 Cor. 5:5), which requires an unequivocal message that the person is no longer considered a part of God’s kingdom. Certainly, formal participation within the local congregation would cease, but there is no indication that the individual should not be allowed to participate as a non-christian visitor would. This “delivering up” must be made known to the person and to all within the congregation. [There is no requirement to publicize this to the world, which does not have the spiritual maturity to even understand the purpose of this process.] Second, there is to be a cessation of all social activity, which might imply that Christians concur with the actions of the offender.

 

6.              A Christian’s interaction with a non-christian who is in sin will generally be different than that with a Christian who is withdrawn from, even though the two are practicing that same sin (1 Cor. 5: 9-13); this is because some actions which might indicate support (fellowship) to an erring Christian do not carry that same meaning to one of the world. The principle is clear: any social interaction that condones another’s sin (and thus can be interpreted as fellowship) must be altered such that the Christian does not further or support this sin. This principle applies whether a person is a Christian or in the world (1 Cor. 10:25-29), although the specific actions taken might be quite different.

 

7.              The person who is withdrawn from should not be “counted as an enemy but admonished as a brother” (2 Thess. 3: 6-15). This means that continuous, concerted and loving efforts should be made by all in the congregation to lead this person to repentance. Obviously withdrawal cannot necessitate a complete cessation of communication.

 

8.              When an erring Christian repents, he is to be restored to full fellowship (2 Cor. 2:5-

11). The determination of the elders as to which responsibilities to place upon this individual at this time is to be based upon the same assessment of maturity as is required of all other members.

 

In the next section we will discuss the meaning of “withdrawal” in more detail.

 

 

FELLOWSHIP AND WITHDRAWAL

 

What does it mean to “withdraw fellowship” from someone in error? We showed above that is a collective action taken only after considerable individual efforts to elicit repentance. The confusion over this subject is often due to a misunderstanding of the biblical meaning of fellowship (and often a failure to properly practice it). Before drawing conclusions, however, let us look at all of the scriptures, which deal specifically with the subject:

 

“let him be as the Gentile and the publican” (Mt. 18: 17).

 

“have no company ... with such a one no, not to eat ... Put away the wicked man from among yourselves” (1 Cor. 5: 9-13).

 

“withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly . . .”(l Thess. 3: 6)

 

“And if any man obeyeth not our work by this epistle, note that man that ye have no company with him, to the end the he may be ashamed. Any yet count him not as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother.” (1 Thes. 3:14-15).

 

From a composite consideration of these verses we can draw the following conclusions:

 

1.              There is no one standard approach to treating a brother who is withdrawn from; rather, the intent is to clearly and definitively demonstrate disapproval of his continued sinful activity by not sharing spiritually (having fellowship) with him. The disciples knew how they interacted with “gentiles and publicans.” While clearly expressing disapproval, we cannot believe that this treatment transcended the bounds of human decency, which would violate other directives (Mt. 7:12).

 

2.              The “having company” and “eating” of I Cor. 5 were not just mere interactions; in the first century these were demonstrations of consent of action. “Having company” indicates continuing social interaction (of which “eating” is a specific example) which demonstrates acceptance, or at best tolerance, of the erring individual’s actions (1 Cor. 5:2). As such, their continuance would indicate support of the individual’s sin. Any such indication of support must cease!

 

3.              However, this does not infer that family, business or other established relationships with the individual could not continue (compare 1 Cor. 7), provided that they did not demonstrate (to anyone) fellowship with the sin. The difficulty in maintaining these relationships without participating in condoning social interactions does not preclude us from the responsibility of maintaining an uncompromised stand that says clearly to the

spouse (or other family member of associate): “I no longer consider you a part of God’s Kingdom.”

 

4.              For some whose only continuing contact with the offender is through family relationships, it is imperative that the family members maintain some distinctions between relationships with faithful and unfaithful spouses or children. In Alcoholics Anonymous, family members who ignore the problem and do not force the offender to face their offense are called “enablers.” In this sense, Christians are often guilty of being enablers in relation to sinful actions of their own. Such fellowship must be broken, but it absolutely does not require the Christian to break the family relationship (1 Cor. 7:12-17). Note other principles which prevail in many non-family relationships, especially 1 Cor. 15:33.

 

5.              There is absolutely no evidence of persecuting or taking retribution upon the individual who is withdrawn from. Nothing in the New Testament indicates that Christians obtain Jesus’ ends by anything other than loving acts. This is clearly supported by 1 Thess. 3:14-15.

 

While support of sin cannot be indicated, the channels of communication must be kept open. While the individual cannot be considered as a member of the local congregation, he should certainly be welcomed as a visitor would be in the assembly.

 

If Christians would demonstrate the close relationship with their fellow Christians that the Bible requires (Rom. 12: 10), the cessation of this relationship would be sufficient punitive action to provoke any salvageable heart to repentance.