Tuesday, February 16, 2016

Church Discipline



Correcting those in sin is a difficult thing, whether in an individual or a church context. It is, in fact, so difficult that we tend to avoid it. We are a live-and-let-live society. We have great reluctance to question people or interfere with their lives. But there are also those who take this to an opposite extreme. Who criticize people for every detail in a harsh and condescending manner. Also, in the current divided state of the church, it is easy just to leave if the conflict gets unpleasant, and go to the church down the road. And if we are concerned with numbers, we may be reluctant to drive people away. Now there is no easy solution to the present situation, but it should not be made an excuse for not following God’s instructions as best we can.

The first requirement here is that we need to do it (1 Corinthians 5:1,2; Galatians 6:1; 2 Thessalonians 3:14). Now we are all sinners (1 John 1:8-10; Romans 7:14; 3:23), and there is a point where love covers a multitude of sin (1 Peter 4:8; Proverbs 10:12; 1 Corinthians 13:5). But there is also a point where the sin is clear and blatant and must be corrected. Now the proper approach is to deal with the person directly (Matthew 18:15-20; Luke 17:3; Titus 3:10). This is important, because unless you confront the person directly it is difficult for them to know where they are coming from and if you are satisfied with their repentance. Also, we need to give them a chance to present their case if they have one (Proverbs 18:17; 25:8-10). 

Now we need to do this with gentleness (Galatians 6:1; 2 Thessalonians 3:15; Jude 22), with the goal of reconciliation and restoration (Matthew 18:15; Galatians 6:1; Hebrews 12:13). The word restore in Galatians 6:1 is used for setting a broken bone or mending a net; it pictures setting people back on the right path. Also, we are told to beware of being tempted to sin ourselves (Galatians 6:1; Jude 23). But this implies involvement in the person’s life. We are unlikely to be tempted to participate in another person’s sin simply through confronting them and saying they are wrong. But if we work with them, if we try to help them, if we try to convince them to change, then it is possible they may pull us down rather than us pulling them up. So we need to beware of this; it is a very real danger. But there is also a danger we will evade this by not being involved at all when we should be. There is a balance here. And the ultimate goal should be forgiveness and restoration (2 Corinthians 2:5-11; James 5:19,20; Luke 17:4). This is not always possible, but it needs to be the goal. For the purpose of church discipline is not to drive people away, but to put them back on the right path.

9 comments:

  1. One of the more interesting aspects is how Jesus uses the word ekklésia in a Jewish context. Seems like the better rendering of the word in this context is assembly not church. So I wonder if Jesus is telling his disciples how to resolve disputes within Jewish culture?

    Also wonder how that translates to the culture. Is the Senior Pastor in the same position of authority as the High Priest? And I wonder what sort of sins should be brought to the ekklésia? Should it replace our legals system?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I am not willing to relegate this back to a Jewish context. The passage speaks of binding and losing (Matthew 18:18)which Jesus earlier used in in connection with His new ekklésia which He was going to build (Matthew 16:18,19). Also I know of no such Jewish custom and would find it strange that Jesus was trying to create a new Jewish custom at so late a date. I would therefore see this as not so much a legal provision as a procedure for maintaining order in the community.

      Delete
  2. Great response Mike. Some churches see bringing it to the church as meaning bringing it to church leaders to make a determination. Do you think that was what Jesus was saying?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I would say the ultimate authority in the church comes from the agreement of the believers with the attitude of seeking to follow the guidance of Christ in their midst (Matthew 18:19,20). Good leaders should help to inform this. But the congregation should be involved. It says take it to the church, not take it to the leaders.

      Delete
    2. Sounds good Mike. Have you ever seen it work this way in any of the churches you have attended? I have just seen it a few times and in each case elders met with the person and announced their decision to the congregation.

      Delete
    3. Frankly I have not. But in most instances I have been involved in church discipline the person being dealt with left for another church before any final decision was made. But I will admit I have been remiss myself in standing for this principle. It is awkward, because you do not want to drag things into public when you are still dealing with the person. But the passage does seem to indicate there is a point this is necessary. I think, I need to be more careful to advocate this in the future.

      Delete
    4. I have seen pastors fired from one church and hired at another. The Matthew 18 verses do not seem to be effective in this day and age because elders are not seen as people who have authority outside of their local congregation.

      On the flipside, I have seen the Methodist church deal with pastoral infidelity in a very effective manner. It is one of the advantages of being a part of a denomination where there accountability to bishops outside of the local church. Yet even they have a limited scope and ability to handle issues.

      Delete
    5. I have seen an individual who was an extreme problem in one church go to another church of the same denomination and be made an elder. This in spite of the fact the second church was warned. And not surprisingly he became a problem in the second church too.

      But even worse is the fact that there is generally a similar church of a different denomination that is totally unconnected that will accept the person.

      I do not know the solution to this, but it would help if churches would at least communicate and listen to each other.

      Delete
  3. I agree Mike. It sadly points to the state of the church. There is really no concept of anything but the local church amongst almost all evangelicals. People know this and regularly leave one church knowing that there is always another that will accept them.

    ReplyDelete